Facts
- The case concerned planning applications that were called in for determination by the Secretary of State.
- Applicants argued that the Secretary of State's political and policy roles, together with the limited scope of judicial review, undermined their Article 6 ECHR right to an independent and impartial tribunal.
- Concerns were raised that political considerations might overshadow legal arguments, and that procedural fairness could be compromised.
Issues
- Whether administrative decisions made by the Secretary of State, subject only to judicial review and not reheard by a fully independent tribunal, satisfied the requirements of Article 6 ECHR.
- Whether the scope of judicial review was sufficient to constitute an "independent and impartial tribunal" for the purposes of a fair hearing under Article 6.
- Whether political considerations involved in the Secretary of State's decision-making rendered the process incompatible with Article 6.
Decision
- The House of Lords held that judicial review procedures, focusing on legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, provided sufficient safeguards to meet Article 6 requirements.
- It was accepted that planning decisions could properly account for policy matters and be taken by a politically accountable minister, provided these decisions remained subject to legal constraints and judicial oversight.
- The court clarified that Article 6 does not necessarily require administrative decisions to be subject to a wholly independent tribunal akin to a court, as long as adequate judicial review is available.
- The decision reaffirmed the capacity of judicial review to address potential bias or unfairness.
Legal Principles
- Article 6 ECHR requires a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, but this standard can be satisfied in administrative law through robust judicial review.
- Judicial review scrutinizes the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of administrative decisions, ensuring procedural fairness even where political or policy factors are considered.
- The presence of political considerations in administrative decisions does not in itself breach Article 6, provided decisions are within the law and subject to judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion
The House of Lords in R (Alconbury Ltd) v Environment Secretary determined that the safeguards afforded by judicial review are sufficient to satisfy Article 6 ECHR's requirements of fairness and impartiality in administrative processes, even when decisions are made by politically accountable actors like the Secretary of State. This case established that a balance may be struck between efficient administrative decision-making and fundamental human rights, shaping the application of Article 6 in UK administrative law.