Course Number and Name
Question One: “The Efficient Secret Of The English Constitution May Be Described As The Close Union, The Nearly Complete Fusion Of The Executive And Legislative Powers.”
Walter Bagehot’s quote stated above depicts the idea of a traditional theory that the efficiency, goodness, and effectiveness of the constitution solely incorporate the separation of the executive and the legislative authorities with a connection link that merits the cabinet. In essence, “the efficient secret” in this case is the cabinet that benefited from the above narrative despite the legislative and the executive predominance. According to Cox (2005), the U.K moved from a candidate-centered system during an election to a party-centric system from a broader perspective. Besides, countries such as Denmark, Canada, Australia, Sweden, France, and Israel emulated the narrative elaborated above.
Notably, I agree that partial combination of the legislative and executive sectors of the UK government is the secret to efficient government because elections within the government become effective, and cabinets tend to run the country. In essence, MPs who are the legislatures in the nation get elected and, in turn, select cabinets which run the country and their delegation being in response to the “tragedy of commons” (Cox, 2005).The narrative above changes the perspectives in the House of Commons as MP’s duties become limited in the interest of active public participation. Giving the cabinet the mandate to run the country at the expense of the legislatures gives MPs ample time for legislative work (Cromwell, 1990). On the other hand, MPs are also known for monopolizing attention and bribery within the government. It will be a mistake if the MPs run the country instead of the cabinet, hence describing the narrative above. Besides, I agree with the description above because MPs or the legislatures needed to look busy to convince the ordinary citizen that they are working towards programmatic and fruitful ends (Cromwell, 1990).
Another reason why I agree with Walter Bagehot’s statement above is bringing out the fusion of powers within the UK government. Fusion of powers, in this case, is a narrative contrasted with the differences of powers between the legislature and the executive that forms the government with a popular vote consideration from a broader perspective (Benwell & Gay, 2011). Therefore, the fusion of powers is whereby different forms of government intermingle with their origin from a separated popular vote by parliamentary democracy or majority design. However, it is essential to note that the judicial part of the government is separate from the executive and the legislative branches and by separate means independent.Walter Bagehot’s statement brings out the fusion of powers because it is easier for the government to take action. In essence, there is no way in the UK government that there will be a difference between the legislature and the executive because the statement above gives the government and individuals with the popular vote the power to action with regard to political, economic, or societal issues.
In most cases or government institutions like the UK, the executive is always the head of the government. And the reason why I agree with the above statement is that the quote gives powers to the executive branch of the government. Despite the legislature playing an essential role in the government, the executive must have the confidence of a majority in the legislature since it is the branch of the government (Benwell & Gay, 2011). In essence, the head of government should have a majority in the legislature so that the executive can have control over the legislature and can use the legislative support to facilitate government laws. It is essential to note that the quote does protect the interest of the people because it proves that democracy works through a majority rule. Minorities in the government or the legislature often have their say; however, their revolt in the government causes chaos within the country, making the revolt tendency or cases rare in the public domain. Therefore, it is vital to note that the quote above begets party discipline, majority rule, and gives power to the head of the government, also known as the executive; that is why I agree with Walter Bagehot’s quote.
Also, I agree with the statement above because it gives the legislature the power to act as the government’s watchdogs. The minorities in the government often form an opposition in the government that overlooks the executive deeds and performance, especially when evaluating development and activities within the constitution. In most cases, the legislature often provides forums for inquiry of the executive conduct to pursue the fusion of powers. Arguably, before the executive’s performance can be judged by the electorate in the UK, the legislature always takes the mantle and questions the executive’s conduct from a broader perspective. In other words, members of the minority party or the governing party are free to disagree or oppose specific government policies that do not protect the public’s interest. Therefore, the narrative above provides a perfect reflection of why I agree with Walter Bagehot’s statement from a broader perspective.
Question Two: The (Fictitious) Water Saving Act 2020 Provisions
A judicial review is a scope of audit in the legality of a decision-making process achieved by a public body. According to Thorneloe (2021), it is a situation whereby courts ensure that government actions and decisions are lawfully taken. In essence, the court’s function and role are not to re-evaluate the decision being challenged but to conduct a review that led to the decision by determining whether the decision is flawed from a broader perspective. Notably, it is essential to note that all bodies are susceptible to judicial review regarding the decision made or challenged in a court of law. Thus, judicial review’s nature and purpose stem from theemergence of illegality in decision making, improper procedures, breach of legitimate expectations, and when the decision is irrational (Thorneloe, 2021).
Notably, an advice to Annie concerning the nature and purpose of judicial review subjected by the Water Committee (WC) refusal to lend Annie the grant falls under the breach of legitimate expectation. Annie stands a chance in the court to counter and challenge the Water Committee decision because the body has publicly failed to act according to its statement (Poole, 2005). In the statement under section 2A, the Water Committee (WC) categorically states that a grant is to be given to a company that manufactures water reuse products for at least two years for research and development. According to Annie Hydro Heroes plc Company, she produces and installs water reuse products for the past two and half years. In this case, the narrative establishes how Annie is experienced enough in the market and that her products will help in water conservation according to the Act. However, the decision by the body is a breach of legitimate expectation because the body goes against its statement (Thorneloe, 2021). Therefore, the liable advice for Annie is that she should seek judicial reviews under the Human Rights Act and challenge other fictitious administrations with reference to their powers to set out a devolved a reasonable settlement.
On the other hand, Barry did not follow proper procedures of judicial review, which in this case falls under improper procedures. Barry did not complete his application form in black ballpoint pen, as the form’s instructions show failure in observing statutory procedures from a broader perspective. Thus, my advice to Barry is that statutory procedures are essential in judicial reviews and the application of a judicial review, and it is vital for him to follow each proceeding to the latter (Thorneloe, 2021). The practical advice, in this case, is that Barry is not entitled to any legal action or challenge against the body or any other administration because he did not follow the rightful procedure as directed in the judicial review. Therefore, the description above is a perfect reflection of Barry’s advice regarding his legal options on judicial reviews. National solutions challenge the decision regarding Clara’s consultancy firm irrational because it is an unreasonable challenge that no reasonable company will come to challenge the decision (Thorneloe, 2021). Advice to National Solutions is that a decision to challenge another firm irrationally is baseless even in a court of law. However, I would advise National solution to seek further due diligence on repercussions caused by the firm and table a substantial evidence that triggers judicial reviews in a court of law.
Notably, the requirements to applying for the judicial reviews that the bodies mentioned in the context above should adhere to incorporate a consideration of the legality of the process of the decision, a consideration whether those who make decisions have exceeded their functions or powers, when the decisions protect the interest of a specific individual, and when there is a ‘ground review’ by any of the firm mentioned above (Poole, 2005). Concerning the consideration of the legality of the process of the decision is a requirement that to apply for judicial review because judicial reviews tend to review errors in law and not errors in facts. Individuals who exceed their functions and powers in a decision should face judicial reviews, hence the narrative being a requirement to apply for the judicial reviews. Thus, the elaboration above provides a perfect reflection of the criteria for applying for judicial reviews from a broader perspective.
There is a possibility of the firms mentioned above of bringing a successful action on judicial reviews based on illegality and irrationality as described in the context above. Bringing a successful effort based on illegality is when the decision-maker exercises power wrongly, misdirects itself in law, and inappropriately exercises the power that it does not possess(Thorneloe, 2021). Therefore, my advice to Annie, Barry, and National Solutions is upon a violation. When a company enforces a narrative or a policy through the illegalities mentioned above, it can successfully take judicial reviews from a broader perspective.
As described earlier in the context, judicial review is a scope of audit in the legality of a decision-making process achieved by a public body. In this case, Vladimir should know the nature and purpose of judicial review and the requirements for applying for a judicial review from a broader perspective. Despite illegalities on the side of Overcast City Council forming the crux of this context, the nature and purpose of the judicial review looks at this case from a different perspective. In essence, the angle of this judicial review is taken into consideration under the administrative or public law that depicts the whole concept of judicial review, requirements, and application. In this regard, the narrative that stands out the most is procedural unfairness to Vladimir. This concept brings out the nature and purpose of judicial review from a broader perspective.
My advice to Vladimir on the nature and purpose of judicial review is that judicial reviews often seek to root out procedural unfairness in decision making made by any individual in the licensing company. Therefore, in this case, the utmost considerate advice is that Vladimir should challenge the company based on procedural unfairness because, in this case, it forms the root cause of the issue at hand. According to the article concerning the licensing company, the process leading to the decision made against Vladimir is unfair and unjust from a broader perspective, and it is only logical for him to establish a case based on procedural unfairness. Take, for instance, the fact that Vladimir is not allowed to view the copy of the inspection report done by Wanda earlier. Other company members, such as Xavier and Yogish, barring him from viewing the inspection report, depict an act of malice and procedural unfairness to Vladimir. Thus, there is an instance where the decision-maker, in this case, is biased and not impartial to Vladimir (Hogarth, 2020). Also, there is a chance that the decision-maker, in this case, does not want to give Vladimir a chance to make a representation or a challenge before a decision is made on the case. It is essential to note that judicial review’s nature and purpose are based on procedural unfairness and that Vladimir’s challenge or action in a court of law should be based on the narrative displayed in the context above.
Another piece of advice that I would gladly recommend to Vladimir is seeking a jurisdiction that is an exception to that of the judicial review, which in this case is the remedy to last resort. A remedy to last resort also brings out the nature and purpose of judicial review, especially when both parties fail to engage in a protocol correspondence on the challenge driven by the complaint (Hogarth, 2020). It is a narrative that seeks alternative methods to resolve the dispute between Vladimir and the licensing company. In this regard, both parties will limit penalty costs. In essence, the narrative provides a different procedural track for Vladimir to ensure that urgent claims are legislated within the court of law. Also, another piece of advice that is essential to Vladimir based on Xavier seeking personal interest for people to enroll in his gym is a narrative that should be looked into. Vladimir can easily claim that the reason there is procedural unfairness in the decision-making is that the company members want to put him out of business. In this case, the court law can rule in favor of Vladimir because putting oneself interested in decision-making at the expense of others is an analogy against the judicial review.
The possibility of bringing the successful action for judicial review based on procedural impropriety concerning Vladimir’s case is due to the fact that decision-makers, in this case, have exceeded their functions and powers from a broader perspective (Craig, 2017). My advice to Vladimir is that he should use the above-mentioned narrative on decision-makers exceeding their functions and powers to him, especially Xavier and Yogish. Vladimir should build a case based on Xavier and Yogish tagging him and using their powers to intimidate him in challenging their decision-making. Also, Vladimir should show how the two individuals used their powers inappropriately to arrive at a decision that does not meet the company’s criteria or demands, hence depicting procedural impropriety in this context. However, Vladimir should also consider that judicial review cases rarely precede to full hearing despite him having a successful judicial review based on procedural impropriety. In light of Hogarth (2020), only 184 cases out of 3,597 challenges reached the court hearing in 2018, which is about 5% of the cases in the U.K. Most of the instances in the judicial review were either withdrawn, refused permission to proceed, or resolved outside the courts. Therefore, my advice to Vladimir is that he should have an arguable case regarding the decision-makers exceeding their functions and powers in the decision-making process for him to be granted permission for full hearing and proceedings in the court.
In conclusion, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of multiple law questions from a broader perspective. The article first establishesWalter Bagehot’s quote that depicts efficiency, goodness, and effectiveness of the constitution solely incorporates the separation of the executive and the legislative authorities with a connection link that merits the cabinet. The context further talks about the judicial review with emphasis on the nature and purpose of judicial review with regard to the possibility of bringing a successful action in judicial review.
Benwell, R., & Gay, O. (2011). The Separation of Powers. House of Commons Library.
Cox, G. W. (2005). The efficient secret: The cabinet and the development of political parties in Victorian England. Cambridge University Press.
Craig, P. (2017). Judicial review of questions of law: a comparative perspective. In Comparative Administrative Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cromwell, V. (1990). Gary W. Cox,” The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England”(Book Review). Parliamentary History, 9(2), 388.
Hogarth, R. (2020). Judicial review. Institute for Government. Retrieved 20 May, from https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/judicial-review
Poole, T. (2005). Legitimacy, rights, and judicial review. Oxford journal of legal studies, 25(4), 697-725.
Thorneloe, D. (2021). Judicial review. Pinsent Masons. Retrieved 20 May, from https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/judicial-review