#2 Essay Site on Sitejabber
info@theunitutor.com
+44 20 8638 6541
  • 中文 (中国)
  • English GB
  • English AU
  • English US
  • العربية (Arabic)

LEGAL

Student’s Name

Course

Professor’s Name

Date

Section A: Question 1

The United Kingdom government’s legislative and executive branches’ partial fusion is the proper government approach because it mitigates the abuse of power in the two branches facilitating efficient government1. To come to an insightful conclusion about partial fusion, one needs to comprehend that the separation of powers in the legislative and executive powers aims merely at technical separation. This astringent separation facilitates abuse of power, and it is confined in the separate branches. Therefore, the efficient government is enabled by partial fusion because every branch holds its counterparts accountable for their actions.

It is a critical governmental goal to develop a system at equilibrium and prevent the wrong application of power by an individual branch. The goal is not separation because a significant separation between the legislative and executive powers invites opportunities to abuse power since no branch can exercise power over its counterpart2. Similarly, when there is a complete fusion of the two government branches, the fusion is taken too far, and the branches stop checking, maintaining, and guiding each other, creating chances for abuse of power. Therefore, a partial fusion of the legislative and executive powers as done by the UK government is the right approach to efficient government.

According to Bagehot, a good constitution entailed absolute separation of powers. He explains how the Founding Fathers desired to maintain the separation since they believed that the legislature should not include the President’s ministers explaining the isolation of the executive branch in congress3. The UK government does not adopt this approach since they believed that the Prime Minister and her cabinet and Members of Parliament were equal members of the legislature and that their legislative function acts as a base for their executive function. Responsibility best describes the executive fusion of the United Kingdom government. When an MP takes on ministerial duties, he adds on to his parliamentary obligations.

This approach facilitates the handling and solving of all governmental administrative objectives efficiently. When a minister holds increased power and administrative support, his/her government over the constituents will be efficient, benefiting them significantly4. Conversely, it goes against nature that an MP can effectively represent his/her constituency if he/she is a government minister. Furthermore, it would be inequitable to the constituents that lack representation since they will not get any benefits. Therefore, partial fusion is relevant since it balances the powers and ensures efficacy in government. Given the increased powers of the executive branch, delays in the execution of strategies will be mitigated, enhancing government.

Studies have shown that the fusion of the executive and the legislative branches of government spurs issues related to accountability5. When ministers are also the Members of Parliament, their accountability increases since they are accountable to all MPS and can be questioned about any issue regarding their constituents or any other controversial agenda. This partial fusion of government enhances its efficacy since the ministers are denied. The opportunity of protection by their ministries and are left open to be transparent about the challenging problems. An excellent example of this approach is the question period of the Prime Minister’s where the MPs concerns are handled as they come.

The fusion increases efficacy in government, but the MPs cannot be efficiently accountable since even the most interrogative of questionings cannot result in accountability. They will dodge the questions posed to them and opt to provide written answers when they have received help from their aid. This derails the government and hinders the achievement of the objective of the partial fusion of the government. Legislative dominance results from executive and legislative fusion enhancing effectiveness in government6. Gaining a majority in the House of Commons is a requirement to form a government since the party also gains control of the executive branch. With the House of Lords incurring a reduction in political power and the courts who do not lift a finger with the fear of spurring Parliamentary Sovereignty infringement, a government with immense legislative and executive branches is created.

In a system that lacks the partial fusion of government, it is a possibility that a party can get control of the two branches of government. The fusion of the government facilitates the gaining of this control, making it a technical certainty7. A government or ministers who are unpopular and ineffective can be removed through elections. This holds them accountable for their actions. However, it is inefficient since the government has control over when the elections are held, making it a blunt instrument of assessing accountability. The courts ensure the accountability of the executive branch. Therefore, in a partially fused government, the courts protect the society from abuse of power by the government branches.

The partial fusion of the legislative and the executive branch by the United Kingdom Government was the right approach to take since it ensures efficacy in the government. Responsibility, accountability, and legislative dominance are the features of the fusion that provide a smooth flow of responsibilities in government.

Section B: Question 2

The judicial review assesses the actions of the three branches of the government and determines whether they are in adherence with the constitution. When the actions diverge from the constitution and are deemed inconsistent, they are nullified and invalidated. In this case, judicial reviews are dependent on a written constitution8. Annie, Barry, and Natural solutions could apply for judicial review due to the unfair consideration during the application to the Water Committee so that the courts can invalidate their decision restoring equitability.

The judicial review plays a role in questioning administrators who practice indiscretion and deviate from the standards of reason9. In a conventional or constitutional context, the court can find the Water committee’s decisions inconsistent with the constitution and unreasonable since Annie and Barry both deserved to qualify for the grants, but the abuse of discretion by the Water Committee coupled with unreasonable disqualifications resulted in them missing out on the chance. The judicial reviews serve to protect individuals from such kinds of indiscretions, and in this case, the water committee’s decision can be nullified and give the individuals another opportunity.

The nature of the judicial review allows the courts to nullify the decisions of government agencies even though they lack the power to declare their acts unconstitutional10. This can be done when the courts challenge the government agencies’ decisions because they deviated from the legislature’s intentions, therefore misaligning other legal principles and laws. The United States practice requires that judicial reviews be enacted when the actions are inconsistent with the constitution11. The case is concrete, and the litigants are involved in a specific disagreement. Additionally, judicial reviews are applicable to a public body, and any body engaged in public functions and are concerned with the process of decision-making.

The sufficient interest test is used to determine whether the applicant has enough interest in the matter under the application in the review. The liberal approach facilitates responsible citizens to file judicial review on behalf of the general public in order to improve public functions by making them more equitable and in line with the constitution12. The sufficient interest test aims to deter frivolous accusations against public bodies or any party involved in public functions. In the circumstance of application of judicial review, the interest of the applicant is evaluated. A claim for judicial review will proceed in the courts if the claimant has exhausted all possible remedies to the challenge, including but not limited to private prosecution and statutory complaint procedures13. Similarly, the challenge of the claimant should be relevant and robust enough to warrant a judicial review. The courts implement these policies to ensure that the merits of a claim are reasonable and not frivolous.

Annie and Barry could bring a successful action of judicial review of the decisions made by the Water Committee on the grounds of illegality since the committee acted beyond its powers. In light of this, illegality occurs when improper purposes are the grounds of a decision. In this case, the decision of the Water Committee to deny Barry’s application on the grounds that he did not fill the application forms with a black pen as stated in the instructions was unlawful. Similarly, their decision was unconstitutional since they denied Annie’s application on the grounds that they do not award grants to businesses that refine existing systems but rather grant money to companies developing new systems.

Furthermore, the Water Committee misdirected itself in law, opening a door for illegality in its decisions. The committee did not account for lawful considerations. They disregarded Barry’s application for not using the right color of a pen which is not accounted for legally. Similarly, they denied Annie a grant because she did not manufacture new systems even though s.2 (a) of the Act states that all manufacturers of water-reuse products will be awarded grants provided they have been operational for two years. The two individuals can make a claim in court successfully spur action of judicial review on the committee on the grounds of illegality14.

Annie and Barry deserved to be awarded the grants since they met all the requirements stipulated in the Act. On the other hand, the Water Committee violated its powers and made decisions that did not align with the constitution. Additionally, Natural solutions can also make successful claims on the grounds of illegality since the committee awarded a grant to Clara despite her protocols being harmful to the environment. Natural solutions could make a claim stating that they have strong evidence of their research and base their argument on the irrationality of the Water Committee. This will hold in court spurring judicial review action since the committee did not make an insightful decision when awarding grants to Clara without more profound research into the processes she utilizes.

Section B: Question 3

Individuals are allowed to challenge public bodies and any other body that undertakes public action if they misuse their powers. A judicial review can be applied in an administrative court if a person notes an unlawful use of power by public bodies and agencies15. The administrative court assesses the claims to ensure that the body went against the law in their decision-making process and determined if the claimant is making legitimate o frivolous claims. In this case, Vladimir as the claimant should take this matter to an administrative court claiming for action by judicial review to challenge the decisions of the Fitness Safety Appeals Committee, which is the area’s local authority.

When establishing an agency or local authority committee, regulations and policies are always formulated to govern the committee’s decisions16. These regulations determine the lawful or unlawful nature of a decision made by the committee in terms of exercising its powers or performing its duties efficiently and bias-free. The action of judicial review evaluates the unlawfulness of the process of the decision-making process. For instance, if Vladimir claims that the local authority’s committee’s decision was unconstitutional, their decision will be reviewed. If Vladimir’s claims are concrete, the court might award damages to the claimant.

Several procedures have to be followed strictly to apply for action by judicial review successfully. The claimant should send an application to the court in less than three months, have sufficient interest in the matter concerning the claim, and the judicial review application should concern public law. When an application for judicial review checks all these boxes, the case might be successful. Vladimir can apply for action by the judicial review because if he makes a timely application to the court, his claim might hold because he is strongly concerned with the issue the application relates, and the issue relates to public law since it involves an unconstitutional revocation of Vladimir’s license to satisfy personal needs of members of the committee.

Standards of fairness in procedures are initiated by laws basing their approaches on the concepts of natural justice. “The obligation to be given reason,” “the right to fair hearing,” and “rule against bias” are the foundation stones of procedural impropriety17. When there is bias in an agency’s decision-making process, the court invalidates its decision. The court devised a test to determine the plausibility of the claim of bias against agencies to determine whether an external set of eyes can assess the claim and note the apparent bias in decision-making. Vladimir’s claims of bias in the decision-making of the committee were robust. If he applies for action by judicial review, the Fitness Safety Appeals Committee decision will have bias.

Xavier revoked Vladimir’s license to create market opportunities for his wife’s facility in the same area. Furthermore, Yogish was Anu’s sister, who Vladimir was suing for non-payment of membership fees. Yogish, chair of the appeal committee, and Xavier, the inspecting officer, are biased in their decision since they all have personal gains to satisfy by revoking Vladimir’s license. The action by judicial review will be successful given that Vladimir has all the physical documents indicating his members’ support of his statement that his gym is safe and hygienic.

It is crucial to express oneself and be heard, especially during legal or contract matters. Judicial review accommodates the right to be heard and prohibits any flawed dialogues that might hinder this right. The agency or public body is obliged to consult and hear complaints. Vladimir was not given a chance to express himself. He was not allowed to present his brochures o promotional films to the appeal committee. Since the committee violated the right to being heard, Vladimir could successfully apply for judicial review, which will invalidate the committee’s decision on the grounds of procedural impropriety and have his license reinstated and renewed.

The right to be given reason is also accommodated in the judicial review18. There should be a reason behind every decision. This right enables individuals to be given reason for them to assess its illegality or irrationality. When Vladimir requested a copy of the inspection form, none was availed to him. Despite having proof of the safety of his gym, the committee used irrational reasons to revoke his license. Similarly, Xavier claims that Vladimir’s gym is unhygienic and unsafe despite the gym passing an inspection by Xavier’s report, Zara. The committee uses irrational reasons to conclude. Furthermore, an anonymous claim about Vladimir’s outburst in the gym is made, and Vladimir is restricted from validating the information.

Given that the Fitness Safety Appeals Committee violated all the concepts of natural law, which is the basis of procedural impropriety, Vladimir can apply for action by judicial review and be successful since he will present a very valid and robust case. Since the committee was biased in their decision-making process due to their hidden motives, their decision will be invalidated by the court.


  1. Russell, Meg, Daniel Gover, and Kristina Wollter. “Does the Executive dominate the Westminster legislative process?: six reasons for doubt.” Parliamentary Affairs 69, no. 2 (2016): 286-308.↩︎

  2. Saiegh, Sebastian M. “Executive-legislative relations.” In Routledge Handbook of Comparative Political Institutions, pp. 176-194. Routledge, 2015.↩︎

  3. Jančić, Davor. “TTIP and legislative‒executive relations in EU trade policy.” West European Politics 40, no. 1 (2017): 202-221.↩︎

  4. Jančić, Davor. “TTIP and legislative‒executive relations in EU trade policy.” West European Politics 40, no. 1 (2017): 202-221.↩︎

  5. Russell, Meg, Daniel Gover, and Kristina Wollter. “Does the Executive dominate the Westminster legislative process?: six reasons for doubt.” Parliamentary Affairs 69, no. 2 (2016): 286-308.↩︎

  6. Saiegh, Sebastian M. “Executive-legislative relations.” In Routledge Handbook of Comparative Political Institutions, pp. 176-194. Routledge, 2015.↩︎

  7. Russell, Meg, Daniel Gover, and Kristina Wollter. “Does the Executive dominate the Westminster legislative process?: six reasons for doubt.” Parliamentary Affairs 69, no. 2 (2016): 286-308.↩︎

  8. De la Torre, Fernando Castillo, and Eric Gippini Fournier. Evidence, proof and judicial review in EU competition law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.↩︎

  9. Driesen, David M. “Judicial Review of Executive Orders’ Rationality.” BUL Rev. 98 (2018): 1013.↩︎

  10. Mao, Wenzheng, and Shitong Qiao. “Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China.” Law & Social Inquiry (2020): 1-34.↩︎

  11. De la Torre, Fernando Castillo, and Eric Gippini Fournier. Evidence, proof and judicial review in EU competition law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.↩︎

  12. Mao, Wenzheng, and Shitong Qiao. “Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China.” Law & Social Inquiry (2020): 1-34.↩︎

  13. De la Torre, Fernando Castillo, and Eric Gippini Fournier. Evidence, proof and judicial review in EU competition law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.↩︎

  14. De la Torre, Fernando Castillo, and Eric Gippini Fournier. Evidence, proof and judicial review in EU competition law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.↩︎

  15. Basten, John. “Judicial review: Can we abandon grounds?.” In AIAL Forum, no. 93, pp. 22-30. 2018.↩︎

  16. Mills, Alistair. “Reconstructing judicial review.” (2017): 326-328.↩︎

  17. Mills, Alistair. “Reconstructing judicial review.” (2017): 326-328.↩︎

  18. Mills, Alistair. “Reconstructing judicial review.” (2017): 326-328.↩︎


How The Order Process Works

Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor
Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!

The Uni Tutor Clients