|
Fettering of discretion by a public authority is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. It is regarded as a form of illegality. An applicant may challenge a decision by an authority on the basis that it has either rigidly adhered to a policy it has formulated, or has wrongfully delegated the exercise of its statutory powers to another body. If the High Court finds that a decision-maker has fettered its discretion, it may hold the decision to be ''ultra vires'' – beyond the decision-maker's powers – and grant the applicant a suitable remedy such as a quashing order to invalidate the decision. It is not wrong for a public authority to develop policies to guide its decision-making. Neither will it necessarily be considered to have fettered its discretion by adhering to such policies, as long as it approaches decisions with an open mind and is willing to give genuine consideration to each case at hand. It has been noted that by endorsing its application in this manner, the High Court has given legal effect to informal rules or policies, which therefore amount to "soft law". Where a statute gives a decision-maker a discretionary power, it is generally unlawful for the decision-maker to delegate that power to another person or body unless the statute itself expressly provides that this may be done. Thus, it is illegal for a decision-maker to abdicate its responsibility of exercising power by taking orders from other bodies. The ''Carltona'' doctrine of English administrative law (which Singapore inherited at independence) allows a civil servant to take a decision on behalf of a minister, even where the statute confers discretion on the minister. The Interpretation Act of Singapore provides that the exercise of a minister's power may be done under the signature of the permanent secretary to the ministry which the minister is responsible for, or by any public officer authorized in writing by the minister. In addition, ministers are permitted to depute other persons to exercise certain powers or perform certain duties on their behalf. ==Introduction== In the context of Westminster systems of government, all legal power conferred on the executive by legislation is "inevitably discretionary to a greater or lesser extent".〔.〕 When exercising judicial review of such discretionary powers, the courts are concerned with whether they have been exercised in a lawful manner in accordance with Parliament's presumed intentions in conferring such powers.〔.〕 Over time, the courts have developed various grounds upon which discretionary powers may be reviewed, holding that Parliament must be assumed not to have intended for decision-makers to exercise powers in such improper ways. The wrongful exercise of discretion may refer to "not exercising it at all or being subject to external influences in its exercise, as well as abusing conferred discretion".〔.〕 When a public authority fetters its discretion, it can either be said to have failed to exercise its discretionary power or to have been subject to external influences. In the Singapore High Court decision ''Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board'' (1997),〔''Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board'' () 1 S.L.R.(R.) (Law Reports (Reissue)'' ) 56, High Court (Singapore).〕 two distinct forms of fettering of discretion were recognized: fettering of discretion through rigid adherence to a policy, and fettering of discretion by an unlawful delegation of authority.〔''Lines International'', p. 86, paras. 97–98.〕 These two forms of fettering of discretion have been said to represent two elements defining the concept of discretion in administrative law – the first form relates to freedom of choice, and second form the notion of one's personal discretion.〔.〕 It has been observed that in Singapore administrative law, "extensive reference is made to the landmark English cases",〔. Specific reference was made to ''Lines International'' in which the High Court, in its formulation of a set of conditions regulating an authority's exercise of administrative decision, drew on the principles of fettering of discretion from a number of English administrative cases.〕 and in particular English administrative law has largely influenced the adoption of the doctrine of fettering of discretion in Singapore. One exception is that although a contractual fetter on discretion has been established in English law to be a separate ground of review, this has yet to be recognized by the Singapore courts. In ''Birkdale District Electricity Supply Co. v. Southport Corporation'' (1926),〔''Birkdale District Electricity Supply Co. v. Southport Corporation'' () A.C. 355, House of Lords (UK).〕 the House of Lords held that if legislation entrusts a public authority with certain powers and duties to be exercised for public purposes, it is illegal for the authority to enter into a contract that prevents itself from exercising its powers.〔''Birkdale District Electricity Supply Co.'', p. 364.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|