|
Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it. The broad heading of illegality may be divided into two sub-headings. In the first case, the High Court inquires into whether the public authority was empowered to take a particular course of action or make a decision, and, in the other, whether it exercised its discretion wrongly even though it was empowered to act. Where the Court finds that the public authority had exceeded its jurisdiction or had exercised its discretion wrongly, it may invalidate the act or decision. Under the first sub-heading, a public authority will be considered as having acted illegally if there is no legal basis for the action carried out or the decision made (simple ''ultra vires''), or, more specifically, if the authority has made an error concerning a jurisdictional or precedent fact. A precedent fact error is made when an authority comes to a conclusion in the absence of facts that must objectively exist, or in the presence of facts that must not exist, before it has the power to act or decide. In cases falling under the second sub-heading, a public authority has satisfied all the factual and legal conditions required for exercising a statutory power conferred upon it, but nevertheless may have acted illegally by doing so in a manner contrary to administrative law rules. The grounds of review available under this heading include the authority acting in bad faith, acting on the basis of no evidence or insufficient evidence, making an error of material fact, failing to take into account relevant considerations or taking into account irrelevant ones, acting for an improper purpose, fettering one's discretion, and not fulfilling a person's substantive legitimate expectations. ==Introduction== Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action identified in the key English case of ''Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service'' ("the GCHQ case", 1983),〔 ("the GCHQ case").〕 the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. As Singapore inherited English administrative law on independence and the Singapore courts continue to follow English cases, the Court of Appeal of Singapore approved this principle in ''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'' (1988).〔''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'' ([1988] SGCA 16 ), () 2 S.L.R.(R.) (Law Reports (Reissue)'' ) 525 at 563, para. 119, Court of Appeal (Singapore), archived from (the original ) on 24 December 2011.〕 In the GCHQ case, Lord Diplock formulated the concept of illegality as one where "the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it."〔 Where the decision-maker fails to do so, the High Court may be empowered to quash the decision made or the action taken. Determining whether a decision-maker has acted illegally requires "delineating the scope of statutory powers, which is rarely a mechanistic exercise".〔.〕 Prior to 1968, courts in the United Kingdom drew a distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. An error of law that affected the jurisdiction of a decision-maker to exercise its statutory powers was judicially reviewable by the court, whereas an error of that did not go towards jurisdiction was not reviewable.〔. An exception was that a non-jurisdictional error of law which appeared on the face of the record was reviewable: see, for example, ''Re Application by Yee Yut Ee'' () S.L.R.(R.) 490, High Court (Singapore).〕 However, the House of Lords is regarded as having effectively done away with the distinction in ''Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission'' (1968)〔.〕 by holding that:〔''Anisminic'', p. 171.〕 In ''R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page'' (1992),〔.〕 the House of Lords expressed the view that ''Anisminic'' had "rendered obsolete the distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and other errors of law by extending the doctrine of ultra vires. Thenceforward it was to be taken that Parliament had only conferred the decision-making power on the basis that it was to be exercised on the correct legal basis: a misdirection in law in making the decision therefore rendered the decision ultra vires."〔''Ex parte Page, p. 701.〕 No case in Singapore has produced a similar opinion, but it appears that the Singapore courts adopt the same position, except perhaps where statutes contain ouster clauses.〔''Stansfield Business International Pte. Ltd. v. Minister for Manpower'' () 2 S.L.R.(R.) 866 at 874, paras. 21–22, H.C. (Singapore). Commenting ex-curially, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong suggested it might be argued that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction cannot be ousted as this would be inconsistent with Article 93 of the Constitution of Singapore, which vests judicial power in the Supreme Court. If so, drawing a distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law is unnecessary. However, he added that he expressed no opinion on this issue: .〕 The various grounds of review under the broad heading of illegality have also been termed "weak", "broad", or "general unreasonableness", to be contrasted with "strong" or ''Wednesbury'' unreasonableness.〔Leyland & Anthony, "''Wednesbury'' Unreasonableness, Proportionality, and Equality", pp. 284–312 at 285–286.〕 In ''Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation'' (1947),〔.〕 Lord Greene, the Master of the Rolls, remarked that "a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably.'"〔''Wednesbury'', p. 229.〕 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「Illegality in Singapore administrative law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|