Assessment on the Process of Judicial Review, British Constitution and Parliamentary Sovereignty

Presentation Question (30%)

Assessment should have references included in Oscola referencing format. Referencing will not be counted in the main assessment word count. Avoid Plagiarism  

This assignment comprises of TWO questions, the Presentation Question and the Written Assignment. You must answer BOTH questions.

Presentation Question (30%)  

Critically discuss whether in the 21st century Parliament remains sovereign. Written Assignment (70%)  

There are TWO Parts to the written assignment. Part A and Part B. You must answer both Part A and Part B.      

Part A: Process of Judicial Review

You must outline the process of judicial review and the functional role it plays within the British constitution.     

To best answer this question, you should divide your attention equally between the following two questions:    

1. What is the process of judicial review?  (You should consider the seven steps of judicial review)    

2. How does judicial review fit within the British constitution? (You should consider how judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and separation of powers interact)

Part B: Judicial Review Problem Question (LOs 1-4)    

The (fictitious) Legal Drug Shop Act 2019 contains the following provisions:

S1-Local Councils may deny any application to open a shop, which seeks to sell legal highs, if it planned to be opened within two miles of a school.       

S2-Local Councils may deny any application to open a shop, which seeks to sell legal highs, if the shop would not fit within the community’s moral climate.      

S3-Local Councils must send an independent inspector to ensure that a shop selling legal highs is compliant with all health and safety regulations.     

S4-Local Councils must provide an appeal process to deal with any s3 rejections.     

Kian lodged four applications with Arden City Council to open shops selling legal highs. Arden City Council rejected all four applications. They provided Kian with the following reasons:    

Shop A’s application was rejected because it is one mile from Arden City Junior School, which educates children between the ages of six years to ten years.     

Shop B’s application was rejected because it is to be situated within two miles of South Coast University, which has an exclusively adult student population.     

Shop C’s application was rejected because Arden City Council felt that the establishment of a shop selling legal highs would undermine the value of local property.     

Shop D’s application was rejected due to a failed s3 inspection. Arden City Council sent Mary, their expert, and the only person to whom they have granted permission to open shops selling legal highs, to carry out the inspection.     

Infuriated at Mary’s decision, Kian demanded an appeal against the results of her inspection. Arden City agreed to an appeal but did not grant Kian an oral hearing.  

Instead, Arden City Council only granted Kian a paper-based appeal.  

Kian lost because he had no additional paperwork to submit as evidence.        

Under which grounds for judicial review might Kian be able to argue against Arden City’s decisions?