Human Rights and Judicial Review in Australia and Canada

It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a 'righting' effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this 'righting' hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently 'formalist', 'legalist' and 'conservative' approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that - there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.

Autorentext

Janina Boughey is Senior Lecturer at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law. Janina's research focusses on the interaction between human rights and judicial review of administrative action, comparative administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the nature and limits of the constitutional powers of the judiciary and legislature to hold the executive to account. Janina has published widely on these topics, including a monograph, Human Rights and Judicial Review in Australia and Canada: The Newest Despotism? (Hart Publishing, 2017).

Inhalt

1. Introduction
   I. The 'Righting' of Administrative Law?
   II. This Book's Contribution
   III. A Note on Methodology
   IV. The Scope of this Book
   V. The Structure of this Book
   
   Part I: Constitutional and Statutory Frameworks
   
   2. The Framework for Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Australia
      I. Australia's Constitution
      II. The Constitutional Status of Judicial Review
      III. Statutory Judicial Review Frameworks
      IV. Australia's Human Rights Framework
      V. Conclusions
   3. The Framework for Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada
      I. Canada's Constitution
      II. The Constitutional Status of Judicial Review
      III. Privative Clauses and the Standard of Review
      IV. Statutory Judicial Review Frameworks
      V. Canada's Human Rights Framework
      VI. Conclusions
      
      Part II: The Effects of Canada's Rights Framework on Judicial Review
   4. Procedural Fairness
      I. Overview of Rights to Fairness
      II. The Scope of the Common Law Duty to Afford Procedural Fairness
      III. The Content of Fairness
      IV. The Rationales for Fairness
      V. Litigants' Use of Fairness
      VI. Entrenchment of Procedural Fairness
      VII. Conclusions
   5. Controlling Discretion
      I. A Brief History of Judicial Attitudes Towards Discretion
      II. Controlling Discretion in Australia
      III. Controlling Discretion in Canada
      IV. Human Rights Controls on Discretion
      V. Conclusions
   6. Intensity of Review
      I. Intensity Under the Classic Model
      II. Intensity of Review in Australia
      III. Intensity of Review in Canada
      IV. Conclusions
   7. Conclusions