CHRIS TAN HOMERTON SUPERVISION 7 PQ
Jed should challenge the revocation as he was denied the chance to defend himself and
his legitimate expectations may have been ignored. If he is charged under the Hazardous
Business Act 2015 for operating a designated Hazardous Business without a license, he
can try using collateral challenge. The Radioactivity Concern Alliance (RAC) may
challenge the decision to treat Abbey’s business as non-hazardous on rationality grounds
but they may have standing issues.
Jed
Right to Make Representations
J has a right to notice that his license may be revoked: Kanda v Government of Malaya. Per
Lord Denning, ‘If the right to be heard is a real right which is worth anything, it must carry
with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him’. However,
in this case, it appears that his license was simply revoked on the basis on uncorroborated
allegations of an unnamed employee, and J had no chance to directly challenge the
revocation, nor were any independent investigations undertaken by the relevant
Department. The fact that the employee was not named in itself is acceptable as long as
this was necessary and proportionate to protect the employee’s identity (which is
normally the case with whistle blowers): in Roberts v Parole Board, it was lawful to do
this to protect the safety of Roberts’ informant, a fellow prisoner.
Per Ridge v Baldwin, this is a breach of natural justice and J has a right to be heard. J may
not have a right to make representations in person. Like in Lloyd v McMahon, oral, as
opposed to written, representations would not add anything. An oral hearing would only
serve to potentially establish J’s sincerity and good faith in complying with environmental
regulations. However, these are often technical and detailed regulations which may be
better proved through scientific data.
When making representations, J should say he had a legitimate expectation for the license
to continue for the duration of its grant. In Schmidt, Lord Denning said that an alien had
no right to expect leave to remain to be granted as this is discretionary. However, where
leave to remain has already been granted, there is a legitimate expectation that the leave
to remain will not be revoked without good reason. A license is similar to leave to remain
in this context: there is no expectation that a license should be granted to a business
designated as hazardous but some procedural protection would be due to a license
already granted a license. This is the standard of review applied in Ng Yuen Shiu.
Collateral Challenge
Collateral challenge is clearly illustrated by Boddington. Where someone is charged with
criminal offences under laws or regulations which were not validly enacted, then they
have not committed any offence. Hence, if J is charged under the Act for operating a
designated business without a license, he may wish to challenge the decision using
collateral challenge from two angles.
Jed should challenge the revocation as he was denied the chance to defend himself and
his legitimate expectations may have been ignored. If he is charged under the Hazardous
Business Act 2015 for operating a designated Hazardous Business without a license, he
can try using collateral challenge. The Radioactivity Concern Alliance (RAC) may
challenge the decision to treat Abbey’s business as non-hazardous on rationality grounds
but they may have standing issues.
Jed
Right to Make Representations
J has a right to notice that his license may be revoked: Kanda v Government of Malaya. Per
Lord Denning, ‘If the right to be heard is a real right which is worth anything, it must carry
with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him’. However,
in this case, it appears that his license was simply revoked on the basis on uncorroborated
allegations of an unnamed employee, and J had no chance to directly challenge the
revocation, nor were any independent investigations undertaken by the relevant
Department. The fact that the employee was not named in itself is acceptable as long as
this was necessary and proportionate to protect the employee’s identity (which is
normally the case with whistle blowers): in Roberts v Parole Board, it was lawful to do
this to protect the safety of Roberts’ informant, a fellow prisoner.
Per Ridge v Baldwin, this is a breach of natural justice and J has a right to be heard. J may
not have a right to make representations in person. Like in Lloyd v McMahon, oral, as
opposed to written, representations would not add anything. An oral hearing would only
serve to potentially establish J’s sincerity and good faith in complying with environmental
regulations. However, these are often technical and detailed regulations which may be
better proved through scientific data.
When making representations, J should say he had a legitimate expectation for the license
to continue for the duration of its grant. In Schmidt, Lord Denning said that an alien had
no right to expect leave to remain to be granted as this is discretionary. However, where
leave to remain has already been granted, there is a legitimate expectation that the leave
to remain will not be revoked without good reason. A license is similar to leave to remain
in this context: there is no expectation that a license should be granted to a business
designated as hazardous but some procedural protection would be due to a license
already granted a license. This is the standard of review applied in Ng Yuen Shiu.
Collateral Challenge
Collateral challenge is clearly illustrated by Boddington. Where someone is charged with
criminal offences under laws or regulations which were not validly enacted, then they
have not committed any offence. Hence, if J is charged under the Act for operating a
designated business without a license, he may wish to challenge the decision using
collateral challenge from two angles.
