Balchin (No 1)
R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex p Balchin [1996] EWHC Admin 152; [1997] JPL 917
Parties and outcome
- Claimant
- Maurice and Audrey Balchin
- Defendant
- Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
- Outcome
- The Balchins succeeded. The court would issue certiorari unless, within 14 days, the Commissioner gave a satisfactory undertaking to reconsider the complaint.
Citations in this work
Dyer
9. The powers and functions of the Commissioner are established by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. They are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, notwithstanding that the Commissioner, who occupies a unique constitutional place, is answerable to Parliament ( R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Dyer [1994] 1 WLR 621 DC). His functions are essentially those described in section 5(1) of the 1967 Act: 'Subject to the provisions of this section, the Commissioner may investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a government department or other authority to which this Act applies, being action taken in the exercise of administrative functions of that department or authority, in any case where (a) a written complaint is duly made to a member of the House of Commons by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action so taken; and (b) the complaint is referred to the Commissioner, with the consent of the person who made it, by a member of that House with a request to conduct an investigation thereon.' By section 5(5): 'In determining whether to initiate, continue or discontinue an investigation under this Act, the Commissioner shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, act in accordance with his own discretion; and any question whether a complaint is duly made under this Act shall be determined by the Commissioner.'
Eastleigh
13. The meaning of maladministration, both in this Act and in the Local Government Act 1974 (which set up the parallel Local Commissioner) has been considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East area of England, ex parte Bradford Metropolitan City Council [1979] QB 287. Both the Court of Appeal (Sir David Cairns dubitante) and the textbooks on public law have drawn upon the 'Crossman catalogue' offered to Parliament during the passage of the 1967 Act by the then Lord President of the Council. It is accordingly accepted that maladministration includes bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude [1], perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness in reaching a decision or exercising a discretion, but that it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the decision itself: see R v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council [1988] QB 853, 863.
Bradford
13. The meaning of maladministration, both in this Act and in the Local Government Act 1974 (which set up the parallel Local Commissioner) has been considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East area of England, ex parte Bradford Metropolitan City Council [1979] QB 287. Both the Court of Appeal (Sir David Cairns dubitante) and the textbooks on public law have drawn upon the 'Crossman catalogue' offered to Parliament during the passage of the 1967 Act by the then Lord President of the Council. It is accordingly accepted that maladministration includes bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude [1], perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness in reaching a decision or exercising a discretion, but that it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the decision itself: see R v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council [1988] QB 853, 863.
Cited by
- Newman
45. Mr Maurici’s submission is plainly well made on authority relating to s.3( 2) - it does not mean that the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness is ousted but rather that the hurdle is set high. It is not set as high as manifest absurdity: as Sedley J put it in Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Balchin [1996] EWHC 152 (Admin) the decision does not have to be so bizarre that its author must be regarded as temporarily unhinged but must be “irrational” in the sense that it does not add up or, in other words, that there is “an error of reasoning which robs the decision of logic”.
- Kirkham (2017)
- Morris (2019)
30. In R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Morris and Balchin [1997] JPL 917, Sedley J. considered the meani ng of the terms “maladministration” and “injustice”, as used in the legislation. He went on to say, at [17]: “In addition, the Commissioner is an investigative officer, not an adjudicative tribunal. As the Divi sional Court held in ex parte Dyer (ante), section 5(5) of the 1967 Act gives him a wide area of choice as to the manner in wh ich he investigates. But this discretion, too, will be constrained by the limits set by public law.”
- Kirkham & O’Loughlin (2020)
- Craig (9th edn)
- Harlow & Rawlings (4th edn)