The grounds of judicial review are:-
- Illegality – whether the decision maker has made an error in law.
- Procedural impropriety – whether the decision maker has acted in a way that is procedurally improper or breached common law rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice require that a person be given a fair hearing before a decision is taken and that the decision maker is unbiased.
- Irrationality – whether the decision maker has acted in a way that is unreasonable. Decisions are liable to be quashed if the Court concludes that no person properly directing itself as to the relevant law could reasonably have reached that decision on the material before it.
Issues to consider
1. Failure to properly consult on the proposals
The Courts have said that "consultation must be undertaken when proposals are still at a formative stage, must give sufficient reasons to permit the consultee to make a meaningful response, must allow adequate time for consideration and response, and the results of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals."
Do you think there has been proper consultation on the proposals?
2. Failure to have regard to the Schools Admissions Code of Practice 02/2003.
The combination of equal preference with fixed catchment areas and a lottery is untested and there seems to be great uncertainty about how the proposals will operate in practice.
Do you believe that the proposals are simple to use and will help you take the best decisions about your preferred school?
It appears that some people within the Council are unclear how the proposals will operate in practice. Do you have any evidence to support this?
Do you believe that the proposals will enable you to estimate the realistic chance of being offered a place for your child at a particular school?
3. Failure to comply with the Education Act 1996
Do you believe that the proposals will comply with the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents?
4. Failure to take into account all relevant material
The Council should only take into account material that is relevant and must not take into account material that is irrelevant.
Has the Council taken into account all relevant material and given proper consideration to alternative proposals?
Has the Council taken into account material that is not relevant?
The draft Admissions Code of Practice will not come into force until February 2007 at the earliest and is therefore not relevant material.
What material has the Council actually taken into account?
Get in touch
If you have any comments to make or have any evidence to support a possible challenge to the proposals please get in touch by contacting email@example.com.