Essay question: 'The Human Rights Act 1998 has fundamentally altered the nature of judicial review, replacing deference and restraint with intensive scrutiny and proportionality analysis.' Discuss.
---
Model answer
The proposition captures an important shift in English administrative law since the HRA came into force in 2000, but it overstates both the novelty of the HRA's contribution and the extent to which traditional grounds of review have been displaced. This essay will argue that the HRA has indeed introduced proportionality as a dominant standard of review in rights cases and has increased the intensity of judicial scrutiny, but that it has not replaced the traditional grounds of review and that deference—or the 'discretionary area of judgment'—remains central to the constitutional balance. Further, the common law itself has evolved in tandem with the HRA, suggesting that the transformation is as much about the maturation of common law constitutionalism as about statutory innovation.
I. The pre-HRA position
Before the HRA, judicial review in England was structured around the heads of review identified in GCHQ [1985] AC 374: illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury), and procedural impropriety. Wednesbury unreasonableness was notoriously deferential, requiring applicants to show that the decision was 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it'. This high threshold reflected the constitutional doctrine that unelected judges should not substitute their judgment for that of elected officials or expert administrators. However, courts had begun to hint at more intense review where fundamental rights were at stake. In Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514, Lord Bridge articulated 'anxious scrutiny', and in Brind [1991] 1 AC 696, Lord Bridge (though finding against the applicant) acknowledged that the common law recognised freedom of expression and that 'the more substantial the interference … the more the court will require by way of justification'.
II. The HRA and the introduction of proportionality
The HRA effected a paradigm shift by requiring public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights (s 6) and by incorporating proportionality as a standard of review. In Daly [2001] UKHL 26, Lord Steyn held that proportionality 'may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions'. This represents a clear break from Wednesbury: the court examines not merely whether the decision is defensible, but whether it is justified—whether a less restrictive alternative exists, and whether the interference is proportionate to the legitimate aim.
The four-stage framework in Bank Mellat (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39 has become the standard methodology: (1) legitimate objective; (2) rational connection; (3) necessity (no less intrusive means); (4) fair balance. This structured approach enhances transparency and accountability: decision-makers must explicitly justify their choices, and courts must articulate why an interference does or does not pass the proportionality threshold. This is far more demanding than Wednesbury, which permitted decision-makers wide latitude and courts considerable deference.
The case law demonstrates the practical impact. In Bank Mellat itself, the Supreme Court struck down a Treasury direction, finding that a less intrusive measure could have achieved the same objective. In Aguilar Quila [2011] UKSC 45, the Court invalidated an age requirement for spousal visas, finding it unsupported by evidence. These outcomes would have been difficult to achieve under Wednesbury, which did not demand evidence-based justification to the same degree.
III. Deference and restraint: continuity as well as change
However, the proposition overstates the displacement of deference. Proportionality review is not uniform in intensity; it is calibrated according to context. In ProLife Alliance [2003] UKHL 23, the House of Lords deferred to the BBC's judgment about taste and decency in broadcast content. Lord Hoffmann emphasised that courts should not intervene where the decision-maker's judgment is constitutionally appropriate or involves polycentric policy considerations. In Nicklinson [2014] UKSC 38, the majority declined to declare the prohibition on assisted suicide incompatible, noting that the issue raised profound moral questions better resolved by Parliament. Lady Hale and Lord Kerr dissented, but even they recognised the legitimacy of Parliamentary judgment in principle; they differed on whether Parliament had sufficiently engaged with the issue.
Lord Sumption has articulated the concept of 'relative institutional competence': courts are well placed to assess legal issues and procedural fairness, but less suited to evaluating policy trade-offs, resource allocation, and contested moral questions. This echoes the pre-HRA concept of deference, reframed in language that emphasises functional division of labour rather than judicial timidity. Thus, deference—or the margin of appreciation—remains central to HRA jurisprudence, as Strasbourg itself acknowledges. The shift is better characterised as a change in the structure of review (demanding justification and structured analysis), not as a wholesale abandonment of restraint.
IV. The resilience of common law grounds
Moreover, the HRA has not replaced the common law grounds of review. In Osborn [2013] UKSC 61, the Supreme Court held that common law procedural fairness continued to develop independently of Article 6, and might in some cases offer greater protection. In UNISON [2017] UKSC 51, the Court invalidated tribunal fees on common law grounds (denial of access to justice) without needing to resort to Convention rights. Lord Reed in Osborn cautioned against treating Convention rights as a 'complete code'; the common law's flexibility and responsiveness to domestic conditions are valuable and should not atrophy.
Thus, judicial review today is dualist: claimants may invoke Convention rights and proportionality, or rely on traditional grounds such as illegality and irrationality, or both. In many cases, the outcome will be the same, but the doctrinal pathways remain distinct. This suggests that the HRA has layered onto, rather than replaced, the traditional architecture of review.
V. Broader constitutional implications
The HRA has undoubtedly made judicial review more intensive and rights-focused. It has enhanced the 'culture of justification' (Mureinik, later adopted by Dyzenhaus and Craig): public authorities must now justify rights interferences with reasons and evidence; they cannot simply invoke policy discretion. This is salutary and has improved the quality of administrative decision-making. However, it has also raised concerns about judicial overreach and democratic legitimacy. Critics such as Ekins and Gee argue that proportionality enables judges to impose their value judgments, particularly on contentious social issues. Defenders like Kavanagh respond that the HRA's architecture—s 3 interpretation, s 4 declarations, and Parliamentary supremacy—preserves democratic accountability.
Conclusion
The Human Rights Act has significantly altered judicial review by introducing proportionality and increasing the intensity of rights-based scrutiny. However, it has not wholly replaced deference or the traditional grounds of review. Deference persists, albeit reconceptualised as 'relative institutional competence' or 'discretionary area of judgment'. Common law principles continue to develop in parallel, sometimes offering greater protection than Convention rights. The transformation effected by the HRA is real and profound, but it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and it sits within a complex constitutional settlement that seeks to balance effective rights protection with democratic governance and the separation of powers. The proposition is thus partly correct but requires significant qualification.