SQE1 · FLK1
Constitutional and Administrative Law
Parliamentary sovereignty, judicial review, EU and HRA.
Sovereignty of Parliament, separation of powers, judicial review grounds, retained EU law, HRA 1998 mechanics.
Constitutional and Administrative Law in SQE1 FLK1
This area pairs the big constitutional principles with the practical mechanics of judicial review and the Human Rights Act. The marks reward being able to name the JR grounds precisely and apply the HRA's interpretive and remedial scheme.
What’s tested
- Core principles: parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the separation of powers
- The royal prerogative and its control by statute and the courts
- Judicial review: the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, plus legitimate expectation
- Standing (a sufficient interest), the time limit, and JR remedies (quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders)
- The Human Rights Act 1998: ss.3 and 4, the Convention rights, and declarations of incompatibility
- Proportionality as the test in HRA and retained-EU-law contexts
- The status of retained EU law after the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Leading cases to know
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ) — the three classic grounds of judicial review
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation — irrationality
- R (Miller) v Prime Minister — the justiciability and limits of the prerogative
Key statutes and rules
- Human Rights Act 1998 — ss.3, 4 and 6 and the Convention rights
- Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31 — the judicial review jurisdiction and remedies
- European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 — retained EU law and its status
- Constitutional Reform Act 2005 — separation of powers and the judiciary
Common SBAQ traps
- Listing the JR grounds loosely instead of using the GCHQ labels (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety)
- Confusing a declaration of incompatibility (s.4 HRA, does not strike down the statute) with disapplication
- Applying proportionality to an ordinary domestic JR claim where Wednesbury irrationality is the test
How to revise Constitutional and Administrative Law for FLK1
Treat judicial review as a checklist: standing, time limit, ground, remedy. Memorise the GCHQ grounds and the HRA sections, then drill MCQs that turn on the difference between a s.3 reading and a s.4 declaration.
Go deeper
Free revision notes — Constitutional and Administrative Law
Constitutional and Administrative Law covers parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, separation of powers, human rights under the HRA 1998, judicial review, and the post-Brexit EU law framework. Questions test both the big constitutional principles and the technical rules of judicial review procedure.
Parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional principles
Dicey's three elements: Parliament can legislate on any topic; no Parliament can bind its successors; only Parliament can enact primary legislation. Challenges: HRA 1998 (s.4 declaration of incompatibility — does not invalidate the Act but triggers the fast-track s.10 remedial order power); devolution (Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 2006, Northern Ireland Act 1998 — Sewel Convention requires Westminster to get legislative consent for matters within devolved competences but it is not legally binding). The rule of law (Dicey, Bingham): legality, certainty, equality before the law, access to justice, fair trial. Separation of powers: not strict in the UK, but reinforced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (Supreme Court, Judicial Appointments Commission).
Judicial review
Judicial review is the mechanism by which the Administrative Court supervises the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies exercising public functions. Grounds (AEIOU): Illegality (ultra vires, fettering discretion, error of law, improper purpose — Padfield v MAFF [1968]); Irrationality / Wednesbury unreasonableness (so unreasonable no reasonable authority could have reached the decision — CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1984]); Procedural impropriety (breach of natural justice — audi alteram partem, nemo judex in causa sua). Proportionality applies where Convention rights are engaged (R (Daly) v Home Secretary [2001]). Standing: sufficient interest (s.31 Senior Courts Act 1981). Permission stage, promptly and in any event within 3 months (CPR 54.5).
Human Rights Act 1998
The HRA incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. Key provisions: s.2 (courts must take account of Strasbourg jurisprudence, not follow it); s.3 (read and give effect to legislation compatibly with Convention rights so far as possible); s.4 (declaration of incompatibility); s.6 (unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights); s.7-8 (enforcement). Key Articles: Art 2 (right to life), Art 3 (prohibition of torture), Art 5 (liberty), Art 6 (fair trial), Art 8 (private and family life — qualified right), Art 10 (expression — qualified), Art 14 (prohibition of discrimination — only within the ambit of another Convention right).
Post-Brexit EU law
The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retained EU law as domestic law ('retained EU law') at the point of exit. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 allowed revocation of EU-derived secondary legislation and removed the general principle of EU law supremacy, but Parliament could re-enact any provision. The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020 governs the ongoing relationship — there is no free movement of persons. FLK1 tests retained EU law in the context of the legal system and constitutional law, not substantive EU law.
Common pitfalls
- Confusing a declaration of incompatibility (s.4 HRA) — which does not invalidate the Act — with striking down legislation, which UK courts cannot do.
- Applying proportionality where Wednesbury unreasonableness is the correct test — proportionality only applies where Convention rights are engaged.
- Forgetting the three-month time limit for judicial review — promptness is also required, meaning in practice the effective window is shorter.
- Treating the Sewel Convention as a binding legal constraint — it is a constitutional convention, not law, and the Supreme Court confirmed this in the Scotland Act reference.
Exam tip
For judicial review questions, structure as: (1) Is there a public body exercising a public function? (2) Is the claimant standing? (3) Which ground(s)? (4) Is the challenge in time? (5) What remedy (quashing, mandatory, prohibiting order, declaration, injunction)?
Bank size: 90 questions. We grow the bank weekly.
Constitutional and Administrative Law — frequently asked questions
What's tested in SQE1 Constitutional and Administrative Law?
This area covers the core constitutional principles — parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the separation of powers — the institutions of government and the royal prerogative, judicial review (the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, plus standing and remedies), the Human Rights Act 1998 and key Convention rights, and the status of retained EU law after Brexit.
What are the grounds of judicial review in SQE1?
The classic grounds, following Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case, are illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) and procedural impropriety, with proportionality applied in Human Rights Act and retained-EU-law contexts. You also need standing (a sufficient interest) and the relevant remedies such as quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders.
Is SQE1 Constitutional and Administrative Law multiple choice?
Yes. Like the rest of SQE1, Constitutional and Administrative Law is assessed through single-best-answer questions: a client-based scenario followed by five options (A–E) from which you pick the single best answer. There is no negative marking, so it is always worth attempting every question.