Nature of Administrative Law & Nature of Judicial Review

Transcription

1 Nature of Administrative Law & Nature of Judicial Review Benny Y. T. Tai Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of Hong Kong Learning Outcomes After attending this session, students should be able to: illustrate the nature of administrative law illustrate the nature of administrative powers and administrative processes illustrate the nature of judicial review explain and analyze the doctrine of ultra vires as the theoretical basis of judicial review 1 2 Issues What is administrative law? What is judicial review? What is the theoretical basis of judicial review? What are the other non-judicial limitations on administrative powers? What are the differences between administrative processes and judicial processes? What is the relationship between constitutional law and administrative law? What is Administrative Law? 3 4

2 What is Administrative Law?! laws concerning the administrative powers in different areas of governance exercisable by the Administration (i.e. the executive authorities)! laws setting limits on administrative powers exercising by the Administration! laws laying down the general principles concerning the manner on how the Administration should perform its administrative powers to achieve good governance! laws as a kind of policy tools to be used by the Administration for effective governance! laws ensuring the accountability of the Administration and meaningful participation in the governance process by interested parties and the civil society 5 Case 1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE LONG TITLE An Ordinance to provide for assessing the impact on the environment of certain projects and proposals, for protecting the environment and for incidental matters. 6 Case 1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE environmental impact ( ), for a designated project, means- (a) an on-site or off-site change that the project may cause in the environment; (b) an effect of the change on- (i) the well being of people, flora, fauna and ecosystems; (ii) physical and cultural heritage; (iii) a structure, site or other thing that is of historical or archaeological significance; (c) an on-site or off-site effect on any of the things referred to in paragraph (b) from activities carried on for the project; (d) a change to the project that the environment may cause, 7 Case 1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE Section 6: The Director shall, within 60 days of receiving the environmental impact assessment report, decide if the assessment- (a) meets the requirements of the environmental impact assessment study brief and technical memorandum; or (b) does not meet the requirements of the environmental impact assessment study brief and technical memorandum. 8

3 Case 2: Chu Yee Wah v. Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 9/2010, CACV 84/2011 Case 2: Chu Yee Wah v. Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 9/2010, CACV 84/2011 The Highways Department ( HD ) is the project proponent of the Hong Kong section of the proposed Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge project. The respective study briefs were issued in November 2003, December 2007 and April The EIA reports were delivered to the Director on 15 June The EIA Report for the TM-CLK Link ("the TM-CLK Link EIA Report") was delivered to the Director of Environment in August The Director advised the HD that the reports were suitable for public inspection on 13 August The Director approved the EIA Reports on 23 October The Director issued environmental permits on 4 November Chu challenged the Director s decision to approve the EIA reports and his subsequent decisions to issue environment permits. Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge! 9 Case 2: Chu Yee Wah v. Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 9/2010, CACV 84/2011 Decision of the Court of First Instance: two distinct approaches to the control of pollution. One approach is to impose limits on the quantities of polluting matter which a given activity may emit. The other approach, is to provide a framework for specific directives imposing quantitative limits on the extent to which the environment may be polluted. A specific regulation gives effect to the former approach by requiring applicants for relevant permits to satisfy the Environment Agency that they are using the best available techniques calculated to prevent, or at least to minimise, the emission of polluting matter irrespective of whether the emission would cause a breach of an overall pollution limit Case 2: Chu Yee Wah v. Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 9/2010, CACV 84/2011 Decision of the Court of First Instance: In my opinion, the EIAO is to be understood as incorporating the two approaches and is not to be construed as if the only relevant yardstick is whether particular benchmarks are exceeded. If environmental protection is to be meaningful, it seems to me that it must aim to minimise the environmental impact of any project and, in the case of air quality, by minimising the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. It would be contrary to the purpose of the EIAO, which recognises that the environment is worthy of protection, if the statutory scheme in this jurisdiction were to be construed as if it treated the environment like a bucket into which waste may be deposited until it is full. That approach does not protect the environment. Instead, protecting the environment means endeavouring to minimise the environmental impacts of a proposed project. 12

4 Case 2: Chu Yee Wah v. Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 9/2010, CACV 84/2011 Decision of the Court of Appeal: The first issue turns on the construction of the TM and SBs. The approach to their construction is governed by Shiu Wing Steel, which is authority that the construction of the TM and SBs, " is a question of law for the court if the Director s decision is being judicially reviewed. " the question of the EIA report s meeting the requirements of the SB and TM is for the Court to determine. It is a question of construction, albeit the TM and the SB are to be construed not as legislative instruments but as they would be understood by an expert risk assessor. as well as in a "practical down-to-earth way"[24]. Case 2: Chu Yee Wah v. Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 9/2010, CACV 84/2011 Decision of the Court of Appeal: I agree with the learned judge the EIAO incorporates both of the two approaches I am further of the view that the duty to minimize pollution would not depend on the extent of the pollution footprint of a designated project. Whatever the footprint of a project ((90%-80%) or (90%-30%)) a proponent must minimize pollution. Furthermore, unlike the learned judge, I do not believe it is necessary to construe the TM or the SB as requiring a stand-alone assessment in order that the Director can decide what mitigating measures should be adopted Case 3: Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [1985] A.C. 374 Case 4: Problem of laundry drying in public places Judicial review can conveniently classify under three heads... The first ground I would call illegality, the second irrationality and the third procedural impropriety. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of proportionality which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community 15 16

5 Case 4: Problem of laundry drying in public places A resident in Sai Kung District, walked past a pleasant tree-lined public pedestrian link everyday. Regrettably, the beautiful environment was marred by laundry being hung on trees and railings of public staircases. Complaints were lodged with against various departments but all departments refused to take up the responsibility to handle the matters: Lands Department Highways Department Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Transport Department Leisure and Cultural Services Department Home Affairs Department The Ombudsman conducted an investigation. 17 Case 4: Problem of laundry drying in public places Final comments of the Ombudsman: a. authorising a particular department to assume lead responsibility to deal with the problem; b. the necessity of amending existing legislation to ensure that departments have the necessary legal authority for enforcement actions; and c. studying with Highway Department, Home Affairs Department and Buildings Department the feasibility of designating areas for drying laundry within public housing estates, Home Ownership Scheme estates and private residential developments. 18 Case 5: Section 24C, Building Ordinance (Cap. 123) Unauthorized building works 19 Case 5: Section 24C, Building Ordinance (Cap. 123) (1) Where any building has been erected, or where any building works have been or are being carried out, in contravention of any of the provisions of this Ordinance may issue a notice in writing (2) a notice issued under subsection (1) shall be served on the owner of the land or premises on which the building has been erected or on which the building works have been or are being carried out (4) The Building Authority shall, where the building or building works is or are not demolished or altered in the manner described in subsection (1), cause the notice to be registered in the Land Registry 20

6 Case 6: From Consultation to Civic Engagement: The Road to Better Policy-making and Governance in Hong Kong (2007) Commissioned by Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre Prepared by Centre for Civil Society and Governance The University of Hong Kong From Consultation to Civic Engagement: The Road to Better Policy-making and Governance in Hong Kong (2007) Lesson 1: In public engagement, genuine government commitment to an open-ended process is essential to its success. Such exercises, if well planned and executed, can do much to build public consensus and help government develop policies that can win support from stakeholders and the public. From Consultation to Civic Engagement: The Road to Better Policy-making and Governance in Hong Kong (2007) Lesson 2: Successful committee engagement depends to a significant extent on whether official and unofficial members of a committee can develop a shared understanding of the issues to be addressed or the goals to pursue. The government s attitude is crucial to the development of shared understandings.

7 What is Administrative Law? Laws setting limits on administrative powers: What kinds of governmental powers need to be controlled? Which institution is responsible for this task? What is the nature of the constraint to be imposed on governmental powers? What is the theoretical basis of such control of governmental powers? What is Administrative Law? Limits on Administrative Powers Non-Judicial v. Judicial What is Administrative Law? Limits on Administrative Powers Statutory v. Common Law What is Administrative Law? Administrative Law = Judicial Review of Administrative Actions? 27 28

8 What is Administrative Law? a lawyer s approach vs. a public administrator s approach 29 Red Light Theory: Controlling the Administration (a) keep powers of public authorities within their legal boundary to protect individual rights -see the public authority can be compelled to perform their duties (b) general principles on the exercise of governmental powers e.g. powers not be exercised unreasonably (c) judicial concept of administrative justice Green Light Theory: Relating to the Administration (a) examine how the administration operates (b) examine how the administration makes decision -nature of decision making and decision making process -types of decision making process -allocation of decision making powers -design of administrative procedures (c) control of governmental powers -internal and prospective powers -public participation in administrative process (d) how law can enhance effective performance of the administrative powers 30 Nature of Administrative Processes Matters to decide Basis of decision What is the correct solution? Approach Parties affected Administrative Process polycentric (a complex network of relationships with interacting points of influence) policy the most expedient and desirable solution in the public interest empirical, guided by expediency wider participation than persons who are not the parties to a dispute Judicial Process a dispute relating to the interest of an individual person rules correct solution according to legal rules and principles objective, guided by law 2 contested parties 32 31

9 Decision maker Mode of participation by the parties affected Administrative Process taking an active part in the gathering of material on which to reach a decision negotiation, conciliation, consultation or other modes of participation Judicial Process impartial can present proofs and reasoned arguments for a decision in one's favour and have the opportunity to cross-exam the other party Result compromise win or lose Duty of the no such general duty yes decision maker to give reasons for his decision Decision be reconsidered In general no such right appeal usually available 33 Law regulates Administration Empower Limit 34 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [1985] A.C. 374, Lord Diplock What is Judicial Review? Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call "illegality," the second "irrationality" and the third "procedural impropriety

10 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [1985] A.C. 374, Lord Diplock By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decisionmaking power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [1985] A.C. 374, Lord Diplock By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [1985] A.C. 374, Lord Diplock I have described the third head as "procedural impropriety" rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. 39 R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 Over the last 40 years, the courts have developed general principles of judicial review. The fundamental principle is that the courts will intervene to ensure that the powers of public decision-making bodies are exercised lawfully. In all cases, save possible one, this intervention by way of prohibition or certiorari is based on the proposition that such powers have been conferred on the decision maker on the underlying assumption that the powers are to be exercised only within the jurisdiction conferred, in accordance with fair procedures and, in a Wednesbury sense (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223), reasonably. If the decision maker exercises his powers outside the jurisdiction conferred, in a manner which is procedurally irregular or is Wednesbury unreasonable, he is acting ultra vires his powers and therefore unlawfully 40

11 Case A: The Queen v. Poon Yan-cheung [1986] HKLR 1005 Illegality Case A: The Queen v. Poon Yan-cheung [1986] HKLR 1005 Section 5(1) of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres Ordinance: The Commissioner may order that a person released from an addiction treatment centre shall, for a period of 12 months from the date of his release, be subject to supervision by such organisation or person as he may specify and shall while under such supervision comply with such requirements, including requirements as to medical examination, as he may specify. The Commissioner of Correction Services imposed a supervision order on Poon who was released from a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. It contained a requirement that Poon had to lead a law abiding and honest life. Was this requirement a valid one? 43 Case A: The Queen v. Poon Yan-cheung [1986] HKLR 1005 Kempster, J. A.: What has concerned us is the vires, in other words the power, of the Commissioner to impose a condition so wide as to require the supervisee to lead a law-abiding and honest life for 12 months. While analogous to the provision regularly found in probation orders requiring a probationer to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace that wide requirement is imposed by the court and it falls to be considered whether an equivalent power can be deemed delegated to the Commissioner by the legislature having regard to the express provision of s. 5(1). We are of the opinion that the term "requirements" in s. 5(1) must be read in the context of supervision apt to prevent renewed addiction and be such, and only such, as to facilitate its exercise both generally and in relation to the medical examination of the supervisee. The particular condition that Poon should lead a lawabiding and honest life is outside these parameters and ultra vires the Commissioner. 44

12 Case B: In the matter of the an application by Ko Mei Chun for leave to apply for Judicial Review (1996, No. M.P. 1112) Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) Case B: In the matter of the an application by Ko Mei Chun for leave to apply for Judicial Review (1996, No. M.P. 1112) N was a court reporter. She had been awarded a long meritorious service certificate after 21 years of service. She was ordered to be compulsorily retired with deferred pension from the civil service by the Secretary for the Civil Service. Her alleged misconduct was failing to comply with her supervisor's order to report to her supervisor's office for duty in the morning and after lunch. That misconduct lasted 2 months. N was among one of the few court reporters who were required to report. There was no evidence showing that N's alleged misconduct had in any way affected her performance as a court reporter. Was the decision of the Secretary for the Civil Service valid? 47 Case B: In the matter of the an application by Ko Mei Chun for leave to apply for Judicial Review (1996, No. M.P. 1112) Seagroatt J.: it seems to me manifestly unfair and unreasonable that the decision compulsorily to retire the Applicant should be made. A consideration of the matters which were admitted in the context in which they occurred, should itself have given rise to a decision to apply a less serious penalty. Furthermore, the tenor of the findings and of the evidence in relation to them suggest that the investigation committee would not themselves have concluded that these were, on these facts and in this context, matters serious enough to justify the second most serious penalty. In my view, it would be entirely unreasonable to impose the second most serious penalty in respect of that particular matter in this case the penalty was wholly disproportionate to the offence. 48

13 Case C: Mohamed Yaqub Khan v. Attorney General [1986] HKLR 922 Procedural Impropriety (breach of natural justice) Case C: Mohamed Yaqub Khan v. Attorney General [1986] HKLR 922 Khan, a Superintendent of the Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force, was dismissed by the Commissioner of Police on the ground of his misconduct. Section 9(1) of the Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 233), was in these terms: Gazetted officers may be appointed, promoted, reduced in rank or dismissed by the Governor. Khan was not informed of the actual allegations against him. Was this dismissal valid? Case C: Mohamed Yaqub Khan v. Attorney General [1986] HKLR 922 Cons, V.-P.: in cases where an officer can only be dismissed for cause the requirements of natural justice will depend upon the reason which in fact underlies his dismissed. At the very least, we would think he is entitled to know the reason for his dismissal. we have come to the conclusion to dismiss Mr. Khan were matters of misconduct we therefore conclude that in the circumstances Mr. Khan ought to have been informed of the contents of that memorandum and given the opportunity to make representations in answer

14 Kinds of invalidated decisions 2008 (15 cases) Wrong legal interpretation (illegality) 9 Rigid policy (illegality) 1 Considered irrelevant matters (illegality) 3 Failed to consider relevant matters (illegality) 6 Wednesbury unreasonable (irrationality) 2 Fair hearing (procedural impropriety) 4 Fail to give reason/inadequate reason (procedural impropriety) 3 Legal basis of Judicial Review in Hong Kong 54 Ng Ka-Ling and others v. Director of Immigration (FINAL APPEAL NO. 14, 15, 16 OF 1998 (CIVIL)) ([1999] 1 HKLRD 315) "In exercising their judicial power conferred by the Basic Law, the courts of the Region have a duty to enforce and interpret that Law. They undoubtedly have the jurisdiction to examine whether legislation enacted by the legislature of the Region or acts of the executive authorities of the Region are consistent with the Basic Law and, if found to be inconsistent, to hold them to be invalid. The exercise of this jurisdiction is a matter of obligation, not of discretion so that if inconsistency is established, the courts are bound to hold that a law or executive act is invalid at least to the extent of the inconsistency. Although this has not been questioned, it is right that we should take this opportunity of stating it unequivocally. In exercising this jurisdiction, the courts perform their constitutional role under the Basic Law of acting as a constitutional check on the executive and legislative branches of government to ensure that they act in accordance with the Basic Law. 55 Article 35(2): Basic Law Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel. 56

15 Basic Law Article 19: The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region, except that the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the legal system and principles previously in force in Hong Kong shall be maintained. 57 Financial Secretary v. Felix Wong FACV No. 5 of 2003, per Justice Litton NPJ The courts judicial review jurisdiction is of a supervisory nature. This extremely important jurisdiction is not meant for the purpose of micromanaging the activities of subordinate tribunals or administrative decisionmakers. judicial review is an exceptional remedy. It is not granted as of right. The origin of the jurisdiction lies in the old prerogative writs whereby it was the sovereign himself who called upon the inferior tribunal to account for its action. As regards the procedure for applying for judicial review, the first - and perhaps the most obvious - point to note is that the aggrieved party must first obtain leave before he can make his application The intention behind the rule is that public authorities and the like should not be vexed with hopeless applications. The second point to note is that the remedy lies in the court's discretion: Hence, it is relevant to see whether there is some other remedy open to the aggrieved party it is a cardinal principle that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, the jurisdiction will not be exercised where other remedies 58 are available and have not been used. Financial Secretary v. Felix Wong FACV No. 5 of 2003, per Justice Litton NPJ As to jurisdiction, s.21i (1) of the High Court Ordinance merely says that the Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to make orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in those classes of cases in which it had power to do so immediately before the commencement of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, without stating what the scope of those remedies might be. Where the matter is as wide as that, it is of particular relevance to adhere to established principles, lest these important remedies be debased and their procedures abused by over-zealous applications. Turning more specifically to the scope of judicial review, it is, broadly speaking, the means by which judicial control of administrative action is exercised. It is not every decision by a decision maker which is susceptible to review: Were it otherwise the functioning of the executive arm of government and of statutory bodies and tribunals would be ensnared in multiple applications in the courts. 59 Chief Justice Andrew Li's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the legal Year 2006 over three decades or so ago, one of the most striking developments has been the increase in judicial review proceedings and the rapid evolution of public law In the Hong Kong context, as elsewhere, I believe that this phenomenon has resulted mainly from three factors. First, modern life has become increasingly complex. Inevitably, many areas of activities have to be subjected to regulation in the public interest Secondly, new constitutional instruments have been enacted. Executive and legislative acts may be challenged on judicial review on the ground of inconsistency with the constitutional provisions, including the guarantees of fundamental rights and individual freedoms. In the Hong Kong context, the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights have enabled such challenges to be made Thirdly, with better education, citizens have higher expectations of public institutions and are more conscious of their rights and freedoms. With improved access to legal representation, including that through legal aid, they are more prepared to invoke the law in seeking to protect their rights and freedoms. A 4 th reason? 60

16 Nos. of Application for Judicial Review ! 140! 120! 100! 80! 60! 40! 20! 0! JR#applica)on# 1990! 2001! 2002! 2003! 2004! 2005! 2006! 2007! 2008! 2009! 2010! 2011! 107 (?) Chief Justice Andrew Li's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the legal Year 2006 With judicial review passing into everyday parlance and with "JR" rolling readily off everyone's lips, it is important for the public to understand the courts' proper role. On judicial review, the courts do not assume the role of the maker of the challenged decision. The courts are concerned and only concerned with the legality of the decision in question, adjudged in accordance with common law principles and the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions. It follows that the courts' judgment can only establish the limits of legality. The courts could not possibly provide an answer to, let alone a panacea for, any of the various political, social and economic problems which confront society in modern times Chief Justice Andrew Li's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the legal Year 2006 Within the parameters of legality, the appropriate solution to any political, social or economic problem can only be properly explored through the political process. Such problems are usually complex involving many dimensions and there are no easy or ready solutions to them. It is only through the political process that a suitable compromise may be found, reconciling the conflicting interests and considerations in question and balancing short term needs and long term goals. The responsibility for the proper functioning of the political process in the interests of the community rests with the Administration and the Legislature. 63 Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma s speech at Ceremonial Opening of the legal Year 2011 The judicial oath requires judges to look no further than the law as applied to the facts. The starting point and the end position in any case, is the law. This is the true role of the courts. The courts do not serve the people by solving political, social or economic issues. They are neither qualified nor constitutionally able to do so. However, where legal issues are concerned, this is the business of the courts and whatever the context or the controversy, the courts and judges will deal with these legal issues. 64

17 Chief Justice Andrew Li's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the legal Year 2007 It would not be right for judicial review to be viewed negatively as a hindrance to government. On the contrary, it should be seen as providing an essential foundation for good governance under the rule of law. Theoretical Basis of Judicial Review The Rule of Law ULTRA VIRES Executive (Administration) Separation of Powers Legislature Judiciary 67 68

18 Must ultra vires be the theoretical basis for judicial review? What is the relationship between constitutional law and administrative law? Separation Thesis Legal antipathy to political theory is likely to be motivated by instinctive belief in the virtue of objectivity in law, the belief that law should be kept as distinct as possible from politics, and there is positive merit in keeping a gulf between them... On the plane of administrative law... rules are based upon elementary concepts of legality, reasonableness and fairness which are self-evident in their own right... Although their natural home is in a liberal democracy, there is no necessary reason why they should not be observed under any regime, even if illiberal or undemocratic. The central part of administrative law...has a neutrality... Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Integration Thesis...the content of constitutional and administrative law can only be properly understood against the background political theory which a society actually espouses, or against such a background which a particular commentator believes that a society ought to espouse. Craig, Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 1 Press, 9th edn. 2004), p

19 Issues in Judicial Review What is the decision under challenge? What is the legal basis of the decision under challenge? Is the decision reviewable by the court under order 53? Is it a matter of public or private law? Is the right procedure used? What is the remedy seeking for by the applicant? Is the application within the time limit? If the application cannot be made promptly within 3 months, is there any ground for extending the time to make the application? Does the applicant have sufficient interest? What is the ground of review? Can that be established? If damages are sought in this application, can a private law wrong be established? Is the court's power excluded? Will the court exercise its discretion to deny the remedy sought by the applicant?! 73 Comparison with Non-Judicial Limits on Administration Internal discipline Personal data maladministration! privacy! misconduct! Equal! opportunities! policy! Legality! &! fairness! Economy & efficiency! appeal! appeal! Appeal Committee Administrative Appeal Board Public inquiry! Committee of Inquiry 74 Readings Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 10th edn., 2009), pp.1-8 Swati Jhaveri, Michael Ramsden, and Anne Scully-Hill, Hong Kong Administrative Law (Hong Kong: Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2010), Chapter 1 Excerpt from the judgment of Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services [1985] A.C. 374 Reference Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 10th edn., 2009), pp Craig, Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 1-9 Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings, Law and Administration (London, Edinburgh, Dublin: Butterworths, 2nd edn., 1997), Chapter 1-4 Clark & McCoy, Hong Kong Administrative Law (2nd edn. 1993) Chapter 1 Criag, Administrative Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 6th edn, 2008), Chapter