By Dave
15/11/2010

A post-Pinnock reading list

What does a potentially successful “proportionality” defence look like?  To put the question slightly differently, what are the contours of proportionality in the context of mandatory possession proceedings?  This is the question largely left open by Pinnock (links to our note in a new window) but one of considerable difficulty in the interim.  In Pinnock, the Supreme Court helpfully observed that “The wide implications of this obligation will have to be worked out.  As in many situations, that is best left to the good sense and experience of judges sitting in the County Court” (at [57]).  They did set out some thoughts on the parameters of proportionality (at [61]-[64]), but left the rest of it until Salford v Mullen (hearing dates 23.11.2010 over two days – the link is to the SC sittings).  Undoubtedly, Pinnock is a watershed moment but, before judgment is given in Mullen, what are we to make of these wide implications?  How are we to know what the prospects of success of a potential proportionality defence are or may be?  The merits of proportionality are commonly said to lie with its flexibility, its variable “intensity”, depending on a variety of contextual factors, but that leaves open the question of the degree of intensity in mandatory possession claims.

I have no magic answers to these questions (my NL colleagues are much better attuned), but would suggest some bedtime reading beyond this blog, the case law on the subject, and the standard textbooks (Craig is perhaps the best on this topic but everybody has their favourite).  In particular, Tom Hickman’s Public Law after the Human Rights Act (Hart Publishing, 2010) contains a useful discussion of proportionality and the issues it raises for public law, especially in chapters 6 and 9.  Not everybody will appreciate his conversational style, which grates a little, but the depth of reading that went into this book makes it a useful read, most particularly because he interweaves some really rather difficult questions (especially about the relationship between proportionality and “full” merits review) into his discussion.  He draws on Canadian and Israeli jurisprudence on proportionality (and there may be an irony in the latter) to develop his argument.  It also has the merit of being the most up-to-date text.  It’s also a paperback but costs a whopping £42.50 – check for it in your library – but, if you have access to the journal, Public Law, at least some of his arguments are contained in his article in 2008 at pp 694-716.  An alternative, more neutral text is Aileen Kavanagh’s book, Constitutional Review under the HRA, but, in truth, I found that one less enlightening.  There is also a shorter discussion (at pp 120-6) in the third edition of the classic text by Carol Harlow and Rick Rawlings, Law and Administration, which (as always) is worth a read.

Some academic sources are cited by Lord Steyn in his classic speech in R(Daly) v SOS for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532 at [27] but no disrespect to those sources is meant by the comment that they are at the more descriptive end of academic writing.  Julian Rivers’ “Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Judicial Review” (2006) 65(1) Cambridge Law Journal 174-207 is rightly coming into its own now as a thoughtful discussion of the diverse ways in which proportionality and intensity has been and might be framed generally – it is well worth a read.

These aren’t the only, or perhaps even the best, additional texts, but they may be helpful to readers with those many spare moments.  Do let me know if you have others which have been useful.

Posted in: Possession

5 Comments

  1. Alex

    I think a key issue will be the level of ‘deference’ afforded to public authorities by the courts (I suspect the answer will be – at least to begin with – ‘a lot’). The distinction between proportionality review with a high degree of deference and a heightened Wednesbury review is a fine one. Interesting discussions of this topic can be found in Jowell, ‘Judicial Deference and Human Rights’ (in Craig and Rawlings, ‘Law and Administration in Europe’) and Young ‘In Defence of Due Deference’ (2009) 72 MLR 554. Important recent House of Lords statements on the subject include Lord Bingham’s concise speech in Huang v Home Secretary [2007] UKHL 11 and Baroness Hale in the wonderfully titled Belfast CC v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] UKHL 19 (a challenge to a local authority’s decision not to license a sex shop).

    Reply
    • NL

      Hmm. Interesting. Being practically minded, I suspect there may be less deference, depending on the DJ/CJ and the Court. The busy possession courts have a lot of experience of just how poor local authority decision making can be at the possession claim level. And of course the immediate model to hand for most DJ/CJs is ‘reasonable’ as per secure/assured tenancies.

      Reply
    • dave

      Thanks, Alex; I hadn’t come across the Young paper but am reaching for my electronic bookshelf now. With the veneer of anonymity intact, I have to say that I’ve never been a fan of the Jowell oeuvre but suspect it might go down rather better before a DJ/CJ than a more academically oriented text!

      Reply
  2. AF

    Just a quick Note to say all three appeals (Hounslow LBC v Powell, Leeds CC v Hall and Birmingham CC v Frisby) are going ahead tomorrow. The SC will be asked to give much needed guidance on the application of the principles set out in Pinnock in the numerically more important context of Introductory Tenancies and non-secure (homelessness) cases. In particular, the SC will be grappling with one of the big issues not dealt with in Pinnock – section 89. Will keep you posted.

    Reply
    • JS

      “Much needed ” guidance ? I think not – the less ” guidance” on this the better – guidance all too often means ill thought out examples which then lead to attempts to distinguish from those examples ..

      Then again I would say that.

      Reply

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.