Legal Terms Explained

This page will be added to every couple of weeks and the index below will grow. If you have any particular terms you’d like to see here, please contact us and we’ll do our best!

In addition to these more explained terms, there is a list here, of some of the basic terms.

Index

Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Goodyear Hearings

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

In English law, Wednesbury unreasonableness is a term used to describe an administrative decision that is so unreasonable that the courts decide that no sensible person could have reached the decision.  The term comes from the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 ;  the court in that case said it could only intervene in an administrative decision on grounds of unreasonableness if the decision was, “So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.” Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service” [1985] AC 374, 410 per Lord Diplock. 

The Case

Associated Provincial Picture Houses were licenced by the Wednesbury Corporation to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15 were admitted to the cinema on Sundays ;  the claimants sought a declaration that such a condition was unacceptable and was, therefore, beyond the power of the Local Authority to impose.

The court held that it could not overturn the decision simply on the grounds that it disagreed with it ;  in order to intervene on grounds of reasonableness, the court would have to reach the conclusion that :
(a) the corporation, in making that decision, took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account ;  or
(b) the corporation failed to take account factors that ought to have been taken into account ;  or
(c) the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.

The court held that the condition did not fall into any of these categories and, therefore, the claim failed and the original terms of the license were upheld.

Lord Greene, the Master of the Rolls, said, “It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word “unreasonable” in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting “unreasonably.”

“Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington L.J. in “Short v. Poole Corporation” [1926] Ch. 66, 90, 91 gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one sense. In another sense it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and, in fact, all these things run into one another.”

Interested in a Qualification by Accreditation of Prior Learning?

 

What is a ‘Goodyear Hearing’?

The History

Back in 2005, Karl Goodyear was being tried at Doncaster Crown Court.  His counsel informed the court that Goodyear was eager for his own case not to go to trial and asked for an indication of the sentence he would receive, should he enter a ‘guilty’ pleas at this stage.  The judge agreed to do so and a plea was entered.  The eventual sentence exceeded the judge’s indication and the subsequent appeal was successful (R v Karl Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888).

The Rules

  • Goodyear hearings can only take place if requested by the defence.  If the defendant did not seek a sentence indication then it would not be appropriate for the judge to give an indication of sentence unless he was prepared to indicate that the sentence would not take a particular form.  This, in part, overrules R v Turner (1970) 2 QB 321.
  • Any advance indication of sentence to be given by the judge should be confined to the maximum sentence if a plea of guilty is tendered at the stage at which the indication was sought.
  • The judge retains an unfettered discretion to refuse to give an advance indication of sentence and does not have to give reasons for his decision.  The judge might also reserve his position until such time as he feels able to give an indication.
  • If a judge refuses to give an indication it remains open to the defendant to seek a further indication at a later stage.  Once an indication has been given it remains binding on the judge who had given it and any other judge who becomes responsible for the case.  If, after a reasonable opportunity to consider his position in light of the indication, the defendant does not plead guilty, the indication ceases to have effect.
  • The judge should refuse to give an indication unless there is an agreed written basis of plea.
  • The hearing should take place in open court.

As prosecutors, you must ensure that the judge has had access to all the evidence relied on by the prosecution including personal impact statements and relevant previous convictions.  Prosecution counsel should not say anything which creates the impression that the sentence indication has the support of the prosecutor.

Interested in a Qualification by Accreditation of Prior Learning?