Judicial Review: Rights Violation and Standing

Judicial Review

Table of Contents
Answer to Question 1.................................................................................................................3
Answer to Question 2.................................................................................................................4
Standing..................................................................................................................................4
Article 3..................................................................................................................................5
Article 8..................................................................................................................................6
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................8

Answer to Question 1
Sub-section 1 of Section 6 of the Human rights Act of 1998 implies that it is illegal on part of
a public authority to act in contravention of the rights enshrined and envisaged in the
European Convention on Human Rights of 1951. In accordance with Sub-section 3 (b) of
Section 6 of the Human rights Act of 1998, the term public authority applies to any
organization whose acts are of a public level. As a result, it is imperative from the facts of the
case that Westbury Council is a public authority within the meaning of Sub-section 3 (b) of
Section 6 of the Human rights Act of 19981. The facts of the case also imply that Westbury
Council is charging an additional two hundred pounds along with the prescribed fees of two
thousand pounds as per the fictional Licensing Act of 2018. Article one of the First Protocol
of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1951 implies that any legal person must be
granted an opportunity with regard to the enjoyment of property and possessions in a peaceful
manner. In such aspect, Westbury Council has acted in gross violation of the First Protocol
of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1951 with regard to the rights of Westbury
Multiplex Cinema. With regard to the compulsory screening of British movies on Tuesdays
along with the weekly shows of directors having a background with regard to Black, Asian,
Minority and Ethnic mandatorily is in blatant contravention of Article 14 of the European
Convention on Human Rights of 1951. It is also claimed by Westbury Multiplex Cinema that
such a condition has a high probability on imposing economic restrictions over its business
with regard to screening of shows. To a certain extent, such an act on part of Westbury
Council also results in the violation of the rights concerning freedom of expression under the
ambit of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1951. It is further
observed from the facts of the case that such kinds of acts on part of Westbury Council are
not in the interest of equality and fairness as far as natural justice is concerned2. There would
be judicial review in this aspect since the facts of the case imply that the Westbury Council is
a public body whose actions are to be reviewed by the court of competent jurisdiction. If the
court of competent jurisdiction is of the opinion that the Westbury Council has acted in
violation of the law in force, it is at discretion to issue an injunction over the Westbury
Council. It is also to be taken into account whether the Westbury Council has exceeded its
powers vested upon it by the Parliament with regard to the doctrine of ultra vires as far as
Parliamentary sovereignty is concerned with regard to the aspects related to constitutionality.
1 Human Rights Act 1998
2 European Convention on Human Rights 1951