Bird Flu Act 2015: A Constitutional and Administrative Law Analysis

This report provides an analysis of constitutional and administrative law within the context of the Bird Flu Act 2015, focusing on the cases of Boris and Cassandra. It examines the grounds for judicial review that may be applicable in their cases, considering issues such as unfair treatment, the opportunity to make representations, and the powers of district councils under the Act. The report delves into the legal framework, specifically section 3 of the Bird Flu Act, which allows ministers to take actions for public health concerns, and section 2, which grants district councils the authority to appoint inspectors. It concludes that, based on the current legal provisions, Boris may not have grounds to challenge the government's actions, while it implicitly suggests that Cassandra's case might have more scope for legal recourse. The report also explores the remedies that Boris and Cassandra might seek, given the circumstances, and references relevant academic literature.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Advise Boris and Cassandra on what, if any, grounds of Judicial Review may be arguable in
their cases, and what, if any, remedies they may seek................................................................3
Unfair treatment for Boris...........................................................................................................4
Boris and opportunity to make representation.............................................................................4
Section 2 and district councils.....................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFRENCES...................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Constitutional laws are the laws that provides framework to a country. These laws
include various kinds of articles within it that has helped in making laws which are concrete in
nature. These laws include articles and fundamental rights that is been to be given to every
individual. Administrative laws are the laws that has been helping in handling all kinds of
documentation related to making law or implementing them. Both the laws cover wider scope as
they deal with various activities regarding law formation. Nature is also dynamic as they have
tendency to impact functioning of legal system in United Kingdom. In this discussion three
things that has to be covered is based upon Bird Flue Act 2015.
MAIN BODY
In this case Boris owns and reptile house. Reports has been there that bird flu can be
contracted by reptiles and transmitted from reptiles to humans. Also that ministry has order that
slaughter of Boris reptile house but it was not followed. Boris was not given any opportunity ti
make any kind of representation. Cassandra is a professional breeder of budgerigars. She keeps
her budgies in her house. Employees of Vetco Ltd. entered her home the other day and
confiscated all her budgies. She is told that the birds are to be held in quarantine for twelve
months. The Vetco employees also searched her house and seized documentation relating to the
purchase and breeding of budgerigars.
Advise Boris and Cassandra on what, if any, grounds of Judicial Review may be
arguable in their cases, and what, if any, remedies they may seek.
Judicial review within English law is part of UK constitutional law which has been
enabling people for challenging exercise of power by a public body. A person who feels that
exercise of power is unlawful can apply to administrative court. In order to make decision to be
passed wether a judgement is legally justified or not.If the court finds the decision unlawful it
may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose
an injunction upon the public body (Farber, 2018).
In this case section 3 is to be applied of the Bird Flue act 2015 which states that decision
of Minister shall be called into question under ant court of law. This means that ministers can be
questioned for the act that has been done by them in order to make sure that laws and order is
been maintained. Section 1 states: “The Minister may, as he thinks fit, order the slaughter of any
flock.”

Unfair treatment for Boris
As the pandemic is spreading day by day at very heinous level and people are dying
because of it. Then it becomes duty of the government to seek that all kinds of measures is been
taken in order to stop the growth of pandemic. For this reason only the act has been formed in
order to make sure that all the activities is done byb following all the kinds of instruction that is
issued by the government. So in this case if slaughter is been order of the reptile house then it
Borris cannot question the activities of government in any manner as constitution has given them
authority to act for the country to protect them all kinds of pandemic. Section 2 of the act has
been defined which says that “District councils shall appoint inspectors who shall have the
power to enter any premises in order to investigate the health of the birds therein.”
Boris and opportunity to make representation
In this case Boris cannot make any representation not can ask for compensation. As per
the new act that has been formed to specially deal with the pandemic. In section 3 of the Bird
Flue act is there to protect birds from any kind of problem health issues regarding them. So, as
per the situation it can be observed that slaughter of reptile house is been order. In the case
scenario slaughter is order for stooping of Bird flu from getting spread. This section has given
power to minster to perform any kind of slaughter in case if seeks that pandemic can be spread
through reptiles (Rakar, Tičar and Sever, 2020).
Section 2 and district councils
According to this section of the act it can be observed that action can be taken as per the
required and condition that has been existing within a country. As the pandemic has given rise to
various kinds of contingencies within the society. An inspector can be appointed by the
government to seek that what is the status of pandemic.

CONCLUSION
From the above file it can be concluded that the Bird flu Act 2015v has been formed in
order to control the flue that was spreading ta its peak within UK. In present situation also the
condition is of pandemic that has resulted in death of person. Sections that is being given within
the constitutions provides special power of government to act according to the situation in
relation to health emergency.

REFRENCES
Books and journals
Rakar, I., Tičar, B. and Sever, T., 2020. Water Protection in Slovenia: Constitutional and
Administrative Law Perspectives. In Water, Governance, and Crime Issues (pp. 129-155).
Springer, Cham.
Farber, D.A., 2018. Governance principles and climate disasters: constitutional and
administrative law issues. In Research Handbook on Climate Disaster Law. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
AKMAL, A.N., 2019. Legality of State-owned Enterprises in Conducting Monopoly and
Dominant Position: Constitutional and Administrative Law Perspective in Indonesia and
Germany Laws (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Gadjah Mada).
Mishyna, N.V. and Surilova, O.O., 2020. Constitutional and administrative aspects of the
ukraine's medical code. Wiadomosci Lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland: 1960), 73(1), pp.191-195.
Shinar, A., 2017. Israel's External Constitution: Friends, Enemies, and the
Constitutional/Administrative Law Distinction. Va. J. Int'l L., 57, p.735.
Avbelj, M., 2016. Constitutional and Administrative Pluralism in the EU System of Banking
Supervision. German Law Journal, 17(5), pp.779-798.
Sunstein, C.R. and Vermeule, A., 2016. The New Coke: On the Plural Aims of Administrative
Law. The Supreme Court Review, 2015(1), pp.41-88.