By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Glidewilll J. grated the applicant a declaration that the instruction was invalid andof no effect. The court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the ministerOn appeal by the applicantsHeld dismissing the appeal (1) that executive action was not immune fromjudicial review merely because it was carried out in pursuance of a power derivedfrom a common law or prerogative rather that a statutory source. And a Minsteracting under a prerogative powe might depending on its subject matter be underthe same duty to act fairly as in the case of action under a statutory power (postpp. 399Reg. V. criminal injuries compensation Board Ex parte ;aom (1967) 2 Q.B. 864D.C. applied. That the applicants would apart from consideration of nationalsecurity have had a legitimate expectation that unions and employees would beconsulted before the minister issued he instruction of 22 December 1983 andaccordingly the decision making process would have been unfair by reason ofher failure to consult them ad would have been kunfair to judicial review (postpp. 40le-g 412 c-d 419 420 )Q’Reilly v. mackman (1983) 2 A.C.237 H.L(E) applied (3) that however, it was forthe executive and not the courts to decide whether in any particular case therequirements of national security outweighed those of fairness and that theevidence established that the minister had considered, with reason that priorconsultation about her instruction would have involved a risk of precipitatingdisruption at GCHQ and revealing vulnerable areas of operation and accordinglyshe had shown that her decision had in fact been based on consideration ofnational security that outweighed the applicants legitimate expection of priorconsulstion (pst pp. 402b-c 403b 407 f-gWindust David Framcis caffrey and Dennis Mitchell sought (1) a declaration thatthe certificate issued by the Secretary of state for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Dated 25 January 1984 that employment in or under Government332