Mountfield Area Health Authority Problem Question Essay Example

Mountfield Area Health Authority Problem Question Essay Mountfield Area Health Authority Problem Question ( 2000 words ) Can the policies of Mountfield Area Health Authority be challenged? This first inquiry relates to the country of jurisprudence known as Judicial Review. This is a process that enables persons to dispute the determinations and actions of public executive organic structures. The nature and powers of MAHA need to be considered in order to measure whether its policies and determinations can be challenged by manner of judicial reappraisal. Using the standards set out in Parpworth ( 2003 ) for judicial reappraisal [ 1 ] : MAHA derives it powers from legislative act ( which has, by the way, been superceded by theNational Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, which replaces AHAs with Strategic Health Authorities ) . It performs apublic jurisprudencemap, as distinguished from aprivate jurisprudencemap, following the instance ofR V Disciplinary Committee of the Jocky Club, ex p Aga Khan( 1993 ) . This is because the AHA derives its powers from legislative act. The maps of AHAs ( and now, SHAs ) are to manage the local NHS on behalf of the Secretary of State’ , which includes developing programs for bettering wellness services in the local area’ and they are a cardinal nexus between the Department of Health and the NHS.’ [ 2 ] We will write a custom essay sample on Mountfield Area Health Authority Problem Question specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Mountfield Area Health Authority Problem Question specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Mountfield Area Health Authority Problem Question specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The policies of the MAHA can theoretically, hence, be challenged by judicial reappraisal. The evidences for challenge will now be considered: Health Watch will be deemed to holdvenue standito dispute the determinations of the MAHA. Following the Law Commission’s studyAdministrative Law: Judicial Review and Stautory Appeals( 1994 ) , this would be accorded due to the sufficient degree of public involvement in the affair being litigated. Following the instance ofAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd 5 Wednesbury Corporation( 1948 ) , the policies of MAHA will likely be considered so unreasonable that no sensible authorization could of all time hold come to it.’ [ 3 ] The policies besides contravene theHuman Rights Act 1998which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into English jurisprudence. This adds to the illegality land for disputing the policies, given that the policies discriminate against members of a peculiar societal group ( that is, those over the age of 75 and tobacco users ) . This follows the logical thinking of the CA inIslam V Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Q( 1999 ) . Can John dispute the determination of Graham’s backdown of his trader’s license? This is besides a judicial reappraisal inquiry, because Graham is a member of the Mountfield Local Authority which is doubtless a public organic structure. Similar considerations to those outlined above hence apply. The evidences for disputing this determination include improper intent. The evidences for declining a trading license are set out in theLocal Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1982, agenda 4. One of these evidences is that by ground of some strong belief or otherwise he is unsuitable.’ It is possible so, that the annulment of John’s license would be lawful under this proviso. Was the Chief Constable trusting on good authorization in censoring the assembly at Mountfield Hospital? Under Article 11 of the ECHR, citizens enjoy a right of assembly and association. Furthermore, Judgess have sometimes talked of a right to protest’ , for illustration inHirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire( 1986 ) , the justice recognised the right of free address to protest on affairs of public concern and to show on the one manus and the demand for peace and good order on the other.’ [ 4 ] This is a right enjoyed merely in so far as it does non conflict any other jurisprudence, and the protest is done in a peace-loving mode. Here, given the planned size of the meeting, it is possible that the group would barricade a public main road. It is besides possible that the Chief Constable was right in his preventative actions in order to continue the peace. Sections 11-16 of thePublic Order Act 1986provide for the control of assemblies. John has complied with s11 of the Act in giving the Chief Constable advanced warning of the meeting every bit long as it is given at least 6 yearss before the presentation. This is non, nevertheless, a petition for permission, as the constabulary do non hold the power to let some assemblies and non others. [ 5 ] The Chief Constable is within his right to enforce conditions on the assembly, if he reasonably believes it may ensue in public upset, harm to belongings, break to the life of the community, or in the bullying of others. [ 6 ] Under s14A, 14B and 14C of the Act, inserted by theCondemnable Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the constabulary are empowered to forbid trespassory assemblies, of which this is one. [ 7 ] Given that the Chief Constable has acted within his powers in using for a limitation order for the assembly under this statute law, John has committed an offense by transporting on with the assembly at the infirmary. Were the apprehensions affected by the constabulary lawful and are the charges warranted? In regard of the 20 demonstrators, because the country on which they were showing was capable to a s14A order, it would look that they are perpetrating an offense. A trespassory assembly involves more than 20 individuals on the land to which the individuals have merely limited rights of entree. As there are merely 20 ( and non more than 20’ ) , the protestors may hold evidences for entreaty following the instance ofDPP V Jones( 1999 ) . Here, the House of Lords held that public had the right to utilize the public main road for sensible activities such as peaceable protest, provided they did non interrupt the public’s primary right of transition. In this case, so, it will depend on whether the protestors were doing an obstructor with their protests. The apprehension of Imran and Shabeena is based on a prospective breach of the peace. This is defined slackly inR V Howell( 1982 ) as being where there is a sensible apprehensiveness of a breach of the peace. This occurs where injury is really done, threatened to be done, whether to a individual or his belongings. Whether the police’s apprehensiveness was sensible depends upon the fortunes. In this instance, it does non look that the addresss showed any mark of doing a breach of the peace, unless Imran and Shabeena’s behavior was provocative, followingMcLeod V Metropolitan Police Comr( 1994 ) . Finally, inFoulkes V Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police( 1998 ) , the tribunal held that there must †¦ be a sufficiently existent and present menace to the peace to warrant the utmost measure of striping of his autonomy a citizen who is non at the clip moving unlawfully.’ [ 8 ] Since there was no evident menace to the peace here, the apprehension of Imran and Shabeena was improper. Richard’s apprehension, nevertheless, will be lawful, as it is a consequence of his threatening and intimidating behavior towards James. Section 2 of thePublic Order Act 1986makes violent perturb an offense, provided that the individual intends their behavior to be endangering or violent. The constabulary are within their right of exerting a power of apprehension granted under subdivision 24 of thePolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Richard has besides committed the arrestable offense of assault. Farook and Natalie have a right to freedom of look. Under s1 of theIndecent Displays ( Control ) Act 1981, nevertheless, it is an offense to expose indecorous affair. It will be for the tribunal to make up ones mind whether the sculpture is indecorous or non. Following the instance ofR V South Western Magistrates’ Court, ex p Heslop( 1994 ) , there is a differentiation between something being in highly bad gustatory sensation, and something being indecorous. Given the impact of the show on the passerby, it is likely that this will be seen to be indecorous, and the apprehension of Farook and Nathalie will hence be lawful. The legality of the apprehensions, so, is determined by whether the constabulary are exerting a power determined from lawful authorization. Such an authorization would be a warrant for apprehension, under subdivision 1 of theMagistrates’ Courts Act 1980. No warrant exists in the present case, nevertheless, so another authorization must be looked for. This might come from s24 of PACE 1984, in the instances where the suspects have committed arrestable offenses for which the sentence is fixed by jurisprudence. Under s24 ( 7 ) , the constabulary may collar without warrant a individual about to perpetrate an arrestable offense, anyone who it is moderately expected is about to perpetrate such an offense. Imran and Shabeena, so, were arrested unlawfully. Were the rights of the individuals arrested in detention observed? Refer to Hannibal and Mountford ( 2005 ) ,Condemnable Litigation, chapters 7 and 8. The arrestees are put in cells for 18 hours before they are eventually charged with offenses under thePublic Order Act. This detainment without charge is allowable under s37 ( 2 ) of PACE, where the detention officer has sensible evidences for believing that the suspects’ detainment without charge is necessary to procure or continue grounds associating to the offense for which they are under apprehension, or to obtain such grounds by oppugning them. Here, surely the latter ground is non applicable as they have non been questioned. Under s41 of PACE, the constabulary are entitled to keep the suspects for up to 24 hours without charge, which runs from the clip of their reaching at the constabulary station. They have non, hence, infringed this by confining the suspects for merely 18 hours. The rights of the suspects at the station are listed under the Codes of Practice attach toing PACE, and specifically under Code C. The detention officer should hold informed the arrestees of the undermentioned rights upon their reaching at the station: The right to hold person informed of their apprehension The right to confer with in private with a canvasser, such advice being free and independent The right to confer with the Codes of Practice The detention officer should besides hold undertaken a hazard appraisal on the specific demands of each detainee. [ 9 ] As portion of this, he should hold asked each detainee if he or she wanted: Legal advice To inform anyone of his apprehension Medical intervention Requires an translator. The detainees’ rights in detention have non, hence, been observed in the present case, although they are all within the clip bound of being held without charge. Bibliography Legislative acts Condemnable Justice and Public Order Act 1994 European Convention on Human Rights Human Rights Act 1998 Indecent Displays ( Control ) Act 1981 Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1982 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Codes of Practice Public Order Act 1986 Cases Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd 5 Wednesbury Corporation [ 1948 ] 1 KB 223 DPP V Jones [ 1999 ] 2 AC 240 Foulkes V Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police [ 1998 ] 3 All ER 705 Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire ( 1986 ) 85 Cr App Rep 143 Islam V Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Q [ 1999 ] 2 WLR 1015 McLeod V Metropolitan Police Comr [ 1994 ] 4 All ER 553 R V Disciplinary Committee of the Jocky Club, ex p Aga Khan [ 1993 ] 2 All ER 853 R V Howell [ 1982 ] QB 416 R V South Western Magistrates’ Court, ex p Heslop ( unreported ) Secondary beginnings Hannibal, M. and Mountford, L ( 2005 )Condemnable Litigation( Oxford: OUP ) Law Commission ( 1994 )Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals( Law Comm 226, HC 669 ) Leyland, P. and Woods, T. ( 2003 )Textbook on Administrative Law, 4ThursdayEdition ( Oxford: OUP ) Parpworth, N. ( 2004 )Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3rdEdition ( London: LexisNexis ) NHS Stategic Health Authorities web site, at hypertext transfer protocol: //www.nhs.uk/England/AuthoritiesTrusts/Sha/Default.aspx Rock, R. ( 2006 )Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 6ThursdayEdition ( Oxford: OUP )