Introduction
Judicial review allows individuals to contest decisions made by public bodies. A "factual error affecting the outcome" is a specific ground for such challenges. E v Home Secretary [2004] EWCA Civ 49 sets out the conditions required to prove this type of error. These conditions determine when a factual mistake in a decision allows legal action. Knowing these conditions helps legal professionals and others seeking to contest decisions that may be unlawful.
The Four Conditions for Review Based on Factual Error
The Court of Appeal in E v Home Secretary defined four conditions for a successful judicial review claim based on a factual error.
Condition 1: A Mistaken Fact
The first condition is evidence of a clear error about a specific fact. The claimant must show the decision-maker relied on wrong information. This error must involve a fact that can be checked, not opinions or predictions. Lord Justice Carnwath stated the fact must be “objectively checkable.” For example, a decision based on wrong criminal record details would meet this condition.
Condition 2: The Fact Must Be Checkable
The wrong fact must be one that can be definitively confirmed. Evidence supporting the correct fact must be clear. The claimant must prove the fact’s accuracy. This stops judicial review from re-examining facts settled in earlier proceedings.
Condition 3: The Decision-Maker Did Not Create the Error
The third condition requires the decision-maker not to have started the mistake. Public bodies often use information given to them. If they reasonably accepted this information without reason to question it, they are not at fault if it is later shown to be wrong. This focuses on whether the process followed legal rules, not whether every fact was right. However, if the decision-maker overlooked clear reasons to check doubtful information, this condition might not be met.
Condition 4: The Error Must Have Changed the Decision
The factual error must have directly shaped the decision. The claimant must prove the result would probably have been different without the error. This ensures courts act only when errors actually changed the result, not for minor mistakes.
Using the E v Home Secretary Conditions
Later cases have explained these conditions:
-
R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] UKSC 8: The Supreme Court held claimants must show disputed facts were more likely true than not.
-
R (SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 72: The court stressed the need for clear proof that the error changed the decision, not guesses about its possible effect.
Why These Conditions Are Important
The E v Home Secretary conditions give a structure to contest decisions based on factual errors. Claimants must collect strong evidence to meet all four conditions. This includes proving the correct fact, showing the decision-maker did not create the error, and confirming the mistake affected the result.
Conclusion
The four conditions from E v Home Secretary mark an important step in judicial review law. They create a clear method to assess how factual errors affect decisions. While proving such errors is challenging, this case helps address decisions based on wrong facts. Courts use these conditions to weigh holding public bodies accountable against respecting their decision-making role. Cases like R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council and R (SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department show how these conditions still shape current rulings.
