E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA C...

Facts

• Judicial review permits individuals to challenge decisions made by public bodies.
• In this case, the claimant sought to contest the Home Secretary's decision on the ground that it was based on a factual error that affected the outcome.
• The Court of Appeal considered when a factual error in an administrative decision could form the basis for judicial review.

Issues

1. Whether a factual error in the decision-making process may be a valid ground for judicial review.
2. What conditions must be met for a claim of judicial review to succeed on the basis of a material factual mistake.
3. Whether the particular decision at issue satisfied these four conditions, warranting judicial intervention.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal set out four conditions that must be established for judicial review based on a factual error affecting the outcome.
• The conditions are: (1) a clear mistaken fact, (2) the fact must be objectively and definitively checkable, (3) the decision-maker did not create the error through their own fault, and (4) the error materially affected the decision’s outcome.
• Subsequent case law, such as R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] UKSC 8 and R (SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 72, elaborated on the need for claimants to provide clear evidence and to prove the likely impact of the error.
• The structure aims to ensure judicial review only intervenes where factual mistakes truly change outcomes, not for trivial errors.

Legal Principles

• Judicial review may be available when a factual mistake materially influences a public body's decision.
• The four conditions for review are: (1) existence of a mistaken fact, (2) the fact must be objectively checkable, (3) the decision-maker must not have caused the error, and (4) the error must have affected the outcome.
• Claimants bear the burden of proving all four conditions, particularly that the outcome would probably have been different without the error.
• Courts limit factual review to prevent re-litigation of issues and preserve administrative decision-makers’ authority.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in E v Secretary of State for the Home Department established a structured approach for challenging public decisions based on material factual errors, requiring claimants to satisfy four stringent conditions before judicial review may be granted.