## Facts

- The case concerned planning applications that were called in for determination by the Secretary of State.
- Applicants argued that the Secretary of State's political and policy roles, together with the limited scope of judicial review, undermined their Article 6 ECHR right to an independent and impartial tribunal.
- Concerns were raised that political considerations might overshadow legal arguments, and that procedural fairness could be compromised.

## Issues

1. Whether administrative decisions made by the Secretary of State, subject only to judicial review and not reheard by a fully independent tribunal, satisfied the requirements of Article 6 ECHR.
2. Whether the scope of judicial review was sufficient to constitute an "independent and impartial tribunal" for the purposes of a fair hearing under Article 6.
3. Whether political considerations involved in the Secretary of State's decision-making rendered the process incompatible with Article 6.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that judicial review procedures, focusing on legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, provided sufficient safeguards to meet Article 6 requirements.
- It was accepted that planning decisions could properly account for policy matters and be taken by a politically accountable minister, provided these decisions remained subject to legal constraints and judicial oversight.
- The court clarified that Article 6 does not necessarily require administrative decisions to be subject to a wholly independent tribunal akin to a court, as long as adequate judicial review is available.
- The decision reaffirmed the capacity of judicial review to address potential bias or unfairness.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6 ECHR requires a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, but this standard can be satisfied in administrative law through robust judicial review.
- Judicial review scrutinizes the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of administrative decisions, ensuring procedural fairness even where political or policy factors are considered.
- The presence of political considerations in administrative decisions does not in itself breach Article 6, provided decisions are within the law and subject to judicial scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in R (Alconbury Ltd) v Environment Secretary determined that the safeguards afforded by judicial review are sufficient to satisfy Article 6 ECHR's requirements of fairness and impartiality in administrative processes, even when decisions are made by politically accountable actors like the Secretary of State. This case established that a balance may be struck between efficient administrative decision-making and fundamental human rights, shaping the application of Article 6 in UK administrative law.

R (Alconbury Ltd) v Environment Secretary [2001] UKHL 23 [2003] 2 AC 295