LEADER 03946nam 22006851 450 001 9910816698603321 005 20200514202323.0 010 $a1-5099-0789-0 010 $a1-5099-0788-2 010 $a1-5099-0787-4 024 7 $a10.5040/9781509907892 035 $a(CKB)3710000001185013 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4850964 035 $a(OCoLC)969973768 035 $a(UtOrBLW)bpp09260782 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC6164938 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000001185013 100 $a20170613d2017 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $2rdacontent 182 $2rdamedia 183 $2rdacarrier 200 10$aHuman rights and judicial review in Australia and Canada $ethe newest despotism? /$fJanina Boughey 210 1$aOxford [UK] ;$aPortland, Oregon :$cHart Publishing,$d2017. 215 $a1 online resource (288 pages) 225 0 $aHart studies in comparative public law ;$vv. 16 300 $aIncludes index. 311 $a1-5099-3310-7 311 $a1-5099-0786-6 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aThe framework for judicial review of administrative action in Australia -- The framework for judicial review of administrative action in Canada -- Procedural fairness -- Controlling discretion -- Intensity of review. 330 8 $aIt is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a 'righting' effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this 'righting' hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently 'formalist', 'legalist' and 'conservative' approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that - there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights 410 0$aHart studies in comparative public law ;$vVolume 16. 606 $aAdministrative law$zAustralia 606 $aAdministrative law$zAustralia 606 $aCivil rights$zAustralia 606 $aCivil rights$zCanada 606 $aJudicial discretion$zAustralia 606 $aJudicial discretion$zCanada 606 $aJudicial review of administrative acts$zAustralia 606 $aJudicial review of administrative acts$zCanada 606 $2Constitutional & administrative law 615 0$aAdministrative law 615 0$aAdministrative law 615 0$aCivil rights 615 0$aCivil rights 615 0$aJudicial discretion 615 0$aJudicial discretion 615 0$aJudicial review of administrative acts 615 0$aJudicial review of administrative acts 676 $a347.71/012 700 $aBoughey$b Janina$01632405 801 0$bUtOrBLW 801 1$bUtOrBLW 801 2$bUkLoBP 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910816698603321 996 $aHuman rights and judicial review in Australia and Canada$93971511 997 $aUNINA