This book explores critical issues about how courts engage with questions of fact in public law adjudication. Although the topic of judicial review - the mechanism through which individuals can challenge governmental action - continues to generate sustained interest amongst constitutional and administrative lawyers, there has been little attention given to questions of fact. This is so despite such determinations of fact often being hugely important to the outcomes and impacts of public law adjudication. The book brings together scholars from across the common law world to identify and explore contested issues, common challenges, and gaps in understanding. The various chapters consider where facts arise in constitutional and administrative law proceedings, the role of the courts, and the types of evidence that might assist courts in determining legal issues that are underpinned by complex and contested social or policy questions. The book also considers whether the existing laws and practices surrounding evidence are sufficient, and how other disciplines might assist the courts. The book reconnects the key practical issues surrounding evidence and facts with the lively academic debate on judicial review in the common law world; it therefore contributes to an emerging area of scholarly debate and also has practical implications for the conduct of litigation and government policy-making.

This volume arises from the inaugural Public Law Conference hosted in September 2014 by the Centre for Public Law at the University of Cambridge, which brought together leading public lawyers from a number of common law jurisdictions. While those from such jurisdictions share background understandings, significant differences within the common law world create opportunities for valuable exchanges of ideas and debate. This collection draws upon one of the principal sub-themes that emerged during the conference – namely, the the way in which relationships and distinctions between the notions of 'process' and 'substance' play out in relation to and inform adjudication in public law cases. The essays contained in this volume address those issues from a variety of perspectives. While the bulk of the chapters consider topical issues in judicial review, either on common law or human rights grounds, or both, other chapters adopt more theoretical, historical, empirical or contextual approaches. Concluding chapters reflect generally on the papers in the collection and the value of facilitating cross-jurisdictional dialogue.

Brown offers an examination of the jurisprudence of a range of international courts and tribunals relating to issues of procedure and remedies, and assessment whether there are emerging commonalities regarding these issues which could make up a unified law of international adjudication.

This book considers the relationship between proportionality and facts in constitutional adjudication. Analysing where facts arise within each of the three stages of the structured proportionality test – suitability, necessity, and balancing – it considers the nature of these 'facts' vis-à-vis the facts that arise in the course of ordinary litigation. The book's central focus is on how proportionality has been applied by courts in practice, and it draws on the comparative experience of four jurisdictions across a range of legal systems. The central case study of the book is Australia, where the embryonic and contested nature of proportionality means it provides an illuminating study of how facts can inform the framing of constitutional tests. The rich proportionality jurisprudence from Germany, Canada, and South Africa is used to contextualise the approach of the High Court of Australia and to identify future directions for proportionality in Australia, at a time when the doctrine is in its formative stages. The book has three broad aims: First, it considers the role of facts within proportionality reasoning. Second, it offers procedural insights into fact-finding in constitutional litigation. Third, the book's analysis of the dynamic Australian case-law on proportionality means it also serves to clarify the nature and status of proportionality in Australia at a critical moment. Since the 2015 decision of McCloy v New South Wales, where four justices supported the introduction of a structured three-part test of proportionality, the Court has continued to disagree about the utility of such a test. These developments mean that this book, with its doctrinal and comparative approach, is particularly timely.

"Explores how courts engage with questions of fact in public law adjudication, the role of evidence, and the procedures by which these facts are established"--

An historical and comparative explanation of some puzzling differences between the administrative law of England, the USA and Australia.

This book explores the Constitution and how it provides for individual American rights.