Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte Owen: CA 1985

The BBC is a creation of the Crown through the grant of a Charter in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and it exercises its functions under agreement with and licences from the Government. The court expressly declined to express a view on the question of its susceptibility to judicial review.
May LJ, citing Cromer Ring, said: ‘I respectfully agree that the material law is as stated by Forbes J, but with one qualification. Where the reasons given by a statutory body for taking or not taking a particular course of action are not mixed and can clearly be disentangled, but where the court is quite satisfied that even though one reason be bad in law, nevertheless the statutory body would have reached precisely the same decision on the other valid reasons, then this court will not interfere by way of judicial review. In such a case looked at realistically and with justice, such a decision of such a body ought not to be disturbed. ‘


May LJ, Taylor J


[1985] QB 1153


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex parte Cromer Ring Mill Ltd 1982
Forbes J considered a suggestion that the lower tribiunal had taken into account irrelevant matters: ‘the case wholly supports the formulation in Professor de Smith’s book: ‘If the influence of irrelevant factors is established, it does not appear . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
CitedSimplex GE (Holdings) Limited v Secretary of State CA 1988
A decision should in general be quashed if by way of error a relevant consideration is not taken into account or an irrelevant consideration is taken into account unless the decision-maker was bound on the facts to have reached the same conclusion . .
CitedMR, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 10-Mar-2017
The claimant challenged the use of the Royal Prerogative to withdraw his passport. He had as a youth been involved with a terrorist organisation, but said that he now regretted that and was no longer so involved. He had sought to set up a business, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.181974