Collins J considered the ability of the Care Standards Tribunal to determine issues of primary fact: ‘Of course, it is right that the Tribunal is reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision, and clearly if it was not a reasonable decision, then the Tribunal will interfere. But, as it seems to me, the Tribunal has its own independent judgment to exercise. It looks at the material that was before the Secretary of State and it decides, on that material, whether in its judgment the relevant prohibition or the relevant sanction was or was not one which ought to have been, in its view, imposed. It may be that one can say, if one is talking in strict judicial review terms, that the decision of the Secretary of State was reasonable in the sense that it is one which was open to him. But that would mean, if that is the narrow basis upon which the Tribunal approaches the matter, that it is disabled from exercising its own judgment. It is the exercise of its own judgment that is important. But, as the regulation makes clear, that judgment must be exercised upon and only upon the material that was before the Secretary of State.’
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 2838 (Admin), [2009] ELR 68
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Philliskirk v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families CST 20-May-2008
. .
Cited by:
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School and Others CA 20-Jan-2010
The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.278424
