FHEQ Level 5 Examination
This is an online exam available over a period of 24 hours
Time allowed: 24 hours
Semester 1 2021/2
Answer 1 question only
Calculators: None
Additional materials: Open book
The questions must be answered in an overall maximum of 2,500 words. Sources relied on must be clearly identified, but full OSCOLA referencing is not required. References should be placed in text. There is no need to attach a bibliography
©Please note that this exam paper is copyright of the University of Surrey and may not be reproduced, republished or redistributed without written permission
1
LAW2037/3/SEMR1/21/22 (0 hand-out)
1. The (fictional) Small Businesses Act 2015 allows local authorities to adopt measures that support the establishment of new small businesses in order to develop the local economy and attract more residents and visitors. A local authority issued a statement in March 2016 that they would provide funding to all applicants who presented a promising business plan for the establishment of a new small business within 2 months from the announcement date.
Anna applied for funding, but the application was rejected within a few minutes of submission. The email for rejection stated that the local authority has a policy that any business with more than 10 employees cannot be considered as a ‘small’ business for the purpose of the scheme. Anna’s business has 10 permanent employees but also employs 1-2 temporary workers during the busy periods around the holidays.
Ben lives in a big city and is looking to move to a more rural area. Ben made an application for funding under the scheme but was rejected because he was not a resident in the area and his business, according to the local authority, would not make a positive contribution to the character of the local area.
Carrie applied for funding 3 weeks after the statement was issued but her application was rejected by the local authority saying that they were no longer accepting applications because the money had run out.
(a) Advise all applicants on their potential claim for judicial review.
(b) Considering your answers to question (a), discuss the advantages and disadvantages of giving discretionary powers to public authorities. Can judicial control of discretionary powers be reconciled with the principle that judges will only quash an action that the public authority had no power to take?
2. The Parliament recently adopted the (fictional) Enemies of the State Act 2021, on the aftermath of an attack in the capital city’s centre. Article 1 provides that the Minister for Defence may authorise the interception of personal communications via email if they have sufficient reasons to believe that a person is a current or future threat to national security. Foreign nationals with ties to terrorist related organisations may be deported. Article 2 provides that the national broadcaster may not broadcast messages in support of terrorist related organisations or activities. The Act created an appeal process against decisions made pursuant to Articles 1 and 2.
Annabelle is a foreign national with past ties to a terrorist organisation. 15 years ago, Annabelle cut all ties with the organisation. Her email communications were intercepted pursuant to Article 1 of the Act. There wasn’t any evidence that Annabelle had communication with the group after she cut ties with them. A few days later she was issued with a deportation order effective immediately. She wants to challenge both the decision to intercept her communications and
2
LAW2037/3/SEMR1/21/22 (0 hand-out)
the decision to deport her. She appealed against both decisions and she was informed that her appeal will be heard in 18 months.
The Centre for Human Rights is an activist organisation that provides humanitarian support to people in areas of conflict. They want to broadcast a fundraising message for the provision of hospital equipment to an underresourced hospital in a conflict-ridden area. The National Broadcaster refused to air the message based on Article 2 of the Act, because that specific hospital is often used by members of a terrorist organisation for the treatment of wounded members to the group. The organisations’ appeal was rejected.
a) Advise both applicants about their potential claim for judicial review.
b) To what extent would your answers be different if the scenario took place before the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998?
