31 -
CONFIDENTIAL
3
such as a public officer proven to be acting maliciously. If by reason of "due process" being tested and found wanting there is automatically to be a breach of rights and commission of a tort that is a fundamental change in the system. The direct and indirect expense to the taxpayer and the inhibition engendered to executive action are powerful factors against any such proposal. If I deduce correctly the nature of unlawful acts then the rest of the sentence I would agree with so long as they are decisions within the sphere of public law.]
This remedy, even if sought against Crown officers or servants, would not have to be brought under paragraph 19(2)(b) of the CPO as a civil proceeding against the Crown.
[I disagree with the words "would not have to be brought under paragraph 19(2)(b) of Cap 300 (in 1947 Act s.23(2)(b))". Since O'Reilly v. Mackman the declaration cases if they involve public could not be pursued by action
law decisions
wwww
-
or matter. Paragraph 19(2)(b) had these specifically in mind and would only apply now to that portion of them (probably a small proportion) that concern private rights against the Crown as the principal matter. In 1947 there was no system of judicial review of administrative action as we now know
it.]
This is because "civil proceeding" is defined in section 2 of the CPO so as to exclude proceedings of a nature "such as in England are taken on the Crown side of the Queen's Bench Division ...' (For support of this conclusion see the recent House
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.