LAW00117: Judicial Review failed in Court - Petrella’s Ostrich Rides Permit was Cancelled | Administrative Law Assessment Answers

Internal Code: 1IDAA

Petrella’s Ostrich Rides Permit was Cancelled - Administrative Law Assignment

Answer all the following questions. They are weighted equally. Question 1: Which ground/s of judicial review could you raise in court to have the purported cancellation set aside as invalid? [Remember NOT to discuss merits review by tribunals; remedies; or anything else mainly covered in Topics 7 to 12]. Question 2: It is now September 2019. Suppose that your application for judicial review failed in court, and that Petrella’s Ostrich Rides Permit was cancelled (along with everyone else’s, as foreshadowed by the Ministerial letter) on 1 July just past. Petrella calls you again. Today she heard the Minister for Animals on talkback radio, discussing the success of the ostrich rides ban. The talkback host, Alvin Jones, asked “Really, Minister? Some silly brat decides to provoke a six-foot-tall bird, and your Government responds by taking away the fun of ostrich-riding from everyone? Knee-jerk nanny-state reaction or what?” The Minister replied, “Well, public  safety is of course, very, very important to this Government, Alvin. Let me reiterate – very, very important. But that’s not the only benefit of this ban, Alvin. The animal-rights people are really happy with my colleagues and me, Alvin, because they always reckoned it was degrading to make ostriches carry human riders. We may even get Rights For Animals Party preferences at the next election!” (Petrella has an MP3 audio recording and a written transcript of the interview courtesy of the radio station). (How) would this change your answer to Q.1? Question 3: Suppose that, instead of a blanket cancellation, the Ministerial letter informs Petrella that her individual permit will be cancelled in 90 days’ time unless before then she satisfies the Minister that all of her own ostriches are “guaranteed or extremely likely” never to attack humans. That is, the letter now reads: “Following disturbing news of numerous attacks on children by ostriches, the Government is taking steps to regulate ostrich riding more closely, so as to reduce the risks posed to the community by this dangerous pastime. We regret any inconvenience [... Etc].” (How) would this change your answer to Question 1?