Talk:Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 15:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I'll be conducting this review. The major problem I see is the use of sources. Large parts of the article have few or no secondary sources ("Development and application" I think has only one). It is clear that little normative discussion is likely to be referencable to the cases themselves, and so many questionable sentences go without references instead:[reply]

Evidently, this is a much higher standard than ordinary unreasonableness. A governmental decision that is Wednesbury-unreasonable may be quashed or invalidated by a court.
- Fixed: added a reference. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, since doing so was also stated in the Wednesbury case to be a form of ordinary unreasonableness, it is somewhat uncertain whether the courts in the cases discussed in this paragraph were applying the strict test articulated in the GCHQ case.
- Fixed: removed the sentence, as it is an opinion that I don't think we can find a reference for. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this standard of scrutiny is much easier to satisfy, as it lowers the threshold of what constitutes a decision so outrageous that it may be deemed unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. Such a "rights-based" approach allows courts to scrutinize cases involving fundamental human rights more closely, thereby affording greater protection of fundamental liberties.
- Fixed: misplaced reference. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent cases appear to have signalled a slight shift in judicial philosophy,but it is unclear if will eventually result in the adoption of the anxious scrutiny standard of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
- Fixed: removed this sentence. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In holding that a decision is disproportionate, there is a higher danger that the court might be substituting its view for the decision-maker's.
- Fixed: removed this sentence. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is as long as the decision remains within the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker.
- Fixed: misplaced reference. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references and see also items look useful in this regard. Once this referencing has happened, which I know will take some work – a good start might be one of the "Text, cases and materials"-type books, or their equivalent in Singaporean literature. I'm putting the article on hold for a week in light of this, but if more time is needed - so long as the article is getting there - I'll keep it on. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've addressed all the issues. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst deletion in some cases has removed the problem, the majority of other changes have not addressed the problem. Far too much of the article is referenced to the cases themselves, rather than academic or other discussion of them in secondary works. For example, a couple of things have been moved behind more case references. The article needs an infusion of literature, be it textbooks, journal articles, case reviews even, but not more cases. This is necessary to provide a robust basis for the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No movement on this in 23 days, so I'm failing without prejudice to any subsequent review where these concerns are considered met by that reviewer, as appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I seem to have missed your 5 April 2012 post. No problem, I'll address the issues later and then renominate the article (and let you know, in case you are still interested to review it). — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]