«

THE LEGALITY PRINCIPLE : IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW/PRESCRIBED BY LAW

April 22nd, 2026 by James Goudie KC

In SHAUN THOMPSON v METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER (2026) EWHC 915 ( Admin ) a Divisional Court reaffirms that a measure, such as a Policy, must have the “ quality of law “, that is be (1) accessible to the persons concerned, (2) foreseeable as to its consequences, and (3) compatible with the RULE OF LAW. As to foreseeability, the measure MUST NOT CONFER A DISCRETION SO BROAD that its scope is in practice dependent on the will of those who apply it, rather than on the law itself.. It must have sufficient clarity and foreseeability so as NOT to allow ARBITRARINESS, that is decision-making by a public authority on the basis of whim, caprice, malice or predilection. A challenge to the foreseeability of a measure, or its alleged arbitrariness, does NOT, however, a challenge to the PROPORTIONALITY of that measure or its application to a particular case.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026 at 10:08 am and is filed under Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.