Assignment:
Judicial Review and Police Powers
1) The (fictitious) Electric Cars Act 2010, provides as follows:
(1) The Minister for Transport may make grants to any business he thinks fit which produce products related to the construction and marketing of electric cars,
(2) The grant is to help reduce the costs of manufacturing and/or selling electric cars in the UK.
(3) Grants must not exceed £50,000 and shall not be less than £5,000.
The Minister has developed a policy, which is published on the website and in promotional literature, that she will, ‘only consider grants to businesses that have demonstrated a long term commitment to developing products aimed at reducing the cost of constructing and manufacturing electric cars, and have demonstrated a good environmental record, which is the aim and objective of the Electric Cars Act 2010'.
The Minister has an annual budget of £5m to use on such grants
Car Turbine ltd is a business that has been developing electric cars for over 10 years for the UK domestic market. It has an excellent reputation within the car industry of producing efficient electric cars. However, as a small company it needs a grant to improve the marketing department in order to meet the growing UK demand for electric cars. The grant is to be used towards developing a new marketing strategy, and train a new marketing team to increase UK sales. By improving the marketing and thereby increase sales, the company believes it will be able to reduce the production costs and increase the efficiency of electric cars, through the added research and development it will be able to afford.
Being confident that the company meets the criteria for a grant they contacted the Ministry about applying for a grant. They were told there should not be any problems with an application which was likely to be favourably considered. However, after their application was submitted they received a letter stating, ‘Your application will not be considered'. No reasons for this were given.
AB Motors plc, a multinational company with a poor environmental record and who have so far refused to consider developing electric cars, was successful in its application for a grant ‘to a develop a new electric car with global potential', a brand new enterprise for the company. The company has no experience of the electric car industry but now wishes to break into the market as it see a short term opportunity to make money quickly and develop its international reputation and sales.
The Ministry for the Environment recently stated on its web site that ‘only businesses who were members of ‘The London Car Development Group', a large lobby group for car manufacturers of which AB Motors plc is a member, would be considered for grants.
Advise Car Turbine ltd, who is not a member of ‘The UK London Car Development Group', and wishes to challenge the refusal of their application and the making of a grant to AB Motors plc.
2. As PC Holroyd was investigating a theft, during which a number of watches were stolen, he saw David leaving the Three Kings public house. PC Holroyd knew David and was aware of his previous convictions for theft. PC Holroyd stopped David and asked him what he knew about the theft and the watches. David said he knew nothing about any theft or any watches.
PC Holroyd told David that he did not believe him and informed David that he was going to search him to check for the stolen watches. David told PC Holroyd that he objected to being searched, and that there was no reason for him to be searched. Despite David's objection, PC Holroyd searched David, who continued verbally to object to being searched, but offered no physical resistance.
The search revealed no stolen items. PC Holroyd told David that he still did not believe that he knew nothing about the theft so he arrested David and took him to the police station. On the journey PC Holroyd continued to question David about the thefts.
David was detained in the police station for 14 hours, during which time he made a number of requests to telephone a solicitor, all of which were refused. He also made a number of requests to telephone his wife because he wanted to let her know that he was safe. These requests were also refused.
During his detention, David was questioned for 8 hours without a break, during which time he was given no refreshments. David eventually admitted to having stolen the watches after he was promised he would be able to telephone his wife and be released on bail if he confessed. David was charged with theft and released on police bail.
David now denies having stolen the watches.
Advise David on the legality of the actions of the police and on the admissibility of the confession at any subsequent trial.