Eenheid 3.2 en 4.1

Inleiding As daar gekyk word na die hofsake wat handel oor die hersiening van irrasionele en onredelike administratiewe handelinge, blyk dit asof die howe gereeld hierdie twee gronde van hersiening as baie nou verwant beskou = dus word hulle saam groepeer. Alhoewel disproportionality (oneweredigheid) nie `n grond van geregtelike hersiening van administratiewe handelinge is nie, word dit ook hier bespreek omdat dit baie nou verwant is aan beide irrasionele en onredelike administratiewe handelinge – Die redes word duidelik onder. Proporsionaliteit NB in die beskerming van fundamentele regte via the beperkingsklousule = artikel 36 (Beperking moet proporsioneel/eweredig wees)

Die gronde van hersiening vir irrasionaliteit en onredelikheid en die toepassing van die proporsionaliteit beginsel moet apart gehou word, ten spyte van hul noue verband. Die howe het verskillende vlakke van noukeurige ondersoek van hierdie 3 beginsels. Rasionaliteit Redelikheid Proporsionaliteit / eweredigheid. Rasionaliteit word beskou as die minimum drumpel van wat wat benodig word vir `n administratiewe handeling om grondig te wees. Daarom `n minder streng vlak van noukeurige ondersoek word gebruik Vra vir `n strenger vlak van noukeurige ondersoek Selfs nog meer streng

1.Irrasionaliteit as `n grond van hersiening 2.Onredelikeheid as `n grond van hersiening 3.Die rol van proporsionaliteit in die beheer van administratiewe handelinge. 4.Die vlakke van noukeurige ondersoek by die howe aangeneem wat van toepassing is op irrasionaliteit, onredelikheid en proporsionaliteit.

3. The role of proportionality in controlling administrative action No direct reference to the requirement of proportionality as a separate and independent ground for judicial review. However, it is expressly included in section 36 limitation clause of the Constitution. This section, which introduces the concept of proportionality, expressly provides that fundamental rights may be limited or infringed under constitutionally prescribed conditions only. Therefore, the courts rely on the constitutional emphasis on proportionality in balancing the interests of the state on those of the individual where an infringement of a fundamental right has occurred. Discretionary powers should be exercised in such a way that the burdens they place upon members of the public should ‘bear equally upon all subjects’ without inconsistency and fluctuations between individual cases. Thus, proportionality serves a general rubric for reasonableness, fairness and good administration. In a narrow sense, it requires that the extent to which administrative action may infringe the rights of the individual, should not exceed the degree necessary to serve the public interest.

Levels of scrutiny adopted by the courts pertaining to irrationality, unreasonableness and disproportionality. Do the courts apply the same standard of review in each of these three instances, or are there various levels of scrutiny? Is there a minimum standard of review or a maximum standard, depending on whether rationality, reasonableness or proportionality is reviewed? Strictest level of scrutiny is reserved for an enquiry into the justification of the limitation of any fundamental right – thus, section 36 and proportionality. Thus, proportionality = strictest level of scrutiny. Right to reasonableness forms part of the right to just administrative action and as such is a constitutionally entrenched right. It is apparent, therefore, that reasonableness review should be subject to the same strict level of scrutiny as that of other fundamental rights. – variable but higher standard (New Clicks case). Although rationality is not afforded express constitutional protection, it is not without significance in the new dispensation. The courts have adopted the approach that rationality is a minimum threshold requirement for the legality of the exercise of all public power.

The grounds for review for irrationality and unreasonableness and the application of the proportionality principle should be kept separate, despite their close relationship. The courts have adopted different levels of scrutiny in their adjudication of these 3 principles. Rationality Reasonableness Proportionality Rationality is regarded a minimum threshold required for an administrative action to be valid and as such a less stringent level of scrutiny is adopted. Requires a stricter level of scrutiny Even more strict

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 1.Rationality: (a)Four pronged test laid down in section 6. (b)The reasons advanced for the action must be adequate to substantiate the assertion that the decision complies with administrative legality. In other words, the decision must be capable of objective substantiation. 2.Reasonableness (a)The circumstances in which the administrative action was exercised. Always context-based. (b)A consequence of this context based approach is that the decision maker must take following factors into account. The nature of the decision The identity and expertise of the decision-maker The range of factor relevant to the decision The reasons given for the decision The nature of the competing interests involved The impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of those affected. (c) It must be determine whether the exercise of the discretion is one which a reasonable decision-maker would have made. The reasonable decision-maker presupposes an administrator who is qualified to exercise the discretionary power.

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 3. Proportionality (a)It should be determined whether there is a proper balance between the means (used by the administrator) and the ends (the advantages and disadvantages of the end which is attained by the performance of the particular administrative action). It must be determined whether the prejudice to the individual is proportionate to the advantages to the common weal or public interest. In short, there must be proportionality between the means and the ends. (b)It should be determined whether the administrator has chosen the least intrusive option – one which causes the least harm to the affected individual or to the public at large. (c)The proportionality of the measure must be tested by considering the disadvantages prevented by the action, the advantages which would flow from the action, and what disadvantages are caused by the measure. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages must be compared and weighted against each other.

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 3. Proporsionaliteit (a)Daar moet bepaal word of daar `n behoorlike balans tussen die manier (soos gebruik deur die administrateur) en die uitkoms / resultate (die voordele en die nadele van die resultaat wat bereik word deur die uitvoer van die spesifieke administratiewe handeling. Dit moet bepaal word of die skade / nadeel van die individu proporsioneel is tot die voordele van die publieke belang. Kortliks, daar moet proporsionaliteit tussen die manier en die resultate wees. (b)Dit moet bepaal word of die administrateur die minder indringende opsie gekies het – die een wat die minste skade aan die individu of grootliks die publiek aanrig. (c)Die proporsionaliteit moet getoets word deur die nadele in ag te neem wat deur die handeling verhoed kan word, die voordele wat sal vloei uit die handeling, en watter nadele veroorsaak sal word deur die handeling. Laastens, die voordele en nadele moet teen mekaar vergelyk en geweeg word. Riglyne vir om te bevestig of `n administratiewe handeling redelike, rasioneel of proporsioneel is

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 1.Rationality: (a)Four pronged test laid down in section 6. (b)The reasons advanced for the action must be adequate to substantiate the assertion that the decision complies with administrative legality. In other words, the decision must be capable of objective substantiation. 2.Reasonableness (a)The circumstances in which the administrative action was exercised. Always context-based. (b)A consequence of this context based approach is that the decision maker must take following factors into account. The nature of the decision The identity and expertise of the decision-maker The range of factor relevant to the decision The reasons given for the decision The nature of the competing interests involved The impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of those affected. (c) It must be determine whether the exercise of the discretion is one which a reasonable decision-maker would have made. The reasonable decision-maker presupposes an administrator who is qualified to exercise the discretionary power.

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 3. Proportionality (a)It should be determined whether there is a proper balance between the means (used by the administrator) and the ends (the advantages and disadvantages of the end which is attained by the performance of the particular administrative action). It must be determined whether the prejudice to the individual is proportionate to the advantages to the common weal or public interest. In short, there must be proportionality between the means and the ends. (b)It should be determined whether the administrator has chosen the least intrusive option – one which causes the least harm to the affected individual or to the public at large. (c)The proportionality of the measure must be tested by considering the disadvantages prevented by the action, the advantages which would flow from the action, and what disadvantages are caused by the measure. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages must be compared and weighted against each other.

Guidelines for establishing whether administrative action is rational, reasonable and proportional 3. Proporsionaliteit (a)Daar moet bepaal word of daar `n behoorlike balans tussen die manier (soos gebruik deur die administrateur) en die uitkoms / resultate (die voordele en die nadele van die resultaat wat bereik word deur die uitvoer van die spesifieke administratiewe handeling. Dit moet bepaal word of die skade / nadeel van die individu proporsioneel is tot die voordele van die publieke belang. Kortliks, daar moet proporsionaliteit tussen die manier en die resultate wees. (b)Dit moet bepaal word of die administrateur die minder indringende opsie gekies het – die een wat die minste skade aan die individu of grootliks die publiek aanrig. (c)Die proporsionaliteit moet getoets word deur die nadele in ag te neem wat deur die handeling verhoed kan word, die voordele wat sal vloei uit die handeling, en watter nadele veroorsaak sal word deur die handeling. Laastens, die voordele en nadele moet teen mekaar vergelyk en geweeg word. Riglyne vir om te bevestig of `n administratiewe handeling redelike, rasioneel of proporsioneel is