Advocacy 20% Assignment

I shall start my argument on behalf of my client in establishing why they had sufficient
interest when it came to the closing of the Swim away pool. I shall prove this by using the
two-stage test of sufficient interest, which was developed in the ex parte Federation v
Inland Revenue case1. The opposition may argue that my client may not have the right to a
locus standi as Schiemann J in the case of Ex P. Rose Theatre Company 2 stated that 'The fact
that some thousands of people joined together and assert that they have an interest does
not create an interest if the individuals do not have an interest. However, this statement
does not reflect my client as reflected by the case of R v H.M Inspectorate of Pollution 3, just
as the organisation Greenpeace my client swim away had honest good faith and concern for
the public and how the swimming enthusiasts and children would be unable to swim
anymore. Swim away represents the interest of 10,000 swimming enthusiasts and
instructors who are members of the organisation. This indicates that they have not only
groups by genuine individuals who are individually affected and have sufficient interest
regarding the matter. If locus standi were to be denied from Swim Away, those they do
represent might not have an effective means of bringing the issues before the court.

My client shall now establish an argument as to how failing to consult Swim Away before
making the decision to close the pool and the Mayor made an error of law. Firstly, the
Mayor failed to acknowledge the practice which the Government body had established with
Swim away as 'the previous Mayor of Eastville consulted them when the Eastville pool was
renovated a few years ago this can be submitted that there was a history that when there
were significant changes when it came to the swimming pool, they had been heard and
consulted by the Mayor. This argument is illustrated in the case of R v Secretary of State and
Commonwealth Affairs4 as the applicant, which was a non-Partisan group who were so
involved and integral when it came to improving the quantity and quality of British aid to
other countries that they created a practice of consultation but when the Secretary of State
failed to act upon this practice and refuse A.T.P funding and go against the applicant's
wishes can be seen as unlawful, and their claim was successful.

Another method in which the Mayor made an error was by not standing by their promise of
giving Swim Away the opportunity of making their voice heard as without consultation of
what Swim Away had to argue to defend their pool as they had already made the decision of
closing down the pool. This mirrors the case of R v Devon County Council, ex parte Baker
and another; R v Durham County Council, ex parte Curtis and another 5 which shows that the
Mayor owed a duty to act fairly in making the decision of closing the pool, which duty
included a duty to consult over the proposed closure. As seen in this case, there are two
instances of the same situation, one of which's appeal was dismissed as it had been decided
that Devon had received enough consultation. However, in the case of Durham, the latter
was decided that there was little to no consultation. The opposing party in my case may
1
R (ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Limited) -v- Commissioners of Inland
Revenue [1981] UKHL 617
2
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504
3
R. v H.M Inspectorate of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1994] Env. L.R. 103
4
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386
5
R v Devon County Council, ex Parte Baker and another; R v Durham County Council, ex parte Curtis and
another [1995] 1 All ER 73
argue that our client had received early consultation even though it had not been
consultation to each individual, but they may submit that it had been enough. However, I
digress from this view as if I apply the test which the courts applied both to the Devon and
Durham case, it shows it had not been enough consultation as i) 4 months had not been
early enough of a time, especially for a swimming pool that it was going to close, ii) The
Swim away organisation had not had reasonable time to put their objections to the local
authority as four months is not enough time for Swim Away to organise and represent an
argument on behalf of 10,000 members whom all have individual sufficient interest and iii)
And most importantly none of the objections had been even considered by the local
authority which therefore shows the Mayor's error in law and unlawfulness of our clients
right to be heard. This should show that Judicial review should be granted in our case.