The use of solar power in the UK has been on the rise since 2010. Businesses have thrived, and the UK was the first country to come up with laws regarding the regulation and use of solar energy. Companies are bound to operate under its mandate and have to seek permission in operating at specific areas. The need for solar power is high as it is cost-effective in the long-term. The quality of the solar panels is checked so that low quality solar panels are not dumped in people’s homes, resulting from increasing in e-waste. In our case here, SPS, which stands for Solar Panels (Standards) Act of 2019, determines how companies dealing with the manufacture and installation of solar energy operate within the UK.
The parliament formed a commission i.e., Solar Panels Commission, which was to regulate the entire industry. Under this act, which is fictitious for this assignment, the aim was to elevate the standard of solar panels in circulation within the UK. In this case, permits have to be granted by the SPC. Businesses are demanded to apply early in advance to receive accreditation from the commission. If the commission denies the application, then the company cannot operate either wholly or in a particular area where it has been barred from operating. This is a similar case here. SPC failed to renew the license for UP (Universal Panels) while at the same time giving license to PRU (PanelsRUs). However, this issue has become complicated for both CP (Consumer Protect) and UP. This is due to complaints of low-quality solar panels being circulated by PU. Therefore, these two groups might consider seeking a judicial review.
The process of a judicial review seeks to examine public bodies’ decisions and determine whether the existing laws and regulations were followed. However, even if any company seeks a judicial review, it won’t change the decisions made by the public body. However, if the company wins the judicial review, then the previous permit or decision is nullified, and the application is open once again.
Grounds for a JR for UP and CP
Illegality
Illegality in power use would be an issue to consider for Universal Panels. The UK government permits all public bodies only to make use of their powers in the right manner. They have to follow an act of parliament or can also follow the rules, orders ad regulations which are secondary and not from an Act. Once any public body fails to adhere to the law as demanded, the decisions that it makes becomes unlawful. Many restrictions have been made to ensure that all rules are followed. In our case here, the UP applied for a renewal of a license to the SPC. SPC holds all the powers to determine whether UP can be allowed to operate in the same area or not. However, failing to renew the license for them was within their mandated right under the law i.e., the Solar Panels Standards Act. The only issue here is permitting a company which had substandard products to enter into the market. The commission should have done a thorough quality check on its products and its previous reputation before they could consider them fit for the task.
The Consumer Protect can seek a judicial review under the pretext that the permission of the PRU Company to operate with substandard solar panels was illegal. Consumer Protect is a body that caters to the needs of the public in terms of product quality. Consumers can complain to it, and then it can take action if the situation warrants them, which is the same case as that of PRU. The UK is seeking to promote green energy, and having substandard products for green energy projects would not be beneficial in the process. The decision to even allow this company is illegal by itself since the SPC policy did not warrant it. They refused to permit UP under this claim but still allowed PRU to operate, which can be considered to be illegal.
Proportionality and irrationality
During a judicial review, judges can quash any decision that had been approved earlier by the public body if they find it irrational. Irrationality in decision making emerges when there lack no reasonable grounds. On proportionality concept, two major competing issues are considered that are the interests of the state and that of an individual or body. It demands for the importance of the decision to be weighed upon as it seeks to attain the aim or goals of the state. It also checks on whether the aim is important to ignore the effects it has on another individual.
SPC did not seem to be rational enough when making their decision regarding the two companies. At one point, it argued that under the SPC policies, the countryside that the Universal Panels Company operated before had an excess in solar panels, which made the landscape was being ruined by them. Such was the irrational decision they made. If they had stayed put on that decision and not allow any other company to operate in the same area, then it would have been considered a rational decision, and UP could not think of seeking for a judicial review. Allowing another company to operate in the same area would be considered irrational. In addition, the company had invested previously with the hope of clinching the same permit for the area. They presented enough evidence demonstrating their product quality. However, this did not go as planned. Allowing for the PRU Company to operate meant that they would lose their investment, which is one of the reasons they should have considered.
In addition, when checking the proportionality of allowing the new company to operate, it did not seek to pursue green energy goals. Instead, it chocked its efforts since it supplied substandard products. The advantages could not outweigh the disadvantages.
Unfairness
The UK government demands all public bodies to remain impartial in their activities. They should not make decisions which oppose some for the benefit of others. Granting a permit to PRU by the SPC seems to be quite unfair, whether in the process of decision making or the eventual outcome. First and foremost, the SPC did not check for product quality, and it seems to have been bound to deny Universal Panels the need to continue operating in East Midlands. Once the decisions were made, then people started raising complaints to CP on product quality. To make matters worse, the former managing director for PRU was the current SPC officer. By the time he gave a permit to PRU, he still held shares in the company, and once the decision had been made, it meant that his company would benefit financially. Therefore, he might have helped the company to obtain their permit and refusing to renew the permit for UP as a result. From this perspective, the UP can have a strong argument against such a decision, and the SPC officer would have to be investigated.
The judicial review judges will then make a decision concerning the matter. If they find a concrete reason to nullify the SPC’s decision to give permit to the company i.e., UP and CP will have some decisions to make. For instance, UP had invested heavily in the East Midlands, and I would be reasonable to seek for a renewal of the permit. In addition, if there was unfairness or injustice involved within the SPC, it can sue it for damages because it should have faced huge losses over the same period. The CP, on its part, can take PRU and SRC to court to seek compensation for the people who were given substandard products.
To sum up, the PRU seems to have won the permit illegally and with unfairness. Having an officer who owns shares within the company could have given it a boost. The UP and CP can sue the company and the SPC for damages incurred due to low-quality products.
Question 2
In the European convention on human rights’ article 10, it gives European citizens the freedom of information and expression. However, this law is subject to various restrictions which are regarded to be a necessity in any democratic society. It gives one the liberty to hold information, impart, and receive ideas and information. Section one of article 10 states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”
Here, it is stipulating the notion of individual rights to expression. Dee Martin, as an individual, is within her right to express her own opinions to the public. The right gives every European citizen the freedom to express their views without fear, including demonstrations and protests as permitted under a democracy. One can even publish leaflets, books, and articles expressing his/her views. Social media and mainstream broadcasts such as TVs and radios, one can express their views with the aim of sending the message to the public who, on their part, have the freedom to choose to believe or not. It can also be expressed in public gatherings and works of art. In our case here, Dee Martin had been invited for a talk as a speaker in the ‘Environmentalists Against Fracking’ campaign in a Student’s Union in the University of Appletown. The students are within their right to form an ‘Environmentalists Against Fracking’ campaign group and are free to air their views to the public. This is the same case to Dee. Giving a talk to the students would be expressing his right to freedom of speech and expression or information. Hence, the authorities needed not to await him after the talk to arrest and raise charges on him.
In section 2, it refers to the rights and responsibilities which accompany this right, which gives the possibility of interference by the authorities. The authorities under the second section have the right to impart restrictions and even penalties to those who utilize this right unlawfully. However, a major feature in Article 10(2) known as ‘triple test’ can reduce the possibility of any interference when expressing this right. Normally, the authorities are permitted to exercise interference based on strict conditions which are prescribed by the law. The interference need to bear a specific legitimate aim and must also be a necessity in a democratic society. However, if these conditions are not met, it means that the authorities are interfering with the rights of individuals unlawfully, which is uncharacteristic in a democratic society.
In our case here, the UK government would find it hard to express tits reasons for interfering with Dee’s right to expression. Acting upon restricting this right, the government must be seeking to prevent crime or disorder, protect morals or health, protect the territorial integrity and national security. Also, one might be restricted in order to bar disclosure of information obtained in confidence. It can also be due to the need to protect the reputations and rights of other people. Well, educating the masses about the impacts of fracking does not fall under these reasons for interference of the freedom of the right to expression. However, his talk is meant to express knowledge that would protect the lives of the masses since the contamination of the groundwater would be detrimental for those utilizing it. Their health would be impacted negatively, and raising awareness would allow for solutions to be sought.