<P> An apt example is the case of R. v. Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Cheblak (1991). This case involved the detention of a foreign citizen living in the UK on the ground of it "being conducive to the public good" under section 18 (1) (b) of the Immigration Act 1971 as his presence would cause an unacceptable national security risk . The court rejected the application for judicial review on the ground that such matters were best left to the government . It would only intervene if the Secretary of State "in any way overstepped the limitations upon his authority which are imposed by the law" or acted in bad faith . </P> <P> In the Singapore context, there appears to be some implicit suggestion that the light touch test applies to certain cases . The 1988 case of Re Siah Mooi Guat concerning Singapore's immigration policy is illustrative . The applicant was an immigrant denied entry under section 8 (3) (k) of the Immigration Act, as the Minister for Home Affairs considered her an "undesirable immigrant" based on certain confidential information that had been supplied to the Ministry . The issue was whether there was a basis upon which the Minister could have properly rejected the applicant's appeal, otherwise it might amount to Wednesbury unreasonableness . The GCHQ test of irrationality was cited but it seems that a higher level of scrutiny was exercised . The court declined to require the Minister to disclose the information he had relied on, holding that "any information received by the Minister about an alien from any government through official or diplomatic channels, would be information which would not be in the public interest to disclose" and that it was for the Minister and not the court to decide whether disclosure was in the public interest . Ultimately, the Minister "had given the applicant's case his personal consideration, and there was no evidence to show that he had acted unfairly". Thus, similar to Cheblak, as long as the Minister had given consideration to the applicant's appeal, the court was reluctant to question the decision as immigration matters are best left to the Government . </P> <P> In Re Wong Sin Yee (2007), the applicant had been detained without trial under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for involvement in criminal activities on the ground that the detention was in the interests of public safety, peace and good order . The High Court concluded that the judicial process was unsuitable for reaching decisions on questions of public safety, peace and good order, and that therefore it was "in no position to hold that it has been established that the Minister's exercise of discretion was irrational in the Wednesbury sense". Therefore, for sensitive issues pertaining to certain government policies in Singapore, it can be inferred that a high threshold is required to find a decision unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense . Where a non-justiciable issue is involved, even where it curtails fundamental liberties, courts will defer to the executive assessment of what the public order or interest demands . </P> <P> In the UK, where human rights protected by the ECHR are prima facie infringed, the courts apply a doctrine of proportionality in place of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test . Additionally, proportionality is applied in respect of European Union law . Given these developments, the role of Wednesbury in ordinary administrative law cases has been questioned . It has been suggested that proportionality should supplant unreasonableness as a ground of review . The former has occasionally been regarded as superior to Wednesbury unreasonableness since its "emphasis on balance and justification is taken to offer' a more structured methodology"'. Alternatively, it has been suggested that proportionality should merge with Wednesbury unreasonableness . It is said to share much in common with the reasonableness doctrine, as "proportionality in the sense of achieving a' fair balance' has always been an aspect of unreasonableness". As Lord Slynn of Hadley stated in R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd .) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2001), "trying to keep the Wednesbury principle and proportionality in separate compartments seems...to be unnecessary and confusing". This may cause the "coherence and comprehensibility" of judicial review to suffer . In any event, as Lord Justice of Appeal John Dyson observed in R. (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v. Secretary of State for Defence (2003), "the Wednesbury test is moving closer to proportionality and in some cases it is not possible to see any daylight between the two tests...(T) he result that follows will often be the same whether the test that is applied is proportionality or Wednesbury unreasonableness". However, English courts have been cautious about applying proportionality as it is "often understood to bring courts much closer to reviewing the merits of a decision" than is permitted by the Wednesbury test . </P>

Nottinghamshire county council v secretary of state for the environment