·         Not all decisions made by the government can be reviewed or appealed under public law. There are government actions that are placed beyond the general reach of administrative and constitutional law.

o   Decisions to go to war, certain defence activities, spying and intelligence work, vice-regal functions (involving the Queen’s representatives) and decisions of a ‘political’ nature are examples of the kinds of issues going beyond the scope of review and appeal.

·         It is sometimes not clear whether a decision has been made by ‘government’ or some other entity. For example ‘hybrid’ organisations such as Government Owned Corporations (GOCs) might have largely private administrative structures taking them outside administrative law’s jurisdiction (area of authority).

·         If a ‘public officer’ has made a decision then this will almost certainly come within the scope of an administrative review or appeal.

·         In general administrative and constitutional law action requires that there be a ‘decision’ before a challenge can be mounted. At first glance a decision might seem easy to identify. We think of letters where the government informs us of outcomes, stamped documents that appear to represent a decision and statements made at hearings. Yet the following are examples of announcements and actions that might not amount to a reviewable decision:

o   a document giving an interim summary of the decision-maker’s thinking;

o   the start of a noticeable change in departmental strategy;

o   a letter detailing the cessation of a program of funding;

o   the agency’s implementation of an election promise; or

o   a written recommendation made by a department head.

·         Similarly action or inaction might not look like a ‘decision’ in a formal sense but will be so in some cases. A failure to consider material or omitting to include certain individuals in a grant scheme might be ‘decisions’ that can be reviewed depending upon the circumstances.