{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028985507246376812, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012422360248447204, 'mean_word_length': 4.902439024390244, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Common Law Proportionality

1. The Alconbury case,1 rather like Kebilene before it,2 threatened something radical and then delivered something moderate. But behind the puff of smoke in which the Art. 6 challenge to the domestic planning system disappeared, there came in Alconbury an important recognition of ways in which the common law of judicial review had matured. Those comments embraced both error of fact and proportionality. As to the latter, Lord Slynn (at [51]) said this: