Course of Action — Fundamental Concepts

Fundamental Concepts

Translate the situation into a decision

Write down the harm or problem, the people affected and the authority making the decision. A proposed action must connect to these facts. A response to unreliable drinking water, for example, should protect users and establish the source of contamination; a publicity campaign by itself cannot establish that the water is safe.

Test the proposed response

Relevance asks whether the action addresses the stated problem. Feasibility asks whether the actor has the authority, resources and time required. Proportionality compares the burden imposed with the seriousness and likelihood of harm. Evidence asks whether the response depends on an allegation that has not yet been established.

These tests interact. A temporary restriction may be justified while testing proceeds if a credible serious risk exists. The same restriction may become excessive if maintained after contrary evidence without review. Investigation is valuable, but it should not become a reason to leave people exposed to an urgent preventable danger.

Compare competing priorities

In a hypothetical school-bus complaint, immediate inspection and a safe replacement service may protect children while preserving access to school. Continuing the service unchanged prioritises convenience but leaves the reported risk unresolved. Cancelling the entire transport network indefinitely could impose a wider burden than the evidence supports.

The strongest option is conditional on the facts supplied. Identify the follow-up test, review point or correction mechanism that makes a temporary decision accountable. Do not invent a legal power, budget or finding to rescue an otherwise unsupported option.