4.1b SC case studies Flashcards
1
Q
2
Describe the Belmarsch case (2004)
not an SC case
A
- 2004, Blair Government used Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act to hold foreign terorirst suspects indefinitely without trial
- Law Lords deemed this discriminatory in accordance with ECHR as British terrorist suspects were not treated the same
2
Q
4
Describe the impact of the ‘Belmarsch 9’ case (2004)
A
- Government accepted ruling and detainees released
- Yet soon passed Prevention of Terorrism Act 2005 to monitor whereabouts of foriegn terrorist suspects using control orders
- Declaration of incompatibility can have significant moral influence
- Yet executive’s ability to circumvent judiciary remains great
3
Q
2
HJ and HT v Home Secretary (2010)
A
- Two homosexual men from Iran and Cameroon claimed asylum in UK as they would be persecuted at home
- SC ruled that Home Office could not reject asylum claim as sexual orientation cannot be concealed
4
Q
3
HM Treasury v Ahmed (2010)
A
- SC ruled that government could not freeze assets of terrorist suspects through secondary legislation
- infringed presumption of innocence inherent in common law and the HRA
- Brown passed Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010 to circumvent ruling
5
Q
4
Describe Radamacher v Granatino (2010)
A
- High profile divorce case
- 8 male justices upheld prenuptial agreements as legally binding
- Lord Hale dissented as women would lose out
- Example of limits to judicial neutrality
6
Q
4
Describe Al Rawi v Security Service (2011)
A
- Former detainees of Guantanamo Bay claimed that British security services shared responsibility for their imprisonment and ill-treatment
- Liberty represented case
- SC ruled in favour of detainees
- Argued that such action was departure from natural justice inherent in common law
7
Q
2
Describe Nickilson v Ministry of Justice 2014
A
- SC supported government position that ECHR article 8 (right to private life) could not be used as means of justifying assisted suicide
- Suicide Act 1961 prevented this - power of statute law
8
Q
2
P v Cheshire West and Cheshire Council (2014)
A
- Case concerned whether living arrangements made for mentally incapacitated persons amounted to deprivation of liberty
- SC argued that social services must not limit personal freedom of individual
9
Q
2
‘Black Spider’ memos (2015)
A
- SC ruled that journalist Rob Evans could see letters and memos written by Prince of Wales after government refusal
- Cited FOI Act 2000
10
Q
1
R v Jogee (2016)
A
- Overtuned principle of ‘joint enterprise’ in common law
11
Q
3
R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017)
A
- Concerned government introdcution of employment tribunal fees
- SC agreed that fees risked denying justice to those on low incomes
- Upheld rule of law and fees not needed
12
Q
4
Miller I (2017)
A
- Gina Miller funded case through crowdfunding
- SC ruled that Brexit Secretary could not trigger Article 50 through royal prerogative
- Parliamentary approval required (majority of 384 in HoC)
- Also ruled that only UK Parliament could confirm EU withdrawal, not devolved bodies
13
Q
3
Miller II (2019)
A
- Johnson announced prorogation of Parliament for 5 weeks to force through no-deal Brexit
- 11 SC justices unanimously ruled that advice to Queen was unlawful as it prevented Parliament from carrying out constitutional functions without reasonable justification
- annulled prorogation - claimed it never happened
14
Q
2
UK Withdrawal from the EU (Scotland Bill) (2018)
A
- Bill sought to reaffirm that agricultural and fishing rights would be returned to UK following EU withdrawal
- SC ruled that areas outside of Scottish Parliament
15
Q
4
AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for Home Department (2020)
A
- SC ruled that Home Office could not deport individual convicted of serious offences back to Zimbabwe
- Individual had HIV and life would likely be shortened in ZImbabwe where he would not recieve adequate treatment
- Infringement of ECHR Article 3 (right to prohibition from torture)
- Highlights tension between collective and individual rights
16
Q
3
Begum v Home Secretary (2021)
A
- 2019, Sajid Javid (Home Sec) stripped her of British citizenship on grounds that she was a national security threat
- 2020, Court of Appeal ruled that Begum had right to return to UK to appeal judgement
- 2021, SC overturned ruling, stating that the right to a fair hearing did not outweigh considerations of public safety (collective v individual right)
17
Q
2
Describe the SC ruling on the Rwanda Asylum seeker’s plan (2023)
A
- SC ruled unanimously that Rwanda scheme was incompatible with Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture) among others as Rwanda was not a ‘safe’ country
- Government passed Safety of Rwanda Act to legally determine Rwanda as a ‘safe’ country
18
Q
Name the high profile divorce case
A
Radamacher v Granatino 2010
