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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

1

R v Jogee (2016)

A
  • Overtuned principle of ‘joint enterprise’ in common law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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