Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law and Government : Year 2 Term 1 > All the other crap > Flashcards

All the other crap Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
U.S. Government Basics flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards AP® U.S. Government flashcards MPRE flashcards American Government 101 flashcards
1
Q

What is involved in proportionality?

A

= state action must be justified

  • must be suitable to achieve aims
  • weighing and balancing of competing interests
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Where is the authority for Proportionality?

A 
Art 5(4) TEU
as a general principle of EU law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How do the EctHR interpret proportionality?

A

Whether an infringement of a qualified right is ‘necessary in a democratic society’

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

What sort of infringements does proportionality effect?

A

Infringements of EU law, not yet stand along ground of review for domestic law although seems to be a emerging one

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

What makes this the most far reaching and therefore controversial ground of review?

A

In some ways it looks at the merits of the decision.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What do situations would see proportionality in UK courts?

A
  • challenges to UK public authority on grounds of breach of EU law
  • Claim for JR might question decision of EU institution : require reference to ECJ
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When would proportionality arise in the EU?

A

JR of EU institutions by ECJ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Where is the proportionality test set out in EU law?

A

R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Fedesa [1990]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Essentially what is the Fedesa test for proportionality?

A

That it is only illegal if it is manifestly inappropriate

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

Elements of the Fedesa test?

A
  • appropriate and necessary
  • objectives legitimate
  • least onerous option
  • not disproportionate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

De Burca lays out the test in which 3 questions?

A

1) is the measure suitable to achieve a legitimate aim?
2) is the measure necessary to achieve that aim?
3) Does the measure have an executive effect on the applicants interest?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What sections of the HRA 1998 bring proportionality into domestic law?

A
  • s 6(1)

and

s2(1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does section 6(1) of the HRA say?

A

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does s2(1) of the HRA say?

A

UK courts ‘must take into account’ decisions of ECtHR so far as “it is relevant to the proceedings”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the Ullah principle?

A

That it is the duty of national courts to keep pace with the decisions of Strasbourg, no more and no less.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What case gives guidance on when the ECHRA/HRA is engaged?

A

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury No 2

by Lord Sumption

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What was said in the case of Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (no2) by Lord Sumption?

A

Lord Sumption:

analysis factual case to see:

  • was objective sufficiently important to justify limitation
  • rationally connected to objective
  • could less intrusive means be used
  • was there a fair balance between right of individual and good of the community
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Which case suggests that proportionality exists out with EU law as a UK common law ground?

A

R (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v SoS for the Enviroment, Transport and the Regions (2001)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Which Lord in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v SoS for the Enviroment, Transport and the Regions (2001) suggested proportionality exists as a common law ground?

A

Lord Slynn: exists for EU law but also with acts subject to domestic law

NOT PART OF THE RATIO, SUGGESTION ONLY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What other case suggests that the heightened scrutiny test suggested in Smith should be ignored in fa your of common law proportionality?

A

R (Daly) v SoS for the Home Department 2001

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What were the facts of R (Daly) v SoS for the Home Department 2001?

A

That a prisoner took a case against the prison for reading his letters as they were to his solicitor and therefore argued it went against his right to legal advice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the main feature of proportionality R (daly) v SoS for the Home Department suggests should be used?

A
  • reviewing whether interests were balanced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What case highlights the advantages of proportionality?

A

Kennedy v Charity Commissioner (2014)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What did Lord Mance say in Kennedy v Charity Commissioner?

A
  • same as unreasonableness as weighs and balances with reference to the context.
  • proportionality is a more structured and stable means of review.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is the most important case and most recent for suggesting the emergence of proportionality into UK law?

A

Pham v Home Secretary (2015)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What were the facts of Pham v Home Secretary (2015)?

A

Vietnamese national getting UK citizenship taken away, at the same tim Vietnam said he had no nationality with them.
He said EU law prevented him becoming stateless as his EU citizenship was at stake

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What does Lord Mance say in Pham v Home Secretary?

A

That proportionality be both available and useful as a domestic ground of review.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What limitations to proportionality does Lord Mance underline in Pham v Home Secretary?

A
  • context still determines intensity of review

- judicial restraint not the test itself determines how far it goes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Arguments against proportionality?

A
  • too potent a weapon
  • puts judges into role of assessing merits
  • should we really have both Wednesbury and proportionality? Or get rid of one or another?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

3 Sources of Rights in the UK

A
  • Common law
  • Convention and HRA
  • EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Examples of common law rights

A
  • confidential legal advice
  • freedom of expression
  • access to the courts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

The meaning of anxious scrutiny is given in which two cases?

A

R v Ministry of Defence ex part Smith (1996)

and

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Brind 1991

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is said on the matter of courts approach to rights in R v Ministry of Defence ex part Smith 1996?

A
  • that it means courts won’t be very deferential:

- they will not over look minor flaws

34
Q

What does the case of R v Secretary for the Home Department ex p Brind (1991) say about courts approach to rights cases?

A
  • close scrutiny where concerns interference of a fundamental right.
  • would a reasonable SoS reasonably have made same decision.
35
Q

What is importance about exp Brind and exp Smith?

A

Both are pre HRA but after signing ECHR

36
Q

What does R v SoS for the Home Deparment ex part Brind (1991) say about what needs to be present when an infringement of a right occurs?

A
  • must be justifiable so but be sound reasons presented.
37
Q

What does R v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith (1996) say needs to have with larger inferences?

A

The larger the interference the greater the justification the court will require before it is satisfied the decision is reasonable

38
Q

Common law should be recongised distinctly even when reaching same goal as convention

A

Lord Cook

R (Daly) v SoS for the Home Department (2010)

39
Q

Anxious scrutiny a step toward proportionality?

A
  • both to be used on rights based claims

- both involve high level of scrutiny

40
Q

What common law grounds of review are now also covered by s6(1) of the HRA?

A
  • irrationality
  • illegality
  • irregularity
41
Q

How do you argue a s6(1) case?

A
  • base JR on s6(1) saying it has been breached

- then show what convention right is breached

42
Q

Remember the Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (2013) test

A
  • sufficiently important
  • rational connected to objective
  • least intrusive
  • fair balance
43
Q

Proportionality in domestic law use…

A

Pham

44
Q

Proportionality in ECHR or HR use…

A

Bank Mellat

45
Q

Proportionality in other EU Law use…

A

Fedesa

46
Q

Common law often extends beyond the convention

A

Simm and Daly

47
Q

Authority for legitimate expectation being a thing

A

Nadarajah v Sos for the Home Department 2005

48
Q

What did Nadarajah v SoS for the Home Department 2005 say when defining legitimate expectations?

A
  • where promise or practice exists that proposes how they are going to act the law requires this to be honoured unless there is good reason not to
49
Q

Principle behind legitimate expectation

Nadarajah v SoS for the Home DEPARTMENT (2005)

A

Fairness

+ requirement of good admin (bodies should deal straightforwardly and consistently)

50
Q

Legitimate Expectations

A

EU LAW

51
Q

Legitimate Expectations taken into UK law by…

A

R (Nadarajah) v SoS for the Home Department (2005)

52
Q

The balance that needs to be struck with legitimate expectations

A

Institutional autonomy (gov should be able to change policy( v Public Interest (legal certainty + fairness + consistency)

53
Q

Questions court must ask:

A

1) What was person entitled to expect

2) What would the Public authority have to do to protect this expectation?

54
Q

What two strands follow the question : what was it legitimate for them to expect?

A

1) Practice/ promise

2) Reliance/ knowledge

55
Q

If they have a legitimate expectation what question must follow?

A

Have they acted in reliance of this expectation e.g. structured their lifes, spent money

56
Q

What other sub question must you ask for legitimate expectation?

A

Did they have fully knowledge of the promise/ practice?

57
Q

What would the authority have to do to protect expectation?

A
  • depends on if procedural or substantive expectation
58
Q

Key case for establishing legitimate expectation?

A

GCHQ

59
Q

Where does the GCHQ case say legitimate expectation arises?

A

Where something had previously been allowed to be enjoyed and there is legitimate expectation for this to continue, need rational grounds for withdrawing it

60
Q

Substantive legitimate expectation: GCHQ

A
  • received assurances from the decision maker
61
Q

General practice unlikely to give rise to substantive legitimate expectation because…?

A
  • specifcity required
  • direct at some group or individual
  • policy’s continuance assured
62
Q

Specificity, narrow group and assurance of continutation can be seen to be needed by which case?

A

R (Niazi) v SoS for the Home Department (2008)

63
Q

What quality does the representation/ assurances need to be?

A
  • clear
  • unambiguous
  • devoid of qualifications
64
Q

What case tells us assurances must be clear, unambiguous and devoid of qualifications?

A

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte MFK Underwriting Agencies 1990

65
Q

Detrimental reliance is almost always needed for legitimate expectation

A

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex part Begbie 2000

(not make or break but very convincing)

66
Q

Does the requirement in Scotland and England differ when it comes to knowledge of the expectation?

A

Yes.

67
Q

What is the position regarding knowledge in England?

A

No need for knowledge. Consistency is the key.

R (Rashid) v SoS of the Home Department 2005

68
Q

What case gives the position in Scotland for knowledge?

A

DM v SoS for the Home Department 2014

69
Q

What does DM v SoS for the Home Department say on the requirement of knowledge?

A

Essential to have knowledge

70
Q

Does a clear unambiguous representation mean legitimate expectation automatically occurs?

A

No. All circumstances must be considered

R v SoS for Education and Employment ex part Begbie (2000)

Case where told she could continue on at school until 18 the policy changed.

71
Q

Is everything justifiable under pursuit of fairness?

A

Some things will always be deferred.

R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM 2008
- QU OF REFERENDUM TOO POLITICAL SO COURT WOULDN’T GO TERE

72
Q

Right to make representation?

A

Only if legitimate procedural expectation

  • Schmidt v SoS for Home Affairs 1969
73
Q

Interest of good admin to follow a promised procedure unless it interferes with statutory duty

A

Attorney- General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu (1983)

74
Q

Key case for looking at substantive legitimate expectations

A

R v North and East Devonshire Health Authority , ex parte Coughlan (2001)

75
Q

Introduces legitimate expectation of consultation

A

R v North and Est Devonshire Health Authority ex part Coughlan 2001

76
Q

Where substantive expectation exists the court will stop looking at unreasonableness and start looking at what?

A

Whether to do anything but the expectation will amount to an abuse of power

R v North and East Devonshire Health Authority ex part Coughlan (2001)

77
Q

What counts a s good reason to depart from legitimate expectation?

A
  • where it is their legal duty to take another course of action
  • proportionate response
  • legitimate aim
78
Q

What case and judge was this?

A

LJ Laws,

Nadarajah v SoS for the Home Department 2005

79
Q

Kennedy v Charity Commission (Sos for State ect.)

A
  • journalist made request for freedom of info
  • protected under freedom of information act s 32(2)
  • Decided that statute intended a full exception but that any arguments made under Art 10 could be made under common law principles of openness and transparency.
80
Q

Pham: reasonableness/ proportionality?

A

Lord Mance saw no difference between EU proportionality test and domestic test of reasonableness in this case.
Recent expansions of reasonableness have incorporated elements of proportionality.

81
Q

Adams v Scottish Ministers 2004

A

challanged on grounds that it went beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Ministers

82
Q

R v Ministry of Defence ex part Smith on wednesbury unreasonableness

A

must be beyond the scope of decisions open to a reasonable deacons maker
- When rights are concerned scrutiny more intense.

Law and Government : Year 2 Term 1 (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions