Basic Consirutional Principles Flashcards
- Entick v Carrington 1765
The government gave a warrant to Carrington on behalf of the Home Secretary inorder to attempt to find any evidence to convict Entick who was a liberal dissident. Entick sued for damages and Carrington argued that he had a warrant and was acting on behalf of the state, the court ruled that the state must have a warrant issued by parliament inorder to enter someone’s property and violate their liberty. The state may do nothing but that which is expressly authorised by law, while the individual may do anything but that which is forbidden by law. And that the state in this case had no legal precedent inorder to pass a warrant.
Thoban v. Sunderland city council
Ruling on the European Communities act 1972, gives greater authority to “constitutional statues” in relation to implied repeal. They are assumed to have authority over later Acts, unless directly implied, (what constitutes a “constitutional statute is unclear)
HS2 Alliance V. Transport Secretary
Another act which questions the validity of European Communities Act 1972 in regards to “foundational constitutional statues,” they must be repealed by directly parliamentary intention alone.
Beatty v Gillbanks
There was an order binding over the leaders of the Salvation army to prevent them parading through the town for fear that it was very likely that a rival group would attack them as in previous instances.
The divisional court argued that since the Salvation Army’s march was lawful and did not attempt to cause any violence.
Therefore to stop them marching would be to punish a person doing a lawful act on the grounds that it would lead to another doing an unlawful act.
Carltona v Commissioners of Works 1943
Courts recognise the constitutional convention of government,
Carltona argued that as the order to acquire their factory for war times purposes was invalid because it was signed by a civil servant not the minister themselves,
the court recognised the convention that the civil servant was acting on behalf of the minister,
this is the Carltona Principle, the actions of civil servants are synonymous with the minister in charge of the department
Madzimbamuto V. Lardner Burke 1969
The British government passed the Southen Rhodesia Act of 1965 in protest of the new Southern Rhodesia government, stating that any laws passed by such government was unlawful.
Madzimbamuto was arrested under these laws, however despite the protests from the Southen Rhodesia government who argued this violated convention as its legislating on behalf of a colony without permission, Lord Reed however stated that despite the government acting unconstitutionally, the government was not acting unlawfully due to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
the Government sought to establish that it could initiate the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without reference to Parliament. The Supreme Court also considered whether the UK’s devolution arrangements impacted upon the Government’s capacity to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. On the question whether Article 50 could be invoked using prerogative power, the Supreme Court ruled, by an 8–3 majority, against the Government.
On the devolution issue, the Court ruled unanimously that there was no legal requirement to consult or secure the consent of devolved institutions. Despite the Sewell convention; that the government would not rule on matters affecting devolved matters with the agreement of the devolved legislature. Being put into law in the scotland act (and the welsh act,) as the consitutuonal convention does not limit parliamentary sovereignty, the act merely officially recognised the existence of the convention
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
the Government sought to establish that it could initiate the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without reference to Parliament. The Supreme Court also considered whether the UK’s devolution arrangements impacted upon the Government’s capacity to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. On the question whether Article 50 could be invoked using prerogative power, the Supreme Court ruled, by an 8–3 majority, against the Government.
On the devolution issue, the Court ruled unanimously that there was no legal requirement to consult or secure the consent of devolved institutions. Despite the Sewell convention; that the government would not rule on matters affecting devolved matters with the agreement of the devolved legislature. Being put into law in the scotland act (and the welsh act,) as the consitutuonal convention does not limit parliamentary sovereignty, the act merely officially recognised the existence of the convention
