Brainscape Deck - SCOTUK (UTF8)

Question 1

Since 2009, what has been the highest court in the U.K.?

Answer 1

Supreme Court

Question 2

Which Act of Parliament established the U.K. Supreme Court?

Answer 2

Constitutional Reform Act (2005)

Question 3

Before 2009, where had the final decisions on legal matters in the U.K. been taken?

Answer 3

House of Lords

Question 4

What name is given to the principle that judges should not be influenced by their personal or political views?

Answer 4

Judicial neutrality

Question 5

What name is given to the principle that judges should not be influenced by other branches of government, particularly the executive?

Answer 5

Judicial independence

Question 6

What name is given to the power of the judiciary to to review and sometimes reverse decisions by other branches of government?

Answer 6

Judicial review

Question 7

Judicial review is often triggered by actions by the executive that are incompatible with which piece of legislation?

Answer 7

Human Rights Act (1998)

Question 8

What Latin term literally means ‘beyond the powers’?

Answer 8

Ultra vires

Question 9

Ultra vires means that an action has been taken without the necessary what?

Answer 9

Legal authority

Question 10

Historically (i.e. prior to constitutional reform), the holder of which office had a place in the legislature, executive and judiciary?

Answer 10

Lord Chancellor

Question 11

Following the Constitutional Reform Act (2015), the holder of which office is the head of the judiciary?

Answer 11

Lord Chief Justice

Question 12

A Supreme Court Justice can only be removed in the U.K. by votes in both Houses of Parliament and for what reason?

Answer 12

Misconduct

Question 13

How many Chief Justices make up the U.K. Supreme Court?

Answer 13

12

Question 14

How many times has the Minister for Justice rejected a nomination for a Chief Justice?

Answer 14

Never

Question 15

When the Supreme Court hears criminal or civil cases, what is its role?

Answer 15

To determine whether the law has been applied correctly

Question 16

Why cannot the Supreme Court strike down Acts of Parliament?

Answer 16

Parliamentary sovereignty

Question 17

What did the Blair government do with the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998?

Answer 17

Codified it into British law through the Human Rights Act (1998)

Question 18

The Human Rights Act of 1998 gave people in the U.K. the ability to do what?

Answer 18

Defend their rights under the ECHR in UK courts

Question 19

How has Brexit changed the relationship between the U.K. and the European Court of Human Rights?

Answer 19

It hasn’t, it is not an EU institution

Question 20

If a public body such as a government department or a regulatory agency makes a decision which is incompatible with the ECHR, what three things will the Supreme Court do?

Answer 20

Cancel the decision, send the decision back to the relevant authority to be made again and award compensation where necessary, just and appropriate

Question 21

What happened in the case of AM Zimbabwe v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2020?

Answer 21

A Zimbabwean citizen legally settled in the UK was to be deported following criminal convictions but he was HIV positive and unable to access medication if deported. The SCOTUK granted him the right to appeal under Article 3 of the HRA (freedom from inhumane treatment)

Question 22

What does it mean if legislation from parliament is declared incompatible with the HRA (under section 4)?

Answer 22

The law will not change automatically but should be changed and although the government could choose to ignore this ruling this is highly unlikely

Question 23

Up to 2022 how many declarations of incompatability were made and what has happened in these cases?

Answer 23

46 declarations have been made, 10 have been overturned by appeal, two are undergoing appeal and 34 have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed by government

Question 24

Summarise the ‘Belmarsh’ case - A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)

Answer 24

Following 9/11 the Anti-terrorism, the Crime and Security Act (2001) was passed, leading to foreign nationals being detained indefinitely without charge at Belmarsh prison

Question 25

What was the decision in the ‘Belmarsh’ case - A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)?

Answer 25

The court ruled 8-1 that detention under the ATCS Act was incompatible with articles 5 (right to liberty) and 14 (protection against discrimination) of the HRA

Question 26

What was the significance of the ‘Belmarsh’ case - A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)?

Answer 26

Parliament could have ignored the judgement (sovereignty of primary legislation), but didn’t - the HRA provided a moral rather than legal check on the legislature

Question 27

Summarise the case of Treasury v Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (2010)

Answer 27

Three men suspected of fundraising for Al-Qaeda (but facing no charges) had their assets frozen

Question 28

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Treasury v Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (2010)?

Answer 28

Ruled 6-1 that the government had acted ultra vires (upholding High Court verdict that the government had appealed)

Question 29

What was the significance of the case of Treasury v Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (2010)?

Answer 29

The government passed the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act (2010) in just four days, showing the importance of judicial review but also of parliamentary sovereignty

Question 30

Summarise the case of R v Chaytor and others (2010)

Answer 30

Three Labour MPs - David Chaytor (false accounting), Jim Devine (fraud) and Elliot Morley (dishonesty) were sentenced to prison for crimes relating to the parliamentary expenses scandal but claimed protection under parliamentary privilege

Question 31

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in R v Chaytor and others (2010)?

Answer 31

Upheld the Court of Appeal decision in dismissing the appellants’ case on the basis that there is no basis in law for regarding something that would be a crime outside of parliament as protected by parliamentary privilege

Question 32

What was the significance of the case of R v Chaytor and others (2010)?

Answer 32

Showed the limit of parliamentary privilege - limited to ‘proceedings of the House’, providing no further immunity to prosecution

Question 33

Summarise the case of Evans vs Attorney General (2015)

Answer 33

Guardian journalist Rob Evans became aware of letters written by the then Prince Charles to government ministers, breaching politcal neutrality and the government refused his request to have them published under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)

Question 34

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Evans vs Attorney General (2015)?

Answer 34

Ruled 5-2 that the Attorney-General did not have the right to veto the disclosure of the letters and the letters were disclosed

Question 35

What was the significance of the case of Evans vs Attorney General (2015)?

Answer 35

There is a constitutional impact as even senior members of the Royal Family are not protected from disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act if such disclosures are in the public interest

Question 36

Summarise the case of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)

Answer 36

Gina Miller argued that Parliament had to consent to triggering Article 50 (starting the process of the UK withdrawing from the EU

Question 37

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)?

Answer 37

Upheld High Court verdict (8-3) that parliamentary consent was required because it reversed the European Communities Act (1972)

Question 38

What was the significance of the case of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)?

Answer 38

The decision by the Supreme Court delayed the process of triggering Article 50 but its constitutional significance is that treaties entered into by statute law can only be amended by the same mechanism

Question 39

Summarise the case of Unison v Lord Chancellor (2017)

Answer 39

The government introduced a Fees Order in 2013, that meant that some of the cost of employment tribunals was transferred to the person bringing the claim to prevent claims not based on merit - cases declined by 79% over 3 years

Question 40

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Unison v Lord Chancellor (2017)?

Answer 40

The Fees Order was ultra vires and unlawful under statute law because it prevented access to justice, which is inherent under the rule of law

Question 41

What was the significance of the case of Unison v Lord Chancellor (2017)?

Answer 41

Dominic Raab, Justice Secretary, announced that they would stop taking fees immediately, reimburse claimants back to 2013 (œ32m) and the SCOTUK acted as a check on the MoJ using its power of judicial review - also highlights importance of acces points (courts) for pressure groups fighting for the rights of citizens

Question 42

Summarise the case of Steinfield and Keiden v Home Secretary (2018)

Answer 42

One couple Rebecca Steinfield and Charles Keiden launched a judicial review to challenge the fact that after the Civil Partnerships Act (2004) and Same-Sex Marriage Act (2013) homosexual couples get married by heterosexual ones could not enter civil partnership

Question 43

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Steinfield and Keiden v Home Secretary (2018) ?

Answer 43

Overturned the High Court decision to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the CPA was incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR - although precluding heterosexual couples from civil partnerships had been legitimate and proportionate current procedures were now ultra vires

Question 44

What was the significance of the case of Steinfield and Keiden v Home Secretary (2018)?

Answer 44

The government changed the CPA to allow heterosexual couples to enter into a civil partnership - shows the SCOTUK recognising the deficiency of a statute law, the declaration of incompatability with the EHCR put pressure on the government to amend this

Question 45

Summarise the case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (2018)

Answer 45

Gareth Lee, a volunteer for an LGBT organisation entered a cake shop and ordered a cake with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’. The proprietor later telephoned to say the Christian owners would not print the cake due to their religious beliefs

Question 46

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (2018)?

Answer 46

The bakery had not discriminated against Lee as they could not know his orientation (heterosexuals may support gay marriage), while they could not refuse to serve Mr Lee because of his beliefs, they could not be obliged to take an action against their political beliefs

Question 47

What was the significance of the case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (2018)?

Answer 47

The bakery called the decision a victory for freedom of speech and religious expression. It became one of judicial review because the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Northern Irish Executive supported the bakery - likely to be considered in future cases where opposing parties claim freedom of expression

Question 48

What is prorogation?

Answer 48

The process by which a Parliament comes to an end - business stops and bills in process die, done by a monarch on the explicit advice of the prime minister

Question 49

Summarise the case of Miller v Prime Minister (2019)

Answer 49

Queen Elizabeth II prorogued parliament on 28th of August 2019 on the advice of PM Boris Johnson. This lasted for three weeks (when a week is more normal), with some arguing this was to prevent debate on the Brexit deal and put pressure on accepting it before the 31st of October extended Article 50 deadline

Question 50

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Miller v Prime Minister (2019)?

Answer 50

After the Scottish courts ruled that it was unlawful and the High Court ruled that it was non-justiciable (a political issue, rather than a legal one), the SCOTUK unanimously ruled there was no justification for prorogation and therefore unlawful

Question 51

What was the significance of the case of Miller v Prime Minister (2019)?

Answer 51

The Speaker of the HoD (John Bercow) immediately announced he was preparing to resume the parliamentary session and the SCOTUK showed a willingness to rule on PM’s royal prerogative powers if they undermined representative democracy, setting an important legal precedent

Question 52

Summarise the case of Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer (2024)

Answer 52

Workers are protected from dismissal for strike action under ECHR/HRA. The law has loopholes and one worker, Mercer, was suspended in 2019 from the charity she worked for during planned strike action. Unison took up her case after the appeal went to the SC.

Question 53

What was the decision of the SCOTUK in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer (2024)?

Answer 53

Mercer?s suspension was unlawful. Employers under the law are able to impose sanctions short of dismissal which ?legitimises unfair and unreasonable conduct by employers?.

Question 54

What was the significance of the case of Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer (2024)?

Answer 54

Ruled that this puts the UK in breach of the ECHR, embarrassed the government (who tried to get the case struck out of the Appeals Court, but does not limit Parliament or force it to change the law as Parliament remains sovereign.

Question 55

How did the case of Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer (2024) uphold rights?

Answer 55

The SC referenced the ?right to strike? 18 times in their judgement, which may support the view that the Court has an important role in protecting rights, but also in pressurising the government to alter existing legislation that is not in line with the ECHR.