Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Factortame Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Transport (1991)
A
- case: Challenge to UK law restricting foreign vessels under EU law.
- ECJ ruled UK courts must display national legislation conflicting with EU law; HoL complied.
2
Q
Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council (2002)
A
- case: Use of imperial units and the status of constitutional statutes.
- Introduced idea of “constitutional statutes” immune to implied repeal.
3
Q
R (Anderson) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002)
A
- a life-sentence prisoner argued that it is wrong for a politician (not a judge) to decide how long he stayed in prison.
- The Home Secretary’s power to set minimum prison terms was ruled incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- sentencing power belongs with judges.
4
Q
McR’s Application for Judicial Review (2003)
A
- A prisoner argued that restricting his mail to his lawyer restricts his human rights.
- The court ruled that this did not infringe on his human rights and such restrictions were proportionate and justified.
-confirms that prisoners do have rights; however they can be limited.
5
Q
A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)
A
- court said the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial violated individual rights (right to liberty guaranteed under article 5 and 14 of the ECHR)
- 2006 terrorism act// sharp contrast
6
Q
Smith v. Scott (2007)
A
- Case: Scottish prisoner challenged the blanket ban on voting, arguing it breached human rights.
- UK blanket ban on prisoner voting violated the ECHR (article 3 of protocol 1: the right to free elections. // Clarified that the UK must comply with ECHR decisions, even when they conflict with domestic policies.
7
Q
Radmacher v. Granatino (2010)
A
- case; a wife tried to avoid prenuptial agreement in a divorce, arguing it was ufnair to her.
The court ruled that prenuptial agreements (prenups) should generally be enforced, provided they are fair and voluntary//shifting in family law. - unanimous decision, except lady hale dissented
- This ruling is said to contribute to the disadvantage of women// judicial neutrality
8
Q
HM Treasury v. Ahmed (2010)
A
- The Treasury froze assets of individuals linked to terrorism without clear parliamentary backing, prompting legal challenges.
- The court ruled that asset-freezing orders, made by the Treasury under anti-terror laws, were illegal because they lacked clear parliamentary authority.// ruled that the executive had acted ultra vires as this action was not a parliamentary statute.
9
Q
R (F and Thompson) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2010)
A
- lifetime registration to the sex offenders list (a requirement under the sex offences act 2003) was a violaition of human rights (right to privacy) // section 8 of the HRA
10
Q
R (Reilly) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2013) (poundland case)
A
- The court ruled that the government frameworks (requiring benefit recipients to complete work for free) were unlawful because they lacked a proper legal foundation.
- The act this went against was the jobseekers allowance act (1995)
11
Q
R (Nicklinson) v. Ministry of Justice (2014)
A
- case; Two individuals suffering from severe conditions challenged the law against assisted suicide, arguing it violated their human rights.// This was prohibited in the suicide act of 1961
- The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of assisted suicide should remain within the hands of Parliament, but acknowledged the need for reform, leaving the law unchanged.
12
Q
P v. Cheshire West and Chester Council (2014)
A
- case: A woman with learning disabilities was detained in a care home, and her family argued that her detention violated her rights.
- The court decided that a person with severe disabilities, who was in care, was deprived of their liberty under the Human Rights Act, requiring stronger safeguards.
- Clarified the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases involving individuals with disabilities, reinforcing their rights.
13
Q
Evans v. Attorney General (2015)
A
- The media challenged the government’s decision to block the release of letters written by Prince Charles to ministers.
- The court ruled that the government’s refusal to release Prince Charles’s letters (the “black spider memos”) was unlawful. This decision reinforced transparency in government communication.
14
Q
R (Reilly No. 2) v. Secretary of State (2016)
A
- The claimant challenged the regulations that required benefit claimants to work for free, arguing they were legally invalid.
- The court ruled that the government’s regulations requiring people to work unpaid in exchange for benefits were unlawful because they lacked proper legal authority.
15
Q
R (UNISON) v. Lord Chancellor (2017)
A
- Case: UNISON challenged the introduction of employment tribunal fees, arguing they made it too expensive for workers to seek justice.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s decision to impose fees for bringing claims to employment tribunals was unlawful, as it denied access to justice.
16
Q
Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017)
A
- case:The government attempted to trigger Article 50 using royal prerogative, but Miller argued that it required Parliament’s approval.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 (starting the Brexit process) without Parliament’s approval, affirming the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty.
17
Q
R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v. Secretary of State (2018)
A
- A heterosexual couple challenged the law that limited civil partnerships to same-sex couples, arguing it was discriminatory.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the law banning civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples was discriminatory and violated human rights.
18
Q
UK withdrawal from the EU [Scotland Bill] (2018)
A
- The Scottish Parliament challenged the UK government’s approach to Brexit, arguing that it encroached on devolved powers.
- The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the UK government’s approach to Brexit, especially regarding the devolution settlement with Scotland, confirming the primacy of UK Parliament in matters of Brexit.
19
Q
R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister (2019)
A
- Miller challenged the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament, arguing it was an unlawful abuse of power to limit Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during the Brexit process was unlawful.
20
Q
Begum v. Home Secretary (2021)
A
- case: Begum, a British woman who joined ISIS as a teenager, sought to return to the UK after her citizenship was revoked.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Shamima Begum, who joined ISIS as a teenager, could not return to the UK to contest the decision to revoke her citizenship.
21
Q
AAA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023)
A
- AAA, a migrant, challenged the government’s decision to deport them to Rwanda as part of a controversial policy aimed at deterring illegal immigration.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s decision to deport individuals to Rwanda was lawful, asserting the legality of the “Rwanda Plan” despite concerns over human rights.
22
Q
R v. Michaela Community Schools Trust (2024)
A
- case: Michaela Community Schools Trust expelled a student for breaching school rules, and the case challenged the fairness and legality of the expulsion.
- The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of a trust’s decision to expel a student for a serious violation of the school’s code of conduct, emphasizing the discretion of schools in disciplinary matters.
23
Q
Secretary of State v. Mercer (2024)
A
- The government blocked the sale of goods based on national security risks, and the case questioned the legality of such interference in free trade.
- The Supreme Court ruled on whether the government could prevent the sale of certain goods under national security grounds, balancing economic freedom with national security considerations.
24
Q
R (Miller) v. Prime Minister (2024)
A
- case: Miller challenged the Prime Minister’s decisions around certain executive powers, demanding clearer accountability in government decision-making.
- This case revisits the issue of the Prime Minister’s authority regarding the handling of government decisions, focusing on accountability in the execution of policy. The court ruled that the Prime Minister must be transparent in decision-making processes.
