Cases Flashcards
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Courts ruled that the executive cannot use the royal prerogative on important issues, needs to go through Parliament instead.
Executive could not initiate withdrawal from the European Union was in Article 50.
SUPPORTS PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY.
Pickin v The British Railways Board [1974]
- R v Jackson followed precedent. Although in R v Jackson it was needed for the courts to examine the correct interpretation of the 1911 act.
Courts had to make judgement on acts of Parliament.
Lord Reid stated function of courts was to apply acts of Parliament, supports Dicey.
Liversidge v Anderson [1942]
Anderson committed Liversidge to prison but gave no reason. Emergency powers given in legislation permit Home Secretary to take such action if he had reasonable cause to believe they had hostile associations.
Lords said it was not appropriate for court to deal with matters of national security.
But not Lord Atkin, and Lord Reid now states the decision made was peculiar, Lord Diplock states majority of house in this case were wrong.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005]
Lord Steyn’s obiter “rule of law controlling factor” “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer absolute”
Legal challenge against the validity of the 2004 Hunting Act.
Following precedent from Pickin v British Railways Board 1974, Parliamentary sovereignty was recognised and so the judicial review did not succeed.
Re Northern Ireland Human Right Association [2018]
Appeal regarding failing to provide exception to abortion on grounds of serious malformation of foetus from rape or incest. ECHR article 3, 8, 14 declaration of incompatibility under S4 of HRA.
Dismissed by majority.
Lady Hale disagreed with this- it is a matter of fundamental human rights on which the courts are well qualified to judge. Courts may even be better qualified to judge.
R (Nicklinson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014]
Parliament decided not to act on the issue of assisted suicide. Separation of powers.
Courts believed it was not their place to intervene, as they cannot interpret more than the will of Parliament, Parl deal with moral issues.
Lady Hale and Lord Kerr concluded courts could have issued a declaration of incompatibility.
Lord Sumpton- Parliament is better qualified to make this decision than the courts.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]
Case that held the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review. Significant break from previous law which held these prerogative powers were not subject to judicial review.
Judicial review could not be used, inappropriate for the courts to intervene.
Limit to prerogative powers, before this case it would not be checked whether powers were used correctly.
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013]
Issue- blanket disenfranchisement of all serving prisoners. UK’s blanket ban contrary to ECHR right to vote.
AG pointed out the Supreme Court is obliged to ‘take into account’ any judgement of ECHR when determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right (HRA S2)
Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010]
Lord Neuberger summarised position, “this court is not bound to follow every decision of the European court”. Would go against ability of court to engage in the constructive dialogue with the European court, which is of value to the development of convention law.
Doherty v Birmingham City Council [2009]
s2 of HRA only requires to “take into account”, not follow.
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004]
Usually follow a clear and constant line of decisions by the European court.
Where Lord Bingham’s Mirror Principle originated.
R v Horncastle
National courts may express their concerns, and can refuse to follow Strasbourg case law in the hope that this would lead to a serious review of position in Strasbourg.
Dialogue between British courts and ECtHR.
HRA
S2= must 'take into account' Strasburg jurisprudence S3= courts can interpret legislation with the grain of ECHR. S4= declaration of incompatibility, issued if S3 cannot be.
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]
Rent act stipulated that partner will inherit their partner’s lease if one of them dies. Denies same sex couples security of tenure which breaches denies article 8, right to private family life. Lord Nicholls states that section 3 gives judges an unusual and far reaching power to take what the meaning of the legislation was and what the courts intended, so in correspondence with s3 could let same sex couples have security. But Lord Millet disagreed, courts should not pre-judge the assessment of Parliament= reinforces Parliamentary sovereignty.
