Chapter 8 - 3/10 - The judiciary and the executive Flashcards
What did the case of ‘Ridge v Baldwin’ do?
It extended the use of judicial review to claims that the government had not followed natural justice.
When was the case of ‘Ridge v Baldwin’?
1964
What did the case of ‘M v Home Office’ do?
Extended the use of judicial review to claims that the government had acted outside of the law.
When was the case of ‘M v Home Office’?
1993
How did the judiciary act before 1970?
As a servant of the state and not as an equal partner, willing to challenge the authority of government in any significant way.
What events have changed the relationship between the judiciary and the executive?
- Ridge v Baldwin 1964.
- M v Home Office 1993.
- Growth in liberal ideology.
- The Human Rights Act 1998.
- The Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
What are the 4 claims that government has greater authority in establishing justice and the rule of law?
- Government is elected and accountable.
- Government has a mandate to run the country and protect citizens.
- Government can respond to public opinion (judges simply follow the letter of the law).
- Government has a responsibility to protect citizens even if it means setting aside individual rights in the interest of national security.
What are the 3 arguments that the judiciary has greater authority in establishing justice and the rule of law?
- They take a rational approach to examining and enforcing the law.
- Judges are expected to be immune and independent from external influence.
- Judges do not have to consider the short-term re-election prospects that politicians do.
What 2004 case illustrated the problem of incompatibility between UK law and the ECHR?
The Belmarsh Case.
What law were the 9 suspected terrorists in the Belmarsh Case detained under?
The Crime and Security Act 2001.
What law was passed to reassert the government’s power to control the movement of suspected terrorists after the Law Lords’ ruling in the 2004 Belmarsh Case?
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, giving the government the power of control orders to restrict people’s movements.
When was the ‘R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union case?
2016
What are the details of the ‘R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU case?
Gina Miller requested a judicial review on whether it was a prerogative power for David Davis, the SoS, to trigger Article 50 and start the process of exiting the EU without first consulting Parliament.
What was the result of the R (Miller) v SoS for Exiting the EU case?
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court that it was not part of the prerogative powers of David Davis to trigger Article 50 without seeking parliamentary approval first; the ruling reasserted Parliament’s sovereignty over government.
