judiciary cases UK Flashcards
HM Treasury v Ahmed 2010
- government wished to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists.
- Supreme Court ruled that it did not have the legal power to do this due to breaching HRA and innocent inherence in common law.
Brown created temporary Terrorist Asset Freezing Act which was inforced from the February to the December
R (Nicklinkson) v Ministry of justice 2014
- Regarded if individuals have the right to assisted dying
- Court supported government position in Article 8
- ECHR could not be used to overturn the Suicide Act 1961 to allow assisted dying
- Court suggested that Parliament had to close a loophole to remove misunderstanding
Al Rawl v The Security Service 2011
- Former detainees of Guantanamo Bay claimed that British security services shared responsibility for ill treatment and imprisonment
- Court in favour of detainees. HRA
Black Spider memos 2015
- Journalist Rob Evans wanted to see letters sent by Prince Charles to government ministers.
- Government did not want to release them, arguing that they were private and sensitive
- Court in favour of Evans due to Freedom of Information Act
Miller v SoS ExEu
- Miller argued that the government could not trigger Article 50 without a vote or debate in Parliament
- David Davis argued otherwise saying that royal prerogative could be use
- Court in favour of Miller. Reinforce Parliamentary sovereignty
Miller vs PM 2019
- Supreme Court found the prorouging of Parliament unlawful as Johnson misled the Queen saying that it was to reset the legislative agenda when it was really to pass Brexit without scrutiny
- Reese Mogg: “constitutional coup”
R(UNISON) V Lord Chancellor 2017
- £1200 fee to cut down malicious and weak cases
- Unison: stopped people going to tribunal. government = ultra vires
- Supreme Court also argued that discrimination cases cost more and meant women were discriminated against. Unlawful
- Government had to payback £32 million
HS2 Action Alliance Ltd V Secretary of State
for Transport (2014)
- Campaigners opposing High Speed Two (HS2)
sought a judicial review of the government’s plans
to see if they complied with EU environmental
directives. - Court unanimously dismissed this. Stated that parliament that until Parliament reached a final decision on the HS2 scheme, its merits remained open to debate
Hirst v UK
Focus: Article 3 (right to a free election) on the idea of prisoners votes.
The case: When case was dismissed by the high court, Hirst took it to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR ruled that denying the right to vote to prisons as a blanket ban was in contrary to the ECHR. They said that the UK government must work to allow the vote.
The decision: The right to vote for prisoners was rejected by Parliament, and the government then said prisoners would not get the right to vote
A and others V Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)
- The detention and deporting of 9 suspected terrorists breached Article 5.
- case brought by original 9 who challenged the power of the executive in national security issues.
- The House of Lords
ruled that the holding of the detainees was
incompatible with Article 5 of the ECHR, however the Home secretary was not required to released the prisoners because of Article 15 in the ECHR which states that other articles can be suspended in times of war or national emergency.
Factortame case (1989-2000)
- A judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be
registered in the UK. - First time courts were able to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament when pending trial.
- Disapplied act when found to be contrary to EU law
Smiths and others V Ministry of Defence – 2013
- Supreme Court supported the families of soldiers killed in Iraq because of faulty
- Court ruled that the families could sue the MOD for infringing the soldiers right to life (Article 2)
- Shows how judiciary interprets HRA and show judicial independence from government
