L5: Key case law relating to the core principles of our constitution

Question 1

Key Case Law- SOP

Answer 1

• Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs: HL 3 Jan 1980
• Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson [2002]

Question 2

Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs

Answer 2

• Facts- s.13(1) Trade Union Act (1964) - granted immunity to acts against 3rd parties carried out during strikes
  Legal Issue- Could the courts interpret the meaning of the words in an alternative manner ?
  Outcome- No
  Ratio Decidendi- Lord Scarman stated: ‘If parliament says one thing but means another, it is not under historic principles of the common law, for the courts to correct it…We are to be governed not by parliament’s intentions but by Parlisment’s enactments’ and ‘in the field of statute law the judge must be obedient to the will of Parliament as expressed in it’s enactments”
  Lord Diplock stated: “Parliament makes laws, the judiciary interpret them”.

Question 3

Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)

Answer 3

Facts- The Home Office refused to exercise power under s.171(1) of the criminal justice act
Legal Issue- was it appropriate for a govt minister to ignore legislation ?
Outcome- No
Ratio Decidendi- Lord Mustill stated: Each branch of the constitution has a separate function. The executive doesn’t have the power to ignore legislation

Question 4

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson (2002)

Answer 4

Facts- Anderson was convicted of 2 murders and recieved a mandatory life sentence. Trial judge recommended he served at least 15 years
Legal Issue- Is it the courts or the HS that set sentences?
Outcome- The courts
Ratio Decidendi- This is a judicial function and involvement of a politician interfered with right to a fair trial (Lord Steyn). The executive does NOT have the power to set life sentences/change those given by the courts- this is not the constitutional function of parliament

Question 5

ROL- Key Case Law

Answer 5

• Entick v Carrington (1765)
• Sharma v Brown–Antoine and Others (2006)
• Guardian News and Media Ltd v AB (2014)
• M v Home Office (1994)
• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva
• R (on the Application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017)

Question 6

Entick v Carrington (1765)

Answer 6

Facts- Entick was suspected of treason. SoS orders Kings Chief Messenger to break into the house to seize papers. Entick claimed Carrington had no right to enter or interfere with his personal property
Legal Issue- Does the state have the legal authority to act in such a way ?
Outcome- No
Ratio Decidendi- Lord Camden stated: “If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law”

Question 7

Sharma v Brown Antoine and Others (2006)

Answer 7

Facts- The chief justice of Trinidad & Tobago was charged of attempting to pevert the course of justice. He tried to avoid this by seeking a review claim
Legal Issue- Can the Chief Justice avoid criminal proceedings? Or should the ordinary criminal legal process take place ?
Outcome- Ordinary crminal legal process- the claim to avoid prosecution isn’t a claim amendable to judicial review
Ratio Decidendi- Lord Bingham stated: “the criminal law of the land shoul apply to all alike. A person isn’t to be singled out for adverse treatment bcause he or she holds a high and dignified office of State”

Question 8

Guardian News and Media Ltd v AB (2014)

Answer 8

Facts- The Ds had been charged with terrorism offences. The crown applied for an order that the trial should be held in private. Legal challenge by the Guardian and other media submitted that the hearings shouldn’t be held in public
Legal Issue- should the cases be held entirely in secret ?
Outcome- No
Ratio Decidendi- Although the core trial should be in private, part would be held in open court, the anonymity orders would be lifted, and finally, the order that had prohibited reporting of the earlier proceedings hadn’t been justified.

Question 9

Key Case Law for Parliamentary Sovereignty

Answer 9

British Railways Board v Pickin (1974)
Owens v Owens (2018)
R (Jackson) v Attorney General (2005)
Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corporation (1932)
R v Transport Secretary, ex parte Factorame Ltd (No2) (1991)
R v Secretary of Stae for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (1999)

Question 10

British Railways Board v Pickin (1974)

Answer 10

Facts- Pickin sought to challenge an AoP by claiming it was invalid
Legal Issue- Could courts interpret meaning of words in an alternative way ?
Outcome- No
Ratio Decidendi- Lord Diplock stated: “Parliament makes laws, the judiciary interpret them”.

Question 11

Owens v Owens (2018)

Answer 11

Facts- The SC and the COA expressed regret at not being able to grant the divorce petititon under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Legal Issue- Should the courts apply the law ?
Outcome- Yes
Ratio Decidendi- The SC upheld the decisions of the High Court and the COA, with “uneasy feelings” about the result.

Question 12

R (Jackson) v Attorney General (2005)

Answer 12

Facts- Hunting Act 2004 passed to bam foxhunting. It was passed by invoking the Parliament Act-1949-HOL would not agree to it, causing delays,
Legal issue- was it a valid act
Outcome- Yes
Ratio Decidendi- HOL’s said that the 1949 Act was valid. Any act of parliament flowing from the usage of the 1949 Act was also valid.