[NOT FIN] R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms

Question 1

when was this case?

Answer 1

1999

Question 2

which court?

Answer 2

House of Lords

Question 3

how many judges?

Answer 3

5

Question 4

facts of the case

Answer 4

• a convicted murderer serving life wished to argue innocence with assistance from a journalist
• Secretary of state issues blanket ban on oral interviews with journalists unless NDA is signed

Question 5

on what grounds was this case brought to court

Answer 5

infringement on free speech (before HRA in England)

Question 6

what did the judges say

Answer 6

Lord Steyn:

Question 7

what did the judges say

Answer 7

Lord Steyn: “it is administratively workable to allow prisoners to be interviewed for the narrow purposes here at stake notably if a proper foundation is laid in correspondence for the requested interview or interviews”
Lord Hoffman: “the principle of legality applies to subordinate legislation as much as to acts of Parliament”

Question 8

outcome

Answer 8

blanket ban deemed unconstitutional but it was fine to implement these bans on a case by case basis