Public Flashcards
The Prime Minister, amid a political crisis, advises the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call for a general election. The opposition argues that the dissolution is being sought for political gain rather than necessity. Despite this, the Prime Minister persists in his advice to the monarch.
Based on constitutional convention, what action should the monarch take?
The monarch should act on the Prime Minister’s advice and dissolve Parliament.
The Department for Health and Social Care is facing considerable public criticism and media exposure, because of the failure of a crucial public health initiative as a result of poor implementation and oversight. The minister in charge, who delegated the implementation of this initiative to senior civil servants, was not aware of the specific operational failures until very recently.
Based on constitutional principles and recent trends in governmental accountability, what is the most appropriate action for the minister to take in response to this failure?
The minister should inform Parliament about the failure and outline steps to address it while not necessarily feeling obliged to resign.
A select committee is investigating a recent financial scandal. During the investigation, the committee decides to call the CEO of a large private corporation, various government officers, and a sitting Member of Parliament to provide evidence. The CEO initially refuses to attend.
What powers does the select committee have to compel the CEO to attend, and who else can be compelled to give evidence?
The select committee can issue a summons and potentially a warrant to compel the CEO to attend. It can also compel private individuals but not sitting Members of Parliament. Civil servants are also obliged to attend.
A statute regulating environmental permits includes a provision stating that “any challenge to the decisions of the Environmental Permits Authority must be made within 30 days of the decision, after which no court shall have jurisdiction to hear such challenges.” A company, which had its permit application denied, seeks to challenge the decision 45 days after it was made, arguing that the decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law.
Which of the following best explains whether the company can successfully challenge the Environmental Permits Authority’s decision despite the provision in the Act?
No, because the time limitation clause is likely to be upheld by the court, barring the challenge
A local environmental group organised a public procession to raise awareness about climate change. The senior police officer imposed conditions under s 12(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, including a a specified route and a restriction on using loudspeakers. The group was informed about these conditions in writing a week before the event. During the procession, some participants deviated from the specified route, resulting in significant traffic disruption, and also used loudspeakers. The senior police officer decided to charge the organisers with an offence under s 12.
What is the most likely outcome for the organisers of the procession who breached the imposed conditions?
The organisers may face prosecution for failing to comply with the conditions imposed under s 12 POA, and potential fines or imprisonment.
A well-known actor was photographed by a paparazzo, working for a tabloid newspaper, while he was at a private party hosted at a friend’s house. The photographs, taken through a window in the house, showed the actor drinking a glass of wine, and mingling with other guests. They include a picture of him having an animated conversation with another guest. The photographs were published without the actor’s consent, alongside an article speculating about his personal life. The actor has always been protective of his private life and prefers to share details about it sparingly in public. He is now considering a claim for misuse of private information.
Is the actor’s claim likely to be successful?
Yes, because the photographs, which constitute private information, were taken at a private party and do not contribute to a debate of general public interest.
Two years ago, a small business owner was reassured in writing by her local authority that her business could continue to operate from a specific commercial trading estate without any additional business rates charge for the next five years. She invested a considerable amount into her business premises as a result. However, the council has now decided to allow planning permission for the trading estate to be converted into a residential development, requiring all current businesses to vacate the area. The council has pointed out that its decision is in line with a new urban development policy that aims to address a very significant local housing shortage. The business owner is claiming that this decision represents a damaging frustration of her legitimate expectation.
Is the council’s decision likely to be deemed lawful if the business owner took her claim to court?
Yes, because the protection of public interests such as addressing a housing shortage necessarily overrides any legitimate expectation.
