Relationships between Branches - Case Studies for the Judiciary Flashcards
AL RAWI CASE 2011 - The Supreme Court Rulings can be overcome by a change of law in Parliament because of Parliamentary Sovereignty
Al Rawi was an Iranian citizen who was a resident in the UK since the 1980s.
This case was brought forward by former inmates of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
He was suspected to have links with Al Qaeda.
Al Rawi and others had claimed that the UK Security Services had contributed to their detention and mistreatment.
The Security Services believed their evidence was given to the judge in secret for reasons of national security but the court rejected this on the grounds of a fair trial.
How did Parliament remain sovereign in the Al Rawi case in 2011?
Parliament passed a new law:
Justice and Security Act 2013 in Parliament which established ‘secret courts’, which could use closed material procedures.
The Supreme Court could not declare this as unconstitutional because parliament passed this law.
Tony Nicklinson V Ministry of Justice 2014
Not in favour of the people
Nicklinson had ‘locked-in suicide’, having been paralysed in a road accident… he wanted to go to a Swiss suicide clinic.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Suicide Act 1961, which made it illegal to encourage or aid suicide, should be ruled unlawful.
Nine justices took part which indicates the importance of the case, as if it’s a less important case, only five sit in.
The court decided against the men, seven justices to two.
Evans V Attorney General 2015
Prince Charles
Black Spiders Letters Case
This was a Freedom of Information case
Prince Charles had written letters to the government ministers on a multitude of issues… access to the letters had been denied by the Attorney General, but journalists claimed that the claimant should have been given access because of FOI.
The S.C found that the Act did apply to the Royal Family’s papers… these were labelled black spider letters in reference to the Prince’s unique writing style.
SCHINDLER V DUCHY OF LANCASTER 2016
Where the Court supported the Government
This dealt with the rights to vote for the British citizens living abroad.
This was triggered by the 2016 Independence Referendum… UK citizens who had lived abroad for more than 15 years were excluded from voting in the 2016 EU referendum.
The Court supported the government because the citizens had given up their rights by living abroad for so long.
R Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor 2016
Judicial Review case
SCUK ruled against MoJ before the scheduled hearing time even finished.
Former Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling - told he acted ‘ultra vires’ by amending the Legal Aid Act using secondary legislation to introduce ‘residence testing’ in 2012.
SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER 2010
Made the S.C look bad
This case fought for the right of sex offenders to appeal against registration for life.
The government believed that individuals who committed sexual offences in England and Wales must register with the police for life after being released from prison.
The S.C ruled that this breached their human rights and they should be offered the opportunity 15 years after leaving jail.
The judges rejected the home secretary’s appeal, saying there was no evidence to show it was impossible to identify which sex offenders had reformed.
LEE v ASHERS BAKERY COMPANY 2018
Judicial review case
SCUK found in favour of bakery… supporting gay marriage does not equate to being gay and so the bakery didn’t know if Lee was gay so it wasn’t discriminatory - they couldn’t be obliged to take an action with they disagreed with profoundly.
Judicial review = the Attorney General, on behalf of the NI exec, supported the bakery so it became judicial review.
