Relationships between Branches CASES Flashcards
1
Q
Details of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Miller 1) and date?
A
- 2017.
- May assumed in 2016 that triggering article 50 was part of her Prerogative powers.
- However, she faced a challenge that believed only parliament could take the UK out of the EU as its membership had introduced constitutional higher laws
- that could not be revoked implicitly, only explicitly by parliament.
2
Q
What are the Black Spider Memos? What case do they involve?
A
- R (Evans) v Attorney General 2015
- Appealed based on the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- Gov said there was public interest in keeping letters private between Charles and ministers as he is the future king and this may affect his rep.
- An information Commission sided with the Gov, but the Information Tribunal sided with the Journalist.
- The Attorney General argued that the info wasn’t necessary to release and said ministers could overturn the tribunal (Clause 53 of Freedom of Info Act.)
- Majority of the SC ruled in favour of the journalist because of rule of law
3
Q
The Belmarsh Case:
Who was it decided by?
What was the background of the case
A
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) - Decided by the Lords, before SC
- Brought by a number of foreign nationals who were being held indefinitely in Belmarsh Prison as suspected terrorists.
- However they had not been charged or convicted of anything. Government holding them using special powers granted by Anti Terrorism Act 2001.
- Could not send them home as they might be tortured and right to be free from torture is an un-suspendable article in HRA.
4
Q
Belmarsh Case
What was the Gov argument?
What did the Lords decision depend upon?
A
- Gov argued because of article 15 (suspending rights in times of emergency or war) they could suspend certain rights eg right to liberty.
- Lords had to decide whether the conditions of the rights being suspended where met.
- Lords decided the criteria was not met, because British suspects were not treated in the same way.
5
Q
Difference between the European Convention on Human Rights and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
A
- Convention (ECHA) - is a treaty, HRA. We are still part of this despite leaving the EU.
- Charter - EU Law, we are no longer a part of this.
- However, the convention has now become statute law in the UK meaning it is more easily changeable and gov can suspend more rights.
6
Q
Details of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
date?
Background - what did the lower/other courts say?
A
- Miller 2, Miller/Cherry - 2019
- Divisional court decided they could not rule on the case as it would be a political issue.
- Scottish Court of Session found it was illegal
7
Q
Miller II
What acts were in play?
SC decision and reasoning
A
- Decided the Exec had unlawfully prorogued parliament as they had given false reasons to the queen, acting Ultra Vires.
- SC said it was unlawful because the prorogation was unusually long, at a crucial time and frustrated the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions
- The SC are not deciding whether the reasons for prorogation were good enough but whether there was enough reasoning for it.
- The Gov had given no reasoning as they never expected anyone to challenge them.
8
Q
Background of Factortame Case:
when?
Who and what did they say about Gov?
A
- Factortame v Secretary of State for Transport 2000 - regarding the compatibility of UK and EU law.
- Spanish fishermen argue that the UK Gov had breached EU law by creating the Merchant Shipping Act 1998 which stated that boats in UK waters must be registered and owned in the UK.
- This contradicts the Common Fisheries Policy and when UK joined EU they submit to EU codified laws, this law was there before UK joined EU.
9
Q
Factortame Case
What should the government have done?
What was the final SC decision?
A
- UK gov are expected to enforce EU (community) law but essentially not to legislate in conflict with it
- Law Lords decided that if UK does not like EU law, they should not have joined EU, so ruled against government
- Ruled that EU law has supremecy as it is codified so something to rule on
10
Q
Details of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council
date?
who was involved
what acts?
final ruling
A
- 2002 - market vendors prosecuted for not using metric (EU) measurements as required by the European Communities Act 1972.
- They argued they did not have to comply as the 1985 Weights and Measures Act had implicitly repealed this clause of the ECA.
- The Doctrine of Implied Repeal said that no Gov could bind a future Gov, and that later acts of parliament take precedence over earlier ones
- Lords disagreed stating that there are some ‘constitutional statutes’ or ‘higher laws’ that have to be explicitly repealed instead of implicit and therefore the ECA is still in tact.
- They argued that the HRA, ECA and Parliament Acts all fell under this defintiion of higher law
11
Q
Effect of the Thoburn
A
- Some argue it challenges parliamentary sovreignty but it doesn’t really - it just asserts that parliament must repeal explicititly instead of implicitly
- Parliamen must also accept a hierarchy of acts.
12
Q
What did Factortame establish
A
That domestic law can be used to implement community law but not conflict it
13
Q
What did Thoburn establish
A
- That the SC can decide on what is constitutional law,
- making a hierarchy of laws and UK gov cant use implicit repeal on constitutional laws.
14
Q
what did Miller 1 and 2 establish?
A
- Redefined parliamentary sovereignty.
- if using in EU essay question, it is not inherently an EU issue as it wasn’t EU v UK law but if it wasn’t for EU membership it wouldn’t have happened.
15
Q
3 Significant examples of where the Public have Sovereignty over Parliament?
A
- Brexit
- General Election
- Referendums
