significant cases Flashcards
“Belmarsh” case: A v sec of state
issue:indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects
descsion 8-1 detention under ATCS was incompatible
significant- government replaced old act with prevention of terrosim act 2005
Treasury v Mohammad jabar Ahmned
Issue- is freezing assess ultra vires
high court decision- April 2009 judge Collins ordered it was ultra vires and quashed them
ruled 6-1 it should be overturned
significance disappointed parliament passed the 2010 terrorist asset freezing act to bypass this
R Chayton and others
Issues: expenses scandal 3 labour MPs claimed that it was protected under parliamentary privilege
Discussion it was unanimously dismissed by the supreme court
good example of the supreme court to contain parliamentary privilege within law
Evans v attorney general
Supreme Court Decision: In 2014 the case was heard by the Supreme Court in Evans vs Attorney-General. They ruled by 5-2 that the Attorney-General did not have the right to veto the disclosure of the letters and reverted to the decision taken by the Upper Tribunal,
the constitutional impact is that it makes clear that senior members of the Royal Family are not protected from disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act
Miller vs Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Issue/s of Law: Whether having joined the EU (then E.E.C) through statute law, the Government could withdraw Britain from the EU using royal prerogative powers
Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court that consent was required from Parliament to trigger Article 50
Significance: The decision by the Supreme Court slowed down the process of triggering Article 50. However, its constitutional significance was that when treaties had been entered into by Statute Law, they could only be amended via the same mechanism.
UNISON v Lord Chancellor (2017)
Issue: a Fees Order in 2013 which transferred some of the costs of employment tribunals to the person bringing the claim to court with the aim of stopping claims not based on merit
decision: The Fees Order was ultra vires. It was unlawful under statute law because it prevented access to justice which is inherent according to the rule of law.
significance: : The government’s Justice minister at the time – Dominic Raab – said the government would stop taking fees immediately and would voluntarily reimburse claimants dating back to 2013
importance of SC for access point pressure groups
Steinfield and Keiden v Home Secretary (2018)
issue slight differences, for example, adultery was grounds for a divorce in a marriage but not for the dissolution of a civil partnership. heterosexual couples claimed this didn’t provide the same rights
: Whether precluding heterosexual couples from entering into a civil partnership was discriminatory and non-compatible with human rights law
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the current procedures were ultra vires. They found that although precluding heterosexual couples from a civil partnership had originally been legitimate and proportionate, this position was no longer possible to maintain now that same-sex couples had equal marriage rights.
significance . The declaration that it was incompatible with the ECHR put pressure on the government to amend this, which they subsequently did.
Lee versus Asher’s Baking Company Ltd and others (2018)
Issues of Law: Firstly, whether Mr Lee had been discriminated against based on his sexual orientation. Secondly, whether a business can cite their political or religious beliefs in refusing service to a customer.
The Supreme Court found, in the case of discrimination based on orientation, in favour of the bakery.
significance The bakery called the decision a victory for freedom of speech and religious expression. The case became one of judicial review because the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Northern Irish Executive, supported the position of the bakery in the case
: Miller vs Prime Minister (2019)
Issue/s of law: Firstly, whether if the Prime Minister had advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament to stifle parliamentary scrutiny, this action would be ultra vires. Secondly, whether as a political decision, it was subject to scrutiny by the courts (justiciable)
Supreme Court Decision: The case heard at the UK Supreme Court was an amalgamation of appeals for two separate cases, one in Scotland and one in England.
The ruling of the Supreme Court today found that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament had been unlawful.
Supreme Courts willingness to adjudicate on issues that fell firmly within the Prime Minister’s royal prerogative powers. They found that if these powers undermined the fundamental tenants of representative democracy, they may be found ultra vires. As such, this sets an important legal precedent for the use of the Royal Prerogative in future.
Indy ref 2 case
The supreme court ruled it was unlawful to hold a second referendum october 2023
AAA v secretary of state for the home department
Ruled that sending people to Rwanda was unlawfull as it is an unsafe place
