supreme court cases Flashcards
describe the 2017 case in the matter of an application by Denise Brewster for judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
- a woman in NI wins her right to her partners pension,
- which the NI local government pension
- scheme had tired to withhold
- as they weren’t married
(even though they had been living together for 10 years)
what was the significance of the 2017 case in the matter of an application by Denise Brewster for judicial Review (Northern Ireland)?
- judicial review with a significant social impact
- extends the rights of unmarried cohabiters
- an important equality issue and worth a lot of money
describe the 2017 case of DB (appellant) V Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)
- a resident of the only Catholic enclave n east Belfast
- challenged the police for failing to halt Ulster loyalists’ protesting outside his home
- over changes to the flying of the union flag in the city
describe the 2017 case of Belhaj and another V Straw and others
- former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, MI6 and the govt will have to defend claims
- that they participated in the 2004 kidnapping of a Libyan and his wife
- claims relate to torture
- and judges rule that ministers could not expect ‘immunity’
what was the significance of
the 2017 case of DB (appellant) V Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)?
- the court overturned a previous decision ruling against the PSNI
- for failing to protect a citizen’s right to privacy and family life
what was the significance of the 2017 case of Belhaj and another V Straw and others?
- the rule of law being enforced
- judge also cites Magna Carta - the rights of Belhaj to a trial before any government action
describe the 2018 case of Gareth Lee V Ashers Bakery (Appellant)
- a bakery run by evangelical Christians
- has twice been found to discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation
- after it cancelled an order by a gay activist
describe the 2018 case of Commissioner of Police of the of law being
Metropolis v DSD and
On 21st February the Supreme Court gave judgment on whether the police owed human rights damages to two victims of John Worboys, the London black cab driver who committed a vast number of sexual offences against women between 2003 and
2008. The victims claimed that failures by the police to undertake a proper investigation had exposed them to inhuman degrading treatment, in breach of the state’s duties under the Human Rights Act
describe the significance of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD and Anor [2018]
The court upheld the claim, concluding that the “obvious” shortcomings by the police did constitute a breach of the duty under Article 3 ECHR.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
2019
The Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty to exercise the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament was unlawful as it prevented Parliament from exercising its constitutional functions, and the resulting prorogation was thus void and of no effect.
Decided by 11 judges.
significance of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
2019
PM unable to take Uk out of the EU with a no deal. The Supreme Court held that the lengthy prorogation was an unjustified interference with the twin principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability.
R (Hemmati and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department /2019]
The Supreme Court held that the policy governing the detention of five asylum seekers who had entered via the EU was unlawful.
The individuals had travelled to the UK illegally and sought asylum after having entered via at least one other EU member state where they had already claimed asylum.
Relying on the procedure set out in the Dublin III Regulation, the government requested those states to take responsibility for examining the asylum claims and each state agreed. The individuals were held in immigration detention pending their removal
significance of R (Hemmati and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department /2019]
The Supreme Court held that the policy under which the individuals were detained lacked adequate certainty and predictability and was therefore unlawful
2020
R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others)
(Respondents) v
Heathrow
Airport Ltd (Appellant)
This case centers entirely around the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The key question being answered here, did the Secretary of State’s failure to take account of the UK’s environmental commitments under the Paris Agreement, render the favouring of a third runway at Heathrow Airport unlawful?
In May 2020, the Supreme Court allowed Heathrow Airport to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling and a decision was handed down by December of the same year. The Supreme Court declared that what constitutes as ‘government policy’ should remain narrow, allowing for clarity in future cases, meaning there was no need for the Secretary of State to originally consider the Paris Agreement.
significance of
R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others)
(Respondents) v
Heathrow
Airport Ltd (Appellant)
[2020]
The Supreme Court has allowed Heathrow to proceed to the next stage. The case for expansion will still have to go through a rigorous consent process, in the form of a DCO (development consent order), which could prove to be a stumbling block for the Airport as it once again must consider the environmental impact of its expansion
