Supreme Court Cases Flashcards
What was the Belmarsh case (2004)?
In 2004, the Blair govt used powers in the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 to hold foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial.
The Law Lords declared it discriminatory based on the ECHR since British terrorists were not treated in the same way.
The government accepted the ruling and detainees were released. They did, however, soon introduce legislation to monitor the whereabouts of these and other foreign terrorist suspects.
What was the ‘HJ and HT VS Home Secretary’ case (2010)?
Two men from Iran and Cameroon claimed asylum based on their homosexuality.
The Home Office refused them asylum on the grounds that they conceal their sexuality to avoid persecution.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Lord Hope ruled against the Home Office.
What was the Shamima Begum case (2021)?
In 2015, Begum, then aged 15, travelled to Syria with two other girls so she could join ISIS.
In 2019, then Home Secretary Sajid Javid removed her citizenship on the grounds she was a threat to national security.
In 2020, the Court of Appeal judged Begum should be allowed to return to appeal the judgement, but the Home Office responded that it would create a threat to national security.
When it went to the Supreme Court, Lord Reed found in favour of the Home Secretary.
He said that her right to a fair hearing did not trump all other considerations like national security.
What was the ‘P VS Cheshire West and Cheshire Council’ case (2014)?
In the case of ‘P’, a man with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy was placed with social services, who limited his personal freedom.
Lady Hale, in a powerful speech with far-reaching consequences, claimed you could not infringe on anyones personal liberty.
What was the ‘Al Rawi and others VS Security Services and others’ case (2011)?
When former detainees at Guantánamo Bay claimed British security services shared responsibility for ill treatment and imprisonment, the government argued the evidence should not be given in public as it could breach national security.
The Supreme Court decided in favour of the detainees, stating - ‘A closed material procedure involves a departure from the principle of open and natural justice, essential features of common law’.
What was the ‘R VS Jogee’ case (2016)?
In R VS Jogee, the Supreme Court overturned the principle of ‘joint enteprise’, whereby those who were part of a group that incited a murder could be convicted in the same way as the murderer.
Instead, they stated there had to be ‘intent to kill’ shown, if all members were to be guilty.
What was the ‘R (UNISON) VS Lord Chancellor’ case (2017)?
In 2017, the trade union UNISON brought a case to the Supreme Court, declaring the government’s introduction of tribunal fees was unlawful.
The Supreme Court agreed that they risked denying justices to those on low incomes and so were discriminatory.
They said it was unlawful as it had the effect of denying access to justice, and was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.
What was the ‘AM (Zimbabwe) VS Home Secretary’ case (2020)?
The Supreme Court blocked attempts by the Home Office to deport an individual guilty of several serious offences in Zimbabwe.
This was because he had HIV and his life would likely be shortened if he was returned to Zimbabwe where he would be unlikely to receive required treatment.
This highlighted the ongoing conflict between collective societal rights and individual rights.
What was the ‘Miller I’ case?
Gina Miller brought the executive to court over whether they could trigger Article 50 without parliament’s consent.
Supreme Court ruled in favour of Miller.
What was the ‘Miller II’ case?
Miller took Johnson to court over proroguing parliament, which the Supreme Court saw as unlawful.
What was the ‘Indyref 2’ case?
The Scottish parliament was ruled not to have the power to hold another independence referendum in 2022.
What was the ‘Plimico Plumbers’ case?
It questioned whether the company acted ultra vires and ruled against the company.
The Supreme Court decided that the workers were entitled to workers’ protections.
What was the ‘Steinfeld and Keidan’ case?
A heterosexual couple wanted a civil partnership, but there was no provision for heterosexuals.
The Supreme Court decided that the government should change the law and they did in 2018.
