UK SC JR and DoI Cases

Question 1

Reilly vs Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2013)
DoI

Answer 1

• Challenged the Jobseekers Act (2013) in the Court of Appeal
• Stated it breached the human right to a fair trial
• Therefore, government proposed reforms to the legislation in 2019 which were voted in by Parliament

Question 2

A vs Secretary of State for the Home Department
DoI

Answer 2

• Anti-terrorism, Crime, and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14, as it discriminated the detention of suspects on the grounds of nationality/immigration status
• This led to the prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, changing the regime to control orders

Question 3

R(F and Thompson) v Secretary of State for Justice (2008)
DoI

Answer 3

• Sex offenders’ indefinite placement on a register and obligations thereby to report movements etc to police are disproportionate and in breach of ECHR art 8
• Government simply ignored; made possible by lack of public support/care

Question 4

Northern Ireland Abortion (2018)
DoI

Answer 4

• In 2018, a majority of supreme court justices found that NI’s abortion restrictions were incompatible with the HRA.
• NI Assembly was not sitting at the time, increasing pressure on the UK government to decriminalise abortion, which occurred in 2019

Question 5

Miller vs Secretary of State for exiting EU (2017)
JR

Answer 5

• Determining location of sovereignty in the UK

KEY ISSUES:
- Government claimed they could begin EU exit process through Royal Prerogative Power
- By a majority of 8-3, High Court ruled government could not do this.
- This was because in 1972, Parliament enacted the legislation taking Britain into the EU -> Parliament’s responsibility to enact legislation regarding removal, as withdrawal would remove certain legal rights that required parliamentary consent.

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACT:
- SC can determine when the government can use royal prerogative powers
- Government must consult parliament when abolishing rights parliament bestowed
- Government claims that the vote to leave gave the government the right to begin the process was illegal given referendums are non-binding.

Question 6

Miller vs Prime Minister 2019
JR

Answer 6

• Determining powers of royal prerogative

KEY ISSUES:
- Was the prorogation of parliament legal?
- Court found they did have the power to rule on the question
- Found that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful, and thus parliament had not been prorogued

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACT:
- Court determined power to prorogue is not unlimited and is thus subject to judicial review
- Court must protect Parliamentary sovereignty from threats posed by prerogative powers and thus prerogative powers are limited.
- Also reiterated that judges are independent from political interference

Question 7

R vs Chaytor and Others (2010)
JR

Answer 7

• Parliamentary Privilege

KEY ISSUES:
- According to parliamentary privilege, MPs cannot be prosecuted in civil and criminal courts for the actions they take or statements made as part of their parliamentary duties within the Palace of Westminster
- In 2010, Chaytor, Jim Devine, and Elliot Morley claimed they could not be tried in the Crown Court on the charge of false accounting of their parliamentary expenses.

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACT:
- Supreme court ruled that parliamentary privilege did not extend to criminal offences which take place within Westminster
- Thus, parliamentary privilege is limited

Question 8

R (Steinfeld and Keiden) v Secretary of State for the International Development

Answer 8

KEY ISSUES:
- Section 1 and 3 of the Civil Partnership Act (2004) are incompatible with Article 14 of the HRA given they preclude a heterosexual couple from entering into a civil partnership.