WS 1

Question 1

Entick v Carrington {1765)

Answer 1

• Secretary of State issued warrant for the arrest of Entick without the correct legal authority
• The court found this to be unlawful
• Established idea that actions of the state need legal authority

Question 2

Case of Prohibitions (1607)

Answer 2

• The King sought to settle a land dispute by making a ruling
• The court held that the monarch had no power to decide legal matters in this way
• > legal disputes should be resolved by the judiciary

Question 3

The Belmarsh Case 2005

Answer 3

• Challenge to the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
• Which ruled that foreign nationals suspected of being involved in terrorist activities could be detained indefinitely without a trial, even without sufficient evidence
• Case ruled that this was unlawful and a breach of the ECHR

Question 4

Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842)

Answer 4

• A landowner was affected by a private Act of Parliament that authorised a railway through his land. He argued that the Act was invalid as he was not notified.
• Court ruled that “once an Act has gone through the process and is a valid Act, the courts cannot question it”.

Question 5

St Helen’s Borough Council [2008]

Answer 5

Defined the function of the court in
judicial review process as being to review decisions of statutory and other public authorities, ‘to see that they are lawful, rational and reached by a fair
process’

Question 6

‘Factortame’ Saga [1990]

Answer 6

• In this case, the House of Lords essentially suspended the operation of an Act of Parliament as it contradicted with EU Law.
• Shows how the court develops constitutional principles through interpretations of statutes.

Question 7

A-G v Jonathan Cape [1976].

Answer 7

• A-G sought an injunction against the publication of former cabinet minister, Cape’s book
• On the grounds that it divulged dissent within the cabinet, contrary to convention of cabinet responsibility
• Whilst the courts noted the convention, they chose not to enforce it as the cabinet meetings took place years ago, and it was no longer in the public interest
• > Shows that courts recognise conventions, but not prepared to enforce them directly

Question 8

Madzimbamuto [1969]

Answer 8

• Parliament passed the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 which declared that Southern Rhodesia remained a British dominion.
• Despite the fact this was contrary to convention, the Privy Council did not enforce it