Conor Crummey Judicial Review Flashcards
What is Conor Crummey’s main argument regarding the judicial disapplication of the Rwanda Bill?
Crummey argues against the assumption that judicial disapplication of the Rwanda Bill would represent a fundamental shift in the constitutional order, asserting that judges are both empowered and required to ensure statutes do not violate fundamental rights.
What examples does Conor Crummey cite to support the role of judges in upholding constitutional fundamentals against Parliamentary statutes?
Crummey refers to cases like R (Jackson) v Attorney General, AXA v Lord Advocate, and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, where judges emphasized the need to protect judicial review and uphold the rule of law against legislative overreach.
How did Lord Steyn suggest the courts might act in R (Jackson) v Attorney General?
Lord Steyn suggested that the courts might need to protect judicial review from legislative abolishment, highlighting a proactive role in defending judicial authority.
What did Lord Hope emphasize in AXA v Lord Advocate about the rule of law?
Lord Hope emphasized that the rule of law mandates judges to refuse recognition to legislation that drastically undermines fundamental legal principles.
According to Lord Carnwath in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, what legislation cannot be legally binding?
Lord Carnwath argued that legislation completely excluding the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over certain actions or decisions cannot be legally binding.
What does Conor Crummey discuss about ‘striking down’ a law in the UK?
Crummey discusses that ‘striking down’ a law in the UK means that while the legislation remains on the statute books, it may not be enforceable in its intended form and could be subject to reinterpretation in future legal contexts.
How does Crummey criticize the concept of absolute parliamentary sovereignty?
Crummey criticises absolute parliamentary sovereignty and proposes viewing sovereignty as a principle of political morality rooted in democracy, suggesting a more balanced approach between legislative authority and constitutional principles.
How were Crummey’s views on parliamentary sovereignty evident in the Miller cases?
In the Miller cases, the courts considered Parliament’s democratic mandate as a reason to prevent the executive from bypassing it with the royal prerogative, illustrating the tension between democratic authority and executive power.
What does Crummey suggest about the relationship between legislative authority and constitutional principles?
Crummey suggests that legislative authority, while derived from a democratic mandate, should be limited by other constitutional principles, such as the rule of law, indicating a broader, more balanced approach to understanding parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.
