Constitutional rights: key cases Flashcards Preview

First year law > Constitutional rights: key cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Constitutional rights: key cases Deck (86)
Loading flashcards...
1

R v Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings

Judicial review is a means of preventing public bodies from acting above the law e.g. by banning fox hunting when given the power to act for the “benefit, improvement or development of their area”

2

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Judicial review is a means of preventing public bodies from acting above the law e.g. by using the prerogative power to trigger Article 50

3

Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission

The application of judicial review cannot be prohibited by an exclusion clause within a statute (compensation application)

4

R (Jackson) v Attorney General

Dictum in this case established that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty may be limited by the rule of law or the process of judicial scrutiny

5

R (on the application of Maya Evans) v Secretary of State for Defence

One ground for judicial review is illegality - particularly going against the intentions of parliament e.g. by cutting aid to torture claims to avoid review

6

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture

One ground for judicial review is illegality - particularly failing to exercise discretion e.g. by the Minister of Agriculture regarding prices paid to dairy farmers

7

British Oxygen Co v Minister of Technology

One ground for judicial review is illegality - particularly fettering discretion e.g. by not keeping open the possibility that a £25 application will succeed when the system requires

8

Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council

One ground for judicial review is irrationality - particularly failing to consider relevant things when making a decision e.g. that by lowering tube fairs you will increase the wage payer's tax

9

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp

One ground for judicial review is irrationality - particularly making a decision 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it' (childless cinema)

10

R (on the application of Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey

One ground for judicial review is procedural impropriety - particularly acting procedurally ultra vires

11

Ridge v Baldwin (No 1)

One ground for judicial review is procedural impropriety - particularly where a public body breaches the right to a fair trial e.g. a trial challenging unlawful dismissal

12

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

One ground for judicial review is disproportionality e.g. making all prisoners leave their cells while they are being searched

13

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace (No. 2)

Associational standing (an organisation standing on behalf of its members who have been affected by the decision) is sufficient for judicial review

14

R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd

Public interest standing (an organisation standing on behalf of the affected population) is sufficient for judicial review

15

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu

One ground for judicial review is legitimate procedural expectation e.g. the expectation to receive a deportation hearing

16

R v Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan

One ground for judicial review is legitimate substantive expectation e.g. the expectation to stay in the same care home once promised it is a 'home for life'

17

Porter v Magill

A judge can be said to be biased if they have made up their mind before hearing all of the evidence for some reason e.g. if there has been a scathing public preliminary report on the matter. Porter rule: the ‘question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased’

18

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal

A judge must disqualify themselves if they have, or appear to have, a financial interest in the outcome of the case e.g. having shares in the claimant's company

19

The Pinochet Case

A judge must disqualify themselves if they have, or appear to have, a close personal interest in the outcome of the case e.g. being a director of the claimant organisation

20

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case)

The prerogative power is judicially reviewable; for a power to be subject to judicial review, it must be judiciable i.e. within the court's competence e.g. NOT matters regarding national security

21

R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc

De-facto powers may be subject to judicial review so long as the private body exercising them is performing public function e.g. controlling London takeovers

22

Hirst (No 2) v UK

Declarations of incompatibility are persuasive, not binding; Parliament does not have to follow the court's judgement e.g. that prisoners should have the right to vote

23

Aston Cantlow v Walbank

To bring a claim under the HRA, the defendant must be a public body (in the broad sense) e.g. NOT a church

24

Chahal v UK

This case established that it is illegal to deport someone back to a country where they face a real threat of torture`

25

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Belmarsh case)

This case issued a declaration of incompatibility between the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act (enabling the indefinite detention of non-national terrorist suspects) and articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR

26

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza

In this case the phrase 'living together as his or her husband or wife' in the Rent Act was interpreted to mean 'living together as if they were his or her husband or wife' in line with the Convention rights under articles 8 and 14 to include homosexual couples

27

Manchester City Council v Pinnock

Domestic courts must take into account, but are not bound by, rulings in the ECtHR. They may depart from them where there is not a clear and consistent line of judgements compatible with our legal system.

28

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines

A feature of the rule of law is that laws must be accessible, intelligible, clear, and predictable (lost luggage)

29

R v Lord Chancellor (ex Parte Witham)

A feature of the rule of law is that dispute resolutions should not be excessively costly (legal aid too expensive for poor man)

30

R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor

A feature of the rule of law is that dispute resolutions should not be excessively costly, which would result, for example, from increased employment tribunal fees