paper two x Flashcards

Question

Describe how the Supreme Court challenged/ influenced parliamentary supremacy ?

Answer 1

Established in 2009, replacing the House of Lords as the highest court. Demonstrated judicial independence in the 2019 prorogation case, declaring the government's suspension of Parliament unlawful. However, it cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament—reinforcing Parliamentary Supremacy.

Answer 2

legislative: Parliament (makes laws)Executive: Government and civil service (implements laws)Judiciary: Courts (interprets and applies laws)

Answer 3

Delegated legislation refers to laws made by a body other than Parliament, but with Parliament’s authority. This authority is granted through a piece of primary legislation—an Act of Parliament—known as a Parent Act or Enabling Act. This Act outlines the framework and grants specific powers to individuals or bodies (e.g., ministers, local authorities) to make laws within set limits.

Answer 4

To transfer authority from one person or body to another.

Answer 5

Laws enacted by a governing body.

Answer 6

Law made directly by Parliament (Acts of Parliament).

Answer 7

Law made by an individual or body under powers given in a primary Act.

Answer 8

The term "Parent Act" is apt because, like a parent, it gives 'birth' to or enables secondary legislation. It sets the legal boundaries and defines the scope of powers delegated.

Answer 9

- parliament time - technical expertise - consultion - emergency - local knowledge - Ease of change

Answer 10

- orders in council - statutory instruments - by laws

Answer 11

Made by the Privy Council (senior government ministers and the monarch), Orders in Council are used for: Transferring responsibilities between departments (e.g., creation of Ministry of Justice). Bringing parts of Acts into force. Making emergency laws under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Dissolving (proroguing) Parliament Making changes under specific enabling Acts (e.g., reclassifying drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971). Example: Proroguing Parliament (2019): An Order made to suspend Parliament was later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Answer 12

These are the most common type of delegated legislation—over 3,000 are issued each year. They are created by government ministers within their specific departments to add detail or make changes to primary legislation. Examples: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Home Secretary can add breeds to the list of banned dogs. Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984: Codes of Practice issued for police procedures. Recent Examples: National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2022: Adjusted the national minimum wage rates. The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 1999: Adjusted monetary limits for gaming machines.

Answer 13

Made by local authorities or certain public corporations to regulate local or internal matters. Local Authority Examples: Parking restrictions, alcohol bans in public spaces. Enabled by the Local Government Act 1972 (ss235–238). Public Corporation Examples: Transport for London creating rules for behavior on the Underground (e.g., no eating or drinking). Universities setting rules for student conduct on campus.

Answer 14

- To ensure delegated bodies do not exceed their authority. - To preserve the rule of law. - To protect citizens from unfair, unclear, or overly burdensome laws. - To uphold democratic oversight over laws not passed directly by Parliament.

Answer 15

- Enabling Act - Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee - Affirmative Resolution - Negative Resolution - Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments - MPs Questions - Repeal by Parliament

Answer 16

Sets out the scope and limitations of delegated powers—who can legislate, consultation requirements, and whether subject to Parliamentary procedures.

Answer 17

Ensures Parliament retains some control over what powers are delegated and how they are used. However, initial scrutiny is often minimal.

Answer 18

House of Lords committee reviews SIs within 12–16 days

Answer 19

Has reviewed 700+ SIs. Cannot amend or reject SIs;

Answer 20

presentation, flagging issues to Parliament.

Answer 21

depends on Parliament taking action on concerns raised.

Answer 22

Parliament must actively approve the SI. Used for significant or controversial laws (e.g., Codes under PACE 1984).

Answer 23

Stronger oversight; however, Parliament can only approve or reject, not amend. Technical understanding is often limited.

Answer 24

SI becomes law unless annulled by Parliament within 40 days. Default process for most SIs.

Answer 25

Weak control—rarely used to challenge legislation. Only 1% of SIs were challenged between 2013–2014.

Answer 26

Reviews all SIs, flags issues such as ultra vires powers or unclear drafting.

Answer 27

A comprehensive review tool but cannot amend or block legislation.

Answer 28

MPs can question ministers about delegated legislation in Parliament.

Answer 29

Limited by time, technical complexity, and ministerial skill in avoiding direct answers.

Answer 30

Parliament can revoke or amend legislation.

Answer 31

Rarely used due to limited time and practical constraints.

Answer 32

Judicial control is exercised through judicial review, where courts—typically the Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division—review the legality of delegated legislation. If found to be ultra vires (beyond the powers granted by the enabling Act), the legislation is declared void, meaning it has no legal effect. The three forms of ultra vires provide different lenses through which courts assess: Whether the law exceeds substantive powers, Whether procedural requirements were followed, Whether the law is irrational or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. Each of these ensures that delegated legislation remains lawful, proportionate, and consistent with democratic principles.

Answer 33

This occurs when the delegated legislation goes beyond the powers granted in the enabling Act. R v Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union) Facts: The Home Secretary introduced a new criminal injuries compensation scheme using delegated powers, despite Parliament passing a scheme in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which had not yet been implemented. Outcome: The court ruled this was substantive ultra vires—the Home Secretary had acted beyond the powers given by the Act, effectively contradicting Parliament’s will. Significance: Ministers must remain within the boundaries of the power granted; they cannot use delegated legislation to override or ignore primary legislation.

Answer 34

This arises when the body making the delegated legislation fails to follow the correct procedural requirements laid out in the enabling Act. Aylesbury Mushroom Case Facts: The Minister of Labour failed to consult the Mushroom Growers’ Association before creating a training board, despite the requirement in the enabling Act to consult relevant organisations. Outcome: The court found the legislation to be procedurally ultra vires—proper consultation had not occurred. Significance: Following required procedures, such as consultation or publication, is essential. Failure to do so invalidates the delegated legislation.

Answer 35

This type of ultra vires occurs when the delegated legislation or administrative decision is so irrational or unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. It derives from the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation. R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Trust Facts: Swindon NHS Trust refused to fund a cancer drug for a woman despite her being an eligible patient, while others in similar circumstances received it. Outcome: The court held the decision to be Wednesbury unreasonable—the Trust’s policy lacked logical justification. Significance: Irrational or inconsistent use of discretion in making delegated decisions can render them unlawful. Strickland v Hayes Borough Council Facts: A bylaw banned the use of obscene language in both public and private places. Outcome: It was ruled unreasonable and thus ultra vires, as it was too wide in scope and infringed on private rights. Significance: Delegated legislation must be reasonable and proportionate; excessive scope may render it void.

Answer 36

Ambiguity in Language: Words can have multiple meanings. For example, the word "bat" can refer to an animal or sports equipment. Evolving Language: The meaning of words can change over time, leading to potential misinterpretation of older statutes. Complex Legislation: Acts of Parliament may be complex or poorly drafted, necessitating judicial clarification.

Answer 37

The interpretation of statute by a judge where the meaning of the statute is not clear or explicit.

Answer 38

- the literal rule - the golden rule - the mischief rule - the purposive approach.

Answer 39

gives words their everyday meaning.

Answer 40

if literal rule creates an absurdity look for another meaning which avoids that result.

Answer 41

look at the gap or mischief the act was intended to address.

Answer 42

look at what parliament meant to achieve.

Answer 43

The literal rule requires the judge to apply the ‘plain, ordinary and literal meaning of a word’ or phrase in an Act of Parliament Even if it creates an unfair or absurd result! Lord Esher states: “If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity .”

Answer 44

“If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity .”

Answer 45

The defendant (D) bit off the victim’s nose Statute made it an offence to ‘stab, cut or wound’ The court held under the literal rule that biting did not come within the meaning of stab, cut or wound as this implied an instrument had to be used Therefore, D’s conviction was quashed.

Answer 46

R v Harris (1836)

Answer 47

the literal rule - statutory interpretation

Answer 48

A statute made it an offence 'to impersonate any person entitled to vote.' D used the vote of a dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote. Held under the literal rule: D was acquitted.

Answer 49

Whiteley v Chappell (1868)

Answer 50

Literal rule - statutory interpretation

Answer 51

Mr Berriman (V) worked on the railways and was killed while oiling the track. No look-out had been provided According to the relevant law, compensation was payable to the family if a worker died while ‘relaying or repairing’ the track. Using the literal rule, oiling was considered maintenance work and did not come into either category. Held under the literal rule: V had been involved in routine maintenance and was not ‘relaying or repairing’ tracks. His widow was not entitled to compensation.

Answer 52

LNER v Berriman

Answer 53

Literal rule - statutory interpretation

Answer 54

D, had been the subject of a stop and search. Police officers found in his trouser pocket a folding cut-throat razor. The cutting edge was less than 2 inches and there was no locking mechanism. S.139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that it is an offence to carry an article in a public place which has a blade or is sharply pointed - except for a folding pocketknife less than 3 inches long (section 139(3)). The trial judge ruled that that the article was a folding pocketknife. APPEAL: Ruling wrong in law. A pocketknife was not an apt description of a cut-throat razor. A razor is an article of sufficient sharpness to be used to shave. That would not be normally done by a pocketknife.

Answer 55

R v D (2019)

Answer 56

Literal rule - statutory interpretation

Answer 57

Section 28 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1847 provided an offence of 'wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers'. Cheeseman indecently exposed himself in some public toilets. There had been complaints of him doing this previously. Therefore, officers were stationed at the site. Public Health Amendment Act 1902 stated that ‘street could also mean any public place under the control of the local authority The Oxford English dictionary of the time stated that ‘passengers' could also mean a ‘foot-passenger' but as the police were not actually travelling at the time D could not be arrested in those circumstances.

Answer 58

Cheeseman v DPP (1990)

Answer 59

Literal rule - statutory interpretation

Answer 60

Respects the sovereignty of Parliament. Unelected judges should not change what the elected Parliament has written. If there is a problem with the wording of the act, then Parliament can amend it (as happened in Fisher v Bell) Respects separation of powers- judges have no or minimal legislative function. Encourages certainty. If people know that acts will be interpreted literally, they won’t have to try to work out what Parliament meant and this may reduce litigation. Quick decisions can be made e.g. in Berriman it didn’t take long to work out that maintaining and repairing are not literally the same thing.

Answer 61

Can lead to unfair or absurd results - Berriman. Not always possible to draft an Act so it covers every situation Parliament intended. Doesn’t seem right that someone was not guilty of electoral fraud when they impersonated a person who had died. Parliament presumably intended to prevent all kinds of electoral fraud - Whiteley v Chappell Professor Zander describes it as ‘ mechanical and divorced from rules of language’ . Hard to apply if words have more that one dictionary meaning - R v Allen where the word ‘marry’ could have meant legally marry or go through a marriage ceremony. Can result in cases being decided on technicalities - Cheeseman.

Answer 62

“If words are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond this you cannot go”.

Answer 63

Adler v George R v Allen

Answer 64

This approach gives more power to the judiciary and enables them to modify the words of Statutes through interpretation!! Where a word or phrase has only one clear meaning, but a literal interpretation would lead to a repugnant (unjust) outcome, the judge will modify the meaning of the words.

Answer 65

Re Sigsworth (1935)

Answer 66

Allows the court to make sensible decisions e.g. in Adler v George it prevented an absurd outcome and in Re Sigsworth it prevented the repugnant outcome of a murderer inheriting from his victim. Prevents Parliament from having to make amending legislation. Example Adler v George (‘in the vicinity of’ could mean ‘in or in the vicinity of’ the prohibited place) Narrow approach respects authority of Parliament. Broad approach only used in extreme circumstances such as Re Sigsworth.

Answer 67

Only used in very limited circumstances e.g could not be used in Berriman because the result was not absurd or repugnant (although it was unfair) Michael Zander describes it as a ‘feeble parachute’ because it is not much use. It is unpredictable and lacks guidelines. Law Commission have argued that it lacks guidelines as to when it should be used or how to decide whether there is an ‘absurdity’. Lord Parker used golden rule in Adler v George but didn’t in Fisher v Bell when it could be argued that the outcome was just as absurd. Wider approach could be argued to be undemocratic because unelected judges are changing what Parliament has written (if only in a small way) .

Answer 68

Heydon's case

Answer 69

Allows the court to look at the former law in order to discover what ‘mischief’ the Act was designed to remedy.

Answer 70

1. What was the common law before making the Act? 2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide? 3. What was the remedy Parliament passed to cure the mischief? 4. What was the true reason for the remedy?

Answer 71

Heydon's case Elliot v Grey Smith v Hughes Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)

Answer 72

Promotes the purpose of the law as judges look back at the gap in the law that Parliament intended to cover - Smith v Hughes, to stop men being propositioned on the streets by prostitutes. More likely to produce a just result e.g if the mischief rule has been used in LNER v Berriman the widow would have received compensation. Judges try to interpret the law in the way Parliament intended it to work. Preferred by Law Commission. Also encourages judges to look at Law Commission reports - R v G on meaning of recklessness.

Answer 73

Risk of judicial law making - Smith v Hughes Judges do not always agree on the use of the mischief rule. In the case of RCN v DHSS the minority said that the majority were ‘redrafting the act with a vengeance’ Leads to uncertainty and difficulty for lawyers advising clients as it is impossible to know when a judge will use the rule and what what the outcome will be Not as wide as the purposive approach as the judge can only look at what the gap in the law was rather than the wider purpose.

Answer 74

Comes from the approach of European Court of Justice. Looks for the purpose of the legislation as a whole and is an extension of the mischief rule. More flexible approach than the other rules. Gives judges greater scope to develop the law in line with what they think Parliament’s intention was in introducing it.

Answer 75

This is significant because Judges are essentially able to refuse to follow the clear words of Parliament by assuming Parliament meant to achieve something else.

Answer 76

Jones v Tower Boot Company (1997) R v Registrar General ex parte Smith (1990) R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State (2003) Pepper v Hart

Answer 77

Avoidance of absurd meanings. If the purposive approach had been used in Whiteley v Chappell D is likely to have been found guilty. Leads to justice in individual cases and allows the law to cover more situations than when the law is applied literally. For example protected the birth mother in the case of R v Registrar General ex parte Smith. Allows judges to update law to take account of changing (technology and social conditions) e.g. Quintaville. If the literal rule had been used then amending legislation would have been needed. Flexibility in allowing judges to apply law really intended by parliament – fact that judges can use Hansard makes it easier to discover this. It encourages a willingness to consider the work of the Law Commission.

Answer 78

Too much power given to unelected judiciary/encourages judicial law making/undemocratic (Lord Scarman- If Parliament says one thing but means another then it is not for the courts to correct it. Montesquieu separation of powers). Difficult to find the purpose or intention of the legislation – (Hansard may not give a clear answer- problem may not even have been thought of when act made) R v Deegan is an example of a situation in which Hansard did not help. It can lead to unpredictable results. Allows judges too much power to be creative (more general freedom/licence allowed than in mischief rule).

Answer 79

Intrinsic aids are matters within an Act itself which may help make the meaning clearer. The court may consider the long title, the short title and any preamble. Other useful internal aids may include headings before a group of sections and any schedules attached to the Act.

Answer 80

Long & Short Title: Forced Marriage Act Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 Preamble Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 has a section which sets out the purposes Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 Schedules Provide greater detail about the sections in the Act. See Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 stating when bail may be refused. Marginal notes Added after parliamentary debates so not generally regarded as giving Parliament’s intention. Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/notes/division/1/index.html Definition Section Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996

Answer 81

Extrinsic Aids are items outside an Act which may help a judge to find the meaning of words in the Act.

Answer 82

- Dictionaries - Historical Setting - Previous Acts of Parliament on the same topic - Reports of the Law Commission - Interpretation Act 1978 - International Treaties - Explanatory notes - Hansard

Answer 83

The UK entered the European Union (EU) in 1973 by passing The European Communities Act 1972. Section 2 of this Act required EU law to prevail over any Acts of Parliament which were inconsistent. This Act was repealed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which allowed the UK to leave the EU.Judges in the EU use the purposive approach when interpreting EU Law. Judges in England and Wales got used to this approach while we were members of the EU and are likely to continue to use it. While we were members of the EU, EU law prevailed. An example of this is the case of Factortame (1990) which ‘disapplied’ The Merchant Shipping Act 1988. Now that we have left the EU, their law no longer has supremacy over UK law.

Answer 84

Judicial - relating to judges in performance of their duties or to judgment in a court of law Precedent - an action or decision that can be used subsequently as an example for a similar decision or to justify a similar action.

Answer 85

Many of our primary legal principles have been made and developed by judges on a case by case basis. Judges develop the law by: Statutory interpretation (future topic) Precedent It is this judge-made law that we refer to as common law or case law.

Answer 86

Let the decision stand

Answer 87

Prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066 there was no unified legal system. Laws were localised and often based on customary practices. After 1066 this began to change. William the Conqueror sent out ‘itinerant justices’ to collect the most practical of the existing methods of resolving disputes and dealing with crimes. These were then brought together into a unified body of law, known as the ‘common law’.

Answer 88

- To keep judges under control - To ensure that we know what the law is - To enable consistency and fairness.

Answer 89

Reason For The Decision.

Answer 90

Donoghue v stevenson Daniels v white

Answer 91

Other things said or things said by the way

Answer 92

R v Howe R v Gotts R v Brown R v Wilson

Answer 93

UNLESS one of the exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944) applies.

Answer 94

- the previous decision was made per incuriam - There are conflicting CA decisions - The CA's earlier decision is inconsistent with later UKSC decisions

Answer 95

- binding - original - persuasive

Answer 96

R v R The wagon mound R v Gotts and R v Howe R v Brown and R v Wilson

Answer 97

Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963) following Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co. (1951)

Answer 98

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) following the canadian case of Bazley v Curry (1999).

Answer 99

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)

Answer 100

If the point of law arising in a case has never been decided before, then whatever the judge decides will form a new original precedent to be followed in later cases. A judge will first look for cases with similar principles to guide him. This is known as reasoning by analogy.

Answer 101

1. Overruling 2. Distinguishing 3. Reversing

Answer 102

This is where the court decides that the legal rule decided by an earlier case is wrong. Courts can overrule decisions of courts lower in the hierarchy. Sometimes courts can overrule their own previous decisions.

Answer 103

Bristol young aeroplane pepper v hart R v Barton

Answer 104

Is when the judge finds that the material facts of the present case are sufficiently different to allow a distinction to be drawn between the present case the previous precedent, so that the precedent from the previous case is not binding.

Answer 105

Balfour v Balfour Merritt v Merritt R v Brown (1993) and R v Wilson (1996)

Answer 106

Where a court higher up the hierarchy overturns the decision of a lower court on appeal in the same case.

Answer 107

R v Kingston (1984)

Answer 108

Certainty Fairness Flexibility Time saving Real life Precision

Answer 109

Volume Rigidity Retrospective effect Slowness of growth Unconstitutional Complexity Illogical distinctions

Answer 110

Parliament is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, responsible for making and passing laws. It is a bicameral institution, meaning it has two separate chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Answer 111

Check and challenge the work of the Government (scrutiny) Make and change laws (legislation) Debate the important issues of the day (debating) Check and approve Government spending (budget/taxes)

Answer 112

This is the elected chamber, consisting of Members of Parliament (MPs) who are chosen by the public in general elections. The party with the majority of seats in the Commons usually forms the government, and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. The Commons plays a central role in debating, scrutinising, and passing laws.

Answer 113

Lords are appointed and some are hereditary and so differ from the democratically elected MPs. The House of Lords is considered technocratic because many of its members are appointed based on their expertise, knowledge, and experience in specific fields. This means the Lords often have specialised skills and insights, such as in law, business, science, or the arts, which allow them to scrutinise and refine legislation with a high degree of technical competence.

Answer 114

A tort is a civil wrong.

Answer 115

The Claimant has the burden of proof Standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities Greater than 50%.

Answer 116

- To provide compensation - To achieve and uphold justice - To achieve and uphold morality - To act as an individual, general and corporate deterrent - To distribute loss - To achieve public policy aims such as consumer protection - To uphold civil liberties and human rights - To fill any gaps left by criminal and contract law

Answer 117

To put C back into the position they were in before the incident by providing compensation.

Answer 118

1. Duty of care owed by D to C 2. Breach of duty of care by D 3. Damage as a result of the the breach a.Factual causation – ‘but for’ test b.Remoteness of damage (legal causation) – reasonable foreseeability

Answer 119

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Answer 120

Foreseeability – Was harm to the claimant reasonably foreseeable? Proximity – Was there a sufficiently close (proximate) relationship between the parties (in space and time and/or relationship)? Fair, just, and reasonable – Should a duty of care be imposed based on policy considerations (wider impact on society, public servants, and the law)?

Answer 121

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)

paper two x Flashcards

(146 cards)