REVERSE CARDS

Question 1

• UKG cannot use royal prerogative to make significat consitutional changes without explicit parliamentary approval.
• reinforces parliamentary soverignty.

Answer 1

R(Miller) v Sec of State for Leaving the EU

Question 2

Courts will, if they can, interpret legislaiton ot be subject to the basic rights of the individual.
Parliament can expressly legislate against human rights, but if words are ambiguous they will be presumed to be adhering to the rights.

Answer 2

R v home sec

Question 3

Courts decide whose interests within the decision-making process are more important - must weight up interests with rights.

Proportionate and necessary for democratic society.

Answer 3

Daly v Home Sec 2001

Question 4

For interference to be lawful, must be:

prescribed by law,
necessaru in a democratic society,
meet reasons in s.2 of act.

Answer 4

Qualified rights

Question 5

Bank Mellat v Treasury 2013
decision or action will be considered proportionate if….
1. rational connection - reasoning within article.
2. least intrusive means - minimum impairment.
3. fair balance.

Answer 5

[Qualified Rights - proportionality]
Test for proportionality

Question 6

EXAMPLE OF COURTS DECIDING DECISION SHOULD REMAIN UNDISTURBED

Answer 6

R(ADI) v Sec of State 2008

Question 7

EXAMPLE OF COURTS DECIDED SOMOENE ELSE SHOULD DECIDE

Answer 7

Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice 2014

Question 8

may require the courts to depart from the clear meaning that the legislation has in order for it to be compatible.

Answer 8

Ghaisen and Godin-Mendoza 2004

Question 9

s.3 - where possible courts must read legislation in a way that is compatible with ECHR rights.
s.4 - if impossible, declare incompatibility

Answer 9

Human Rights Act

Question 10

should follow any clear and consistent case law of the ECtHR - as long as it does not contradict crucial aspects of UK law.

Answer 10

Ullah v Special Adjudicator 2004

Question 11

• Anything which has a substantial risk of serious interference with legal proceedings may justify an injunction preventing publication.

Answer 11

AG v Times Newspapers 1974

Question 12

INFO
- Ex-MI5 published memoir with information - book was published abroad but blocked here except for illegal copies - UK Press was not allowed to write about it.
- Courts said they could not do this as it was contrary to the benefit of the public.

RULE
- said this was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression

Answer 12

AG v Guardian 1987 - Spycatcher

Question 13

• Brings it in line with how free speech is protected in ECHR.

Answer 13

Reynolds v Sunday Times 2001

Question 14

RULE
- Freedom of speech includes offensive, shocking or disturbing words - only a restriction on this when it is threatening or abusive as per Hate Crime Act.

Answer 14

Handyside v UK 1976

Question 15

• there would be a right to privacy in situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy

Answer 15

Campbell v MGN 2004

Question 16

• There is a reasonable expectation of privacy up until the moment you are charged with an offence.

Answer 16

Bloomberg v ZXC 2022

Question 17

RULE
- you cannot be stopped from acting lawfully, just because someone else will act unlawfully as a result.
- UNLESS the unlawful behaviour was the natural consequence of your actions.

Answer 17

Beatty v Gillibanks 1882

Question 18

Exercising powers to prevent breach of the peace will be lawful only if the officer reasonably apprehends an imminent breach of the peace.

Answer 18

Redmond-Bate v DPP 2000

Question 19

**- King cannot be sole decider on any cases/control the judiciary process.
**

Answer 19

Case of Prohibitions 1607

Question 20

- King cannot alter the law in any way on his own, must be done by Parliament.

Answer 20

Case of Proclamations 1610

Question 21

• Prorogation of Parliament is unlawful if it has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its function.

Answer 21

R(Miller) v PM 2019

Question 22

Immunised parliamentary proceedings - allows for freedom of speech as debates in parliament are free from legal consequences.

Answer 22

Bill of Rights Art 9

Question 23

RULE
- Art 9 concerns debates and speech, not any and all behaviour in commons.

Answer 23

R v Chaytor 2010

Question 24

RULE
- Court said important to interpret carefully - College could intervene for malpractice but not illicit practice.
- Cannot be a party in a case and the judge

Answer 24

Dr Bonham’s case

Question 25

RULE - When prerogative power and statute both provide a basis for an action, the prerogative is placed into abeyance and the statute is preferred.

Answer 25

AG v De Keyser Royal Hotel 1920

Question 26

- Cannot use the prerogative to frustrate the purpose/operation of statute.

Answer 26

Laker Airways v Department of Trade 1977

Question 27

RULE - To place prerogative power into abeyance, you need explicit wording that causes this.

Answer 27

R v Northumbia Police

Question 28

Bruma Oil v LA 1965

Answer 28

RULE - Common law says entitled to compensation, but War Damages Act excludes compensation during war-time.

Question 29

There is scope for the prerogative powers to be held legally accountable - it is the government using this power, no longer the crown, so they can be held by the court.

Answer 29

GCHQ 1984

Question 30

Minister is responsible for the decisions made, but does not need to make every decision himself.

Answer 30

Carltona v Commissioner of Works 1943

Question 31

If the consequences of the decision are severe enough, then this must be done by the minister personally. - e.g. here was regarding custody of a terrorist.

Answer 31

R v Adams 2020

Question 32

- Established that the government must point to a source of authority for its actions, if it cannot find this then it has behaved unlawfully. "If it is law it is to be found in our books, if it is not found there it is now law." RULE OF LAW - Affirmed property rights in common law. - Says the crown cannot immunise government ministers for the breach of common law.

Answer 32

Entick v Carrington

Question 33

RULE - Authority for the fact that public bodies can only act under statutory authorisation that gives them power

Answer 33

R v ex parte C 2000

Question 34

Govt has general administrative powers for ordinary business of the government which are not prerogative or legislative. - Need to be tied to the everyday business of the government.

Answer 34

New College London v Home Sec 2013

Question 35

- Slavery was so wicked that it is incompatible with the common law - needs legislation/positive law if it is to be allowed.

Answer 35

Somerset v Stewart 1772

Question 36

Said that the law can be interpreted in general terms then applied to specific circumstances that have not been seen before without being considered 'retroactive'.

Answer 36

Shaw v DPP

Question 37

1. no punishment without law - nulla poena. 2. equality before the law. 3. evolution through refinement.

Answer 37

Rule of Law - 3 Principles

Question 38

- Can legislate contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights, but the principle of legality means that the Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing.

Answer 38

Simms 1999

Question 39

RULES - Established the fact that access to justice is a common law right.

Answer 39

R(Unison) v Lord Chancellor

Question 40

1. Illegality, 2. Irrationality, 3. Procedural impropriety.

Answer 40

Judicial Review - three aspects.

Question 41

Decision maker must understand the law that regulates their power. E.g. Entick - need for positive authority.

Answer 41

Illegality - principle + case law

Question 42

Some decisions are so outrageous, e.g. illogical or immoral to a reasonable person. Matadeen v Pointu 1999 - Must treat like cases alike - if cases are very alike but have been treated differently, courts can conclude that this was an irrational decision.

Answer 42

Irrationality - principle + case law

Question 43

Failure to observe the basic rules of natural justice. 1. cannot be judge in your own case, 2. hear the other side, 3. rule against bias, be impartial. Decision can be overturned if there is bias or perception of bias. - El Faragy 2007 - judge joked that an Arab man would disappear on a flying carpet, even if later decision was fair there is now a perception of bias.

Answer 43

Procedural Improriety - principle + case law

Question 44

establishes implied repeal.

Answer 44

Ellen Street Estates v Health -

Question 45

In exceptional situations, the judiciary may have intervene with legislature process, e.g. trying to abolish judicial review or the role of the courts.

Answer 45

Jackson v AG 2005