GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Public Case

Reiner Law English 61 cards

Cards in this deck (61)

  1. 1Marbury v Madison (1803) 5 US 137Among other things the US Supreme Court had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void. Those who draft written constitutions intend them to be the fundamental law of the state. Any act of the legislature which is repugnant to the constitution is void.
  2. 2McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691The Privy Council had to decide whether or not Legislature of Queensland Australia had power, under s 5 Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 to authorize the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court for a limited period. There are constitutions which contain clauses requiring a special procedure and, in some cases, a special legislative assembly to amend them. Countries like the United Kingdom have no special procedure for making, amending, and repealing constitutional law. Constitutions which require a special procedure are controlled constitutions. Those which do not require a special procedure are uncontrolled constitutions. The appointments were valid.
  3. 3Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1975] 3 ALL ER 484The AG sought injunctions to restrain the publication of the diaries of a former Cabinet Minister. A court can restrain publication of Cabinet material only where there is breach of confidence or it is in the public interest to do so to protect collective Cabinet responsibility. But this lapses with time according to the circumstances of each case. Applying this principle sufficient time had lapsed to allow publication.
  4. 4Madzimbamuto v Lardner Burke [1969] 1 AC 645The Privy Council had to decide whether the UK Parliament could legislate for Southern Rhodesia, following the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. A Constitutional convention, however important, can have no legal effect to limit the legislative supremacy of Parliament.
  5. 5Manuel v Attorney General [1982] 3 All ER 822This was an attempt to question the legality of the Canada Act 1982 in the British courts by a minority group within Canada. It was suggested that the convention that the UK Parliament should not legislate for Canada except with its consent, might by formal recognition or by long acceptance have crystallized into a law.
    Conventions cannot become part of the common law in the same way that customs are capable of doing.
  6. 6R (on the Application of Southall) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2003] CMLR 18This was an appeal from the Administrative Court which had refused permission to proceed with judicial review. One of the issues was whether it is a convention of the constitution of the UK that a substantial constitutional change cannot be made (and therefore cannot be adopted) unless such a proposal has been approved by the electorate either as a result of the proposal being included in the manifesto of the party returned to government or in a referendum. There is no seriously arguable case that a court will determine that an Act of Parliament passed without first having been the subject of a referendum or being included in a party manifesto will for that reason be unenforceable as a matter of law. There is nothing to substantiate that such a convention has the force of law.
  7. 7Reference re Amendment to the Constitution of Canada (1982) 125 DLR (3rd) 385In 1980, the Canadian Federal Government devised a package of constitutional reforms which were opposed by a majority of the provinces. The Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide whether the Federal Government could go ahead with the scheme without the consent of the provinces. The courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a constitutional convention exists by asking: 1. What are the precedents; 2. Do the actors in the precedents believe that they are bound by the rule; and Is there a good reason for the rule?
  8. 8A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68The House of Lords had to decide on the legality of certain anti-terrorist measures. Indefinite imprisonment without charge is contrary to the rule of law because it deprives the detained person of the protection given to them by the process of criminal trial. The role of the judiciary, in a legal system based on the rule of law, is to make sure that legislation and ministerial decisions do not overlook the human rights of those adversely affected. In carrying out its role, the judiciary will give both Parliament and the executive an appropriate degree of latitutde, which will depend upon: the nature of the matter being considered; the importance of the human right in question; and the extent of the encroachment upon the right. The courts will intervene only when it is apparent that, in balancing the various considerations involved, the primary decision-maker must have given insufficient weight to the human rights factor.
  9. 9Entick v Carrington (1765) St Tr 1029The Court of King’s Bench had to decide whether national security could be raised as a defence to an action in trespass to land and property. The executive can do noting without legal authority. Where a public authority claims to have to power to do something it must be able to identify the precise legal source of its powers.
  10. 10M v Home Office [1993] 3 WLR 433Proceedings were brought against the Home Secretary for contempt of court. The House of Lords determined that the courts had jurisdiction. The judiciary enforces the law against individuals, institutions, the executive, and against the individuals who from time to time represent the executive. A litigant complaining of a breach of the law by the executive can sue the Crown as executive bringing his action against the minister who is responsible for the department of state involved. The courts have power to grant remedies against a minister in his official capacity. If a minister has personally broken the law, the litigant can sue the minister in his personal capacity. The courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of court.
  11. 11R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p the Fire Brigades Union [1995] All ER 244The House of Lords had to decide whether the Home Secretary had acted lawfully in the way he had dealt with the implementation of a scheme to provide compensation to the victims of violent crime. The courts ensure that powers are lawfully exercised by those to whom they are entrusted, not to take those powers into their own hands and exercise them afresh. A claim that a decision under challenge is wrong leads nowhere, except in the rare cases where it can be characterized as so obviously and grossly wrong as to be irrational, in the lawyer’s sense of the word, and hence a symptom that there must have been some failure in the decision-making process.
  12. 12Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] 3 WLR 877The applicant, a Pakistani, arrived in the United Kingdom in 1993 after being granted entry clearance to work as a minister of religion. In December 1998 the Secretary of State refused his application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and gave notice that, because of his association with an organization involved in terrorist activities in India, he had decided to make a deportation order under s 3(5)(b) Immigration Act 1971 on the ground that it would be conducive to the public good and in the interest of national security. What is conducive to the public good is a matter for the executive discretion of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is entitled to take an overall view. The interests of national security can be threatened not only by action against the United Kingdom buy also indirectly by activities directed against other states. While any specific facts on which the Secretary of State relies must be proved on the ordinary civil balance of probability, no particular standard of proof is appropriate to the formation of his executive judgment or asse
  13. 13Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 All ER 529The House of Lords had to decide whether it was appropriate to grant an injunction to restrain secondary picketing on the ground that it was not covered by statutory immunities concerning trade union action as part of a trade dispute. The British Constitution is firmly based on the separation of powers in that Parliament makes the laws and the judiciary interpret them.
  14. 14Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC 1163This was a negligence claim involving considerations of Art 6 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The executive must never be put in a position where it effectively decides a case in the sense that it could order a court to dismiss a case. What matters is whether the effect of a legal provision is to give the executive a right to make decisions about people’s rights which should be made by the judicial branch of government.
  15. 15R (on the application of Al Rawi and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2007] 2 WLR 1219The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the courts must review the substance of an executive decision in human rights cases. The role of the executive is to make decisions where it has access to special information or expertise or where the nature and consequences of the decision require accountability to the legislature and to the electorate. The role of the judiciary is to make sure that the executive complies with all formal requirements, considers matters rationally, and makes decisions, especially where human rights issues are involved, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
  16. 16R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 All ER 244Parliament, the executive, and the courts each have their distinct and largely exclusive domain. Parliament has a largely unchallengeable right to make whatever laws it thinks right. The executive carries on the administration of the country. The courts interpret the laws, and see that they are obeyed.
  17. 17Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374The Civil Service Union challenged a decision to ban trade union membership at GCHQ on national security ground. Although this case was mainly concerned with the justiciability of Royal Prerogative powers delegated to the executive, Lord Roskill (obiter) said that powers to dissolve Parliament, appoint ministers, and grant honours ‘ as well as others’ were not justiciable.
  18. 18M v Home Office [1993] 3 WLR 433Among other things, the House of Lords had to decide whether the High Court had the power to issue an injunction against the Crown, and, if so was the Home Secretary. In either his personal or ministerial capacity, in contempt of court for ignoring it. This case draws attention to the fat the term ‘the Crown’ is capable of having two meanings, namely, the monarch and the executive, to which the monarch’s powers have been delegated.
  19. 19Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 77 ER 1342The Court of King’s Bench had to decide whether the monarch had any right to take part in the judicial process. The monarch cannot take part in any criminal or civil action or influence the decision of any court of justice. The monarch cannot issue a warrant of arrest.
  20. 20M v Home Office [1991] 3 All ER 537The House of Lords had to decide whether the Home Secretary was subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. There appears to be no reason in principle why, if a statute places a duty on a specified minister or other official which creates a cause of action, an action cannot be brought for breach of statutory duty claiming damages or for an injunction, against the specified minister personally by any person entitled to benefit from the cause of action.
  21. 21R v Secretary of state for the Home Department, ex p Oladehinde [1991] 1 AC 254The House of Lords had to decide whether the Home Secretary was legally responsible for the conduct of immigration officers. When a stature places a duty on a minister it may generally be exercised by a member of their department for whom they accept responsibility and for whose conduct they are accountable.
  22. 22R v Skinner [1968] 2 QB 700The question to be considered by the Court was whether the minister could delegate a decision to use breathalyzing equipment. Ministers are not expected to take every decision entrusted to them by Parliament. If a decision is made on their behalf by one of their officials, then that is the minister’s constitutional decision.
  23. 23Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126, 710The Court of Queen's bench and the House of Lords had to decide whether a person deprived opportunity to vote when they had a legal right to do so had a cause of action in tort. If a statute gives a right the common law will provide a remedy to maintain it where there is injury or damage in spite of parliamentary privilege.
  24. 24R v Boundary Commission for England ex p Foot [1983] QB 600The Court of Appeal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to decide if a decision of the Boundary Commission could be challenged. The Court of Appeal held that the court would not intervene unless the claimant could prove that the Boundary Commission’s recommendations and conclusions were such that no reasonable commission could have made them.
  25. 25Ellen Street Estates, Limited v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the provisions of a statute could be impliedly repealed because of the provisions of an earlier statute. The legislature cannot bind itself as to the form of subsequent legislation.
  26. 26International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 728Laws LJ discussed the effect of the Human Rights Act on Statutory Interpretation and the legal doctrine of legislative supremacy. Since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, the common law now recognizes a distinction between constitutional or fundamental rights on the one hand and other kinds of rights on the other.
  27. 27R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262The House of Lords had to decide whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2994 were valid Acts of Parliament. The purpose of the Parliament Act 1911 was to limit the power of the House of Lords to block the bill which had been approved by the House of Commons. The 1911 Act applies to any public bill subject only to the exceptions contained in the 1911 Act. There is no constitutional principle, or principle of statutory interpretation, which prevents a legislature from altering its constitution, in accordance with the provisions of a statute which empowers it to do so, for the purpose of altering the provisions of the empowering statute.
  28. 28Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 1112The Court had to decide whether the House of Commons, by its own resolution, could extend its privileges and immunities. The Lord Chief Justice held that the privileges and immunities of Parliament could be extended only by legislation which required the separate and simultaneous estates of the House of Commons and the House of Lords as well as the Royal Assent.
  29. 29Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003] QB 151The question was whether the European Communities Act 1972 was capable of being impliedly repealed. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not.
  30. 30Francovich v Italy [1993] 2 CMLR 66Italy had failed to implement Council Directive 90/987 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. F was an employee in a company which became insolvent and which owed him a substantial amount of unpaid salary which it was unable to pay. Under the Directive, Italy should have established a guarantee fund to ensure employees a certain minimum protection in cases such as this. F therefore sued in the Italian court for compensation from the Italian Government on the basis that it was at fault in not having implemented the Directive. The ECJ decided that he could claim no effective rights as the provisions of the Directive lacked sufficient unconditionality.
  31. 31NV Algemene Transport – Expeditie Onderneming van Gen den Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1The Tariefcommissie, a Dutch administrative tribunal, made a reference to the European Court under Article 177 Treating of Rome 1957. The constitutional principle here is that the European Community is a new legal order with sovereign powers.
  32. 32R v Secretary of State for Employment ex p Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] 1 AC 1The House of Lords had to consider, among other things, whether it had jurisdiction to declare a UK statute incompatible with EU law. The Divisional Court had jurisdiction to declare that primary legislation was incompatible with Community law.
  33. 33R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No1) [1990] 2 AC 85The House of Lords had to consider its jurisdiction to disapply the provisions of a UK statute which was incompatible with EU law. Part II of the 1988 Act was unambiguous. If the court were to order the Secretary of State to treat F as entitled to registration and F were unable to prove they were entitled to registration in the European Court, interim relief would have given F rights which contravened parliamentary intention and deprived British fishing vessels of a proportion of the quotas available.
  34. 34Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003] QB 151In four appeals the issue before the court concerned the introduction in accordance with the policy of the European Union of compulsory systems of metric weights and measures. The common law recognized a category of constitutional statutes, and the fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU rested with domestic rather than European legal powers.
  35. 35Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] 3 All ER 752The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the claimant had abused the process of the court by claiming that the university was in breach of contract in the way it had applied its own student regulations. It is not an abuse of process for a student at a university where there is no charter or appointed visitor to claim breach of contract by private law procedure.
  36. 36O’Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124The House of Lords had to decide whether the claimants had abused the process of the court by bringing their claim under private law procedure. As a general rule it would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of the process of the court for a claimant complaining of a public authority’s infringement of his public law rights to seek redress by ordinary action.
  37. 37R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex p B [1995] 2 All ER 129The Court of Appeal had to decide whether it was appropriate to review the decision of a health authority which had refused to fund treatment. Unless a public authority exceeds or abuses its powers, it is not appropriate for the court to intervene especially where matters of professional judgement are concerned. It is also not appropriate for the court to pass judgment on the way a public authority, acting within its powers, spends its allocated budget.
  38. 38R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club was amenable to judicial review. Such a body will not be amenable to judicial review unless it is clear that its origin, history, constitution, and membership show that it has been woven into a system of governmental control.
  39. 39R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987] QB 815The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the Code of Practice Committee of the city panel on takeovers and mergers was susceptible to judicial review. A non-statutory, self-regulatory body may be amenable to judicial review if there is a sufficient public element in its functions.
  40. 40Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768The House of Lords had to decide whether the Greater London Council was within its powers to require the London Boroughs to contribute financially to a scheme to reduce London Transport fares by 25%. The discretionary powers of the Greater London Council were limited by implied fiduciary duties and undertakings to run London Transport on business principles.
  41. 41Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629The claimant renewed his television licence early to avoid an increase in the TV licence fee. His TV licence was revoked. The Home Secretary said that he was entitled to revoke TV licences under s 1(4) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The claimant sought a declaration that the revocation of his TV licence was unlawful. A public body must exercise a discretionary power for the purpose for which it is granted. If a statute states that purposes for which discretion is to be exercised, the courts will treat the stated purposes as exhaustive. If the power is exercised for any other purpose the public body’s action or decision will be ultra vires.
  42. 42R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables and Thompson [1998] AC 407The Home Secretary took into account public opinion and his own policies and ignored the statutory requirement to consider the welfare of the child when setting tariffs of youth custody. A public body must take into account relevant matters and discard anything irrelevant. Where the relevant considerations are expressly stated in a statute any deviation will make a decision invalid.
  43. 43Coleen Properties v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1971)The Court of Appeal had to consider whether it was lawful to confirm a slum clearance compulsory purchase order when one of the buildings was fit for human habitation according to an inspector’s report. A public body must base its conclusions of fact on the evidence before it. A public body’s decision can be challenged by judicial review on the ground that it has ignored relevant evidence, or has misinterpreted evidence or has unreasonably made a decision which is contrary to the weight of the evidence presented to it during the decision-making process.
  44. 44British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610The House of Lords had to decide whether the minister’s policy concerning awarding grants of financial assistance was lawful. When a public body is given a discretionary power it is entitled to formulate and adopt a policy governing its decision-making process. But it cannot adopt a policy which prevents it exercising its discretion buy shutting its ears to certain types of application. It must be prepared to consider every application on its merits. Whether there are any special circumstances justifying departure from its usual policy.
  45. 45Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223The Court of Appeal had to decide whether conditions attached to the licensing of cinemas for Sunday opening were reasonable. For a decision to be unreasonable it must be so absurd that no sensible person could ever contemplate that it would be within their decision-making powers.
  46. 46R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996] QB 517R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996] QB 517
    By a statement made in 1994 the Ministry of Defence reaffirmed its policy that homosexuality was incompatible with service in the armed forces and that personnel known to be homosexual or engaging in homosexual activity would be administratively discharged. The four applicants were serving members of the armed forces who had been administratively discharged between November 1994 and January 1995 on the sole ground that they were of homosexual orientation. In proceedings for judicial review each applicant challenged the decision. One of the grounds was irrationality. Where an administrative decision is made in the context of human rights the court will require a proportionately greater justification before being satisfied that the decision is within the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker, according to the seriousness of the interference with those rights.
  47. 47R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] 2 AC 295The House of Lords had to decide whether the principle of proportionality applied in EU law is a recognized principle of English administrative law. Lord Slynn said that it is time to recognize proportionality as a principle is applied in cases where the court is asked to consider whether legislation is compatible with Convention rights; applying principles of European Union law; deciding whether to quash a penalty or punishment; asked to review the decision of a public body on the ground that it is unreasonable.
  48. 48R (on the application Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 1 AC 1The claimant was an Afghan national who had entered the United Kingdom illegally after the rejection of his claim for asylum (political refugee) in Greece. The Secretary of State decided to remove the claimant to Greece. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision on the grounds that his removal would be contrary to Article 3 ECHR, as the Greek authorities were likely to send him back to Afghanistan where he would be ill-treated. In accordance with Strasbourg jurisprudence, the court is concerned with whether the claimant’s Convention rights have been infringed, not with whether the public authority has properly taken them into account. What is important is the practical outcome of the decision not quality of the decision-making process itself.
  49. 49Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374The claimants sought judicial review of a decision of the Minister for the Civil Service (the Prime Minister) to ban trade union membership at a defence establishment on national security grounds. A legitimate expectation may arise based on consistent past practice.
  50. 50R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2009] 1 AC 453The House of Lords has to decide whether a statement made by the Secretary of State revoking immigration controls in 2000 created a legitimate expectation that the Changos Islanders would be allowed to return and settle permanently on the outer islands. Legitimate expectation has to be based on a promise which is both clear and unambiguous.
  51. 51R v North and East Devon Health Body, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213C was severely disable. In 1993, she and number of other disabled patients were moved from hospital to Mardon House. The HA had promised that this would be their home for life. The HA decided to close Mardon House and transfer C to the local authority for long term nursing care. If a public body exercising a statutory function makes a promise as to how it will behave in the future which induces a legitimate expectation of a benefit which is substantive, rather than merely procedural, to frustrate that expectation can be so unfair that it will amount to an abuse of power. In such circumstances, the court had to determine whether there was a sufficient overriding interest to justify a departure from what had previously been promised.
  52. 52R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531The case concerned a group of prisoners sentenced to mandatory terms of life imprisonment. The actual sentence is divided between a penal component, consisting of the period that the trial judge considers necessary, and an additional risk component, which is the period after the penal element has been served that is considered necessary before the risk to the public is sufficiently reduced to jusity release. This is decided by the Home Office. The trial judge will make a recommendation (which does not have to be followed) after which the Home Secretary and senior officials at the Home Office exercise a wide discretion. Mandatory lifers were not informed about the tariff or told of the original judicial recommendation, nor were they made aware whether the Home Office had departed from the sentence that had been set by the trial judge. The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote identically in every situation. What fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision. Lord Mustill went on to say that the giving of reasons may be inconvenient, but he could see no gr
  53. 53Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992This was an application for an injunction to restrain publication of unauthorized wedding photographs. The Court of Appeal laid down principles relating to s 12 HRA 1998.
  54. 54L v Birmingham City Council [2008] 1 AC 95The question was whether the owners and proprietors of a care home who took people on behalf of a local authority was a public authority for the purposes of s 6 HRA 1998. The provision of care and accommodation by a private company, as opposed to its regulation and supervision under statutory rules, is not an inherently public function and fell outside the ambit of s 6(3)(b).
  55. 55R v A [2002] 1 AC 45The House of Lords was asked to interpret s 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in a manner which is consistent with Article 6 ECHR. The section concerns the admissibility of evidence in rape cases relating to consent. Bearing in mind the legitimate aim of protecting the complainant from indignity and humiliating questioning, the test of admissibility in s 41, when interpreted applying the interpretative obligation under s 3 HRA 1998, is whether the evidential material was nevertheless so relevant to the issue of consent that to exclude it would endanger the fairness of the trial under Article 6. Where that test is satisfied the evidence should not be excluded.
  56. 56R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Greenfield [2005] 1 WLR 673The claimant was a prisoner who applied for judicial review of the deputy controller’s decision, contending that they infringed his right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR, as scheduled to the HRA 1998. He sought damages for violations of Article 6. The House of Lords laid down significant principles concerning awards of damages under s 8 HRA 1998.
  57. 57R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Limited) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 WLR 1389This case concerned several powers granted to the Secretary of State by the Transport and Works Act 1992, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The claimants sought declarations of incompatibility under s 4 HRA 1998 on the ground that they were incompatible with Article 6 ECHR. The impugned powers of the Secretary of State were not incompatible with Article 6(1).
  58. 58Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2012] 1 WLR 517The claimant commenced proceedings against the police, seeking damages for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention, on the basis that the arrest was unlawful because the constable, in exercising the power of summary arrest granted to constables pursuant to s 24, had not actively considered all possible alternatives to arrest but had simply formed the view that it was necessary. In order to justify the constable’s exercise of the power of summary arrest under s 24 PACE in reliance on the reason in subsection (5)(e), the police have to show, first, by reference to s 24(2), that the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and that the claimant is guilty of it and, secondly, by reference to s 24(4), (5)(e), that he has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the claimant to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the claimant’s conduct.
  59. 59Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] EWCA 989The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the police had been justified in depriving the claimants of their liberty, by cordoning them within an area for seven hours along with over 1,000 protestors, on the ground that it was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. In extreme and exceptional circumstances it is lawful for the police to contain demonstrators and members of the public caught up in that demonstration even though they themselves did not appear to be about to commit a breach of the peace, where it is necessary to prevent an imminent breach of the peace by others, and no other means would achieve that.
  60. 60R (on the application of G) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2008] 1 WLR 550The question was whether a custody officer was entitled to detain an arrestee whilst he sought guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service under s 37A PACE on how to proceed with the charges. Section 37(7) PACE dealt comprehensively with the alternatives available to a custody officer who had determined that he had before him sufficient evidence to charge an arrested person, that those alternatives did not include a power to postpone the charging decision for the purpose of obtaining advice from the Crown Prosecution Service without admitting the suspect to bail; that such a power could not be inferred by reference to guidance issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under s 37A, which was not referred to in s 37(7) which was required to be consistent with and limited by the alternatives found in that subsection.
  61. 61A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68The House of Lords had to decide whether s 23 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was compatible with Convention rights incorporate by the Human Rights Act 1998. The House of Lords stated and applied the following principles: 1. Personal liberty is among the most fundamental of rights; 2. Although national security is a matter of political judgment for the executive and Parliament, a court is required, when Convention rights are in issue, to give effective protection by adopting an intensive review of whether such a right has been impugned; and 3. The courts are not precluded by any doctrine of deference from examining the proportionality of a measure taken to restrict such a right.

Information

Description
Flashcards on Public Case, created by Reiner Law on 08/10/2018.
Created by
Reiner Law
Views
0
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?