LLB Help

Facts: Nine men challenged a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to eject them from the country on the basis that there was evidence that they threatened national security All except two were detained in December 2001; the others were detained in February and April 2002 respectively All were detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Part 4 of the Act provided for their indefinite detention without trial and deportation, however this power was only applied to non-British nationals Issue: Whether the detention was lawful under the ATCSA 2001 Held: HoL held that whilst their detention was lawful under the ATCSA 2001, section 23 was incompatible with the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights As a consequence, HoL made a declaration of incompatibility and allowed the appeals

Facts:  Public disturbances some years earlier resulted in the Home Office opting to create a stock of CS gas alongside a store of plastic crowd batons, for easy access by the authorities in times of need The Northumbria Police Authority contested on the grounds that it amounted to the issuing of ultra vires powers to the Home Secretary Issue: Whether the Home Secretary was empowered to supply the crowd control equipment in question as part of their greater prerogative of keeping peace within the realm Held: At first instance, the Court found for the claimant, with the view being held that prevention and management of threats to the peace did not require such strong governmental intervention powers This was overturned on appeal and it was subsequently recognised that Parliament held the prerogative power in determining the nation's approach to disruption management, which it was entitled to delegate to the Home Secretary

Facts: After the issue of the first policy guidance in form of a Command Paper, the Civil Aviation Authority considered an application by the plaintiffs, privately owned air service operators, for a licence to operate a cheap passenger known as Skytrain between London and New York The Authority rejected objections and granted the plaintiffs a 10-year licence to begin on January 1, 1973 Before Skytrain could operate over United State territory a permit had to be obtained from the United States Civil Aeronautics Board under the Bermuda Agreement 1946 The United States board did not until June 1973 forward its recommendation for the President's signature that the plaintiffs be given the necessary permit The plaintiffs brought an action quia timet against the Department of Trade for two declarations were ultra cires and that the department was not entitled to cancel the designation Issue: Whether the Crown had the right or discretion to withdraw the designation under the...

Facts: The consideration as to whether the executive in the UK can use the prerogative powers with the actual effect that an Act of Parliament (legislation) could be prevented from coming into force The case considered The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, introduced in the UK in 1964, under claims that it was formed using prerogative powers Despite the Criminal Justice Act 1988 having received royal assent, a date for effect by the Secretary of State was never made 6 years later, the Home Secretary announced the compensation structure was to be lowered which was then followed by the revelation that the entire Act was to be repealed Issue: Whether when the bringing into power of legislation is hung on the act of the executive, is it a duty or an option for this duty to be seen through and the provisions brought into power? Held: HoL ruled 3-2 majority that the actions of the Home Secretary were unlawful The progression of the acts and provisions led the gen...

Facts: BBC sought to submit that they ought to be exempt from income tax generally as they should be considered a monopoly resultant from prior government decisions grounded in royal prerogative and subsequently be viewed as an emanation of the Crown Issue: Whether the BBC could be viewed as a statutory body and thus exempt from taxation Whether the British Government was authorised to create new monopolies in certain areas Held:  The Court viewed that a body's own decision to enhance its prerogative powers would not be compelling to a Court and further that legal exemptions of the type sought by the BBC were only permissible by the discretion of the oversight bodies and royal prerogative As the BBC was not a statutory creation and did not exercise any statutory functions, it was not subject to any statutory guidance and could not claim taxation exemption benefits

Facts: The appellant Secretary of State appealed against a decision that two Orders in Council which had the effect of preventing former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands from returning there were an abuse of power Her Majesty exercised her prerogative to make two Orders in Council which had the effect of preventing the Chagossians form returning to the islands Secretary of State argued that the courts had no power to review the validity of an Order in Council legislating for a colony Issue: Whether the courts could subject Orders in Council to judicial review Questioned the legality of the 2004 Order Held: The appeal was allowed Prerogative legislation could be subject to review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety The Lords upheld the legality of the Constitutional Order

Facts: The first claimant was a British national who had been captured by the United States forces in Afghanistan and detained in Guantanamo Bay as an 'enemy combatant' He was deprived of access to court proceedings and legal advice, and applied for judicial review in the UK seeking to compel the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs either to intervene with the US government or alternatively to explain the omission to do so Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision by the Secretary of State not to intervene Whether the UK government had any duty to protect the claimant as one of its citizens Held: The Court could review the decisions on grounds of rationality and legitimate expectation The Court held that there was no legal duty on the state to protect its citizens in such circumstances

Facts: In the 1980's, it was ruled that any and all employees of the Government Communications Headquarters were prohibited from joining any trade union This decision was justified based on the potential threat to national security, and enforced using an Order of Council which is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative Power Issue: By limiting access, or completely refusing access to trade unions to employees, certain individuals affected were not able to rely on certain employment legislative provisions or be represented by a union Held: At first instance, the case was heard at the High Court of Justice, where it was ruled that the Order was invalid, however this was overturned on Appeal at the Court of Appeal as the consideration of national security was of paramount importance, and as such considerations and decisions made on this basis were not to be considered

Facts: M was a citizen of Zair (RotC) who arrived in the UK seeking asylum His repeated applications were rejected, as were his applications for judicial review Due to a misunderstanding, the judge mistakenly thought that counsel for the Secretary of State had given an undertaking that M's removal would be postponed pending consideration of his latest application Learning of M's deportation, the judge ordered his return M instituted committal proceedings against the Home Office and the Secretary of State for breaching the undertaking not to remove him Issue: Crown departments, ministers or officials acting in the courts of their duties could not be impleaded for contempt of court The Court of Appeal allowed M's appeal, finding the Secretary of State guilty of contempt of court, and both sides appealed Held: Crown officials could be personally liable for a tort committed or authorised by them, despite the action being carried out in their official ca...

Facts: The claimants were the owners of a London Hotel that had been used by some members of the armed forces in World War One, and they thus sought reasonable compensation for this occupation The defendants attempted to reject this claim, asserting that their duty to defend the realm, as per prerogative powers and the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, meant that they had no obligation to compensate the claimants Issue: Whether the Government's prerogative powers to protect the realm authorised them to evade statutory responsibilities Held: At first instance, the High Court found for the Attorney-General, but this was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal and by HoL HoL held that the prerogative vested in the Crown and Parliament did not allow for the repossession of property from a citizen, unless the citizen was appropriately and reasonably compensated

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid

Facts: Bonham, a trained medical doctor, petitioned to join the College of Physicians but was rejected Bonham applied for membership again; this time his rejection was accompanied by a fine and a threat of imprisonment should he continue his practice Bonham claimed that the College had no power over Oxford and Cambridge graduates Bonham was imprisoned and sued for a fine for maintaining an illicit practice at the King's Bench Issue: The College claimed to have statutory basis for its allegation that it was free to decide who could practice medicine and to punish those without a licence Bonham argued that the statutes aimed to prevent malpractice but did not relate to practice without a licence Held: Two-judge minority sided with the College held that the statutes conferred powers on the College that were to be exercised on behalf of the King Majority found for Bonham and Sir Coke claimed that the power to impose fines on those involved in illicit practice a...

Facts: In November 2004, the British Government enacted the Hunting law which prohibited fox hunting Bill received support in the House of Commons but opposition in the House of Lords, so the Parliament Act 1949 was used to counter the House of Lords' ability to delay the bill and so it received royal assent The claimant attempted to assert that the Hunting Act 2004 was invalid as the 1949 Parliament Act was itself illegal Issue: Was the Parliament Act 1949 unlawful, and subsequently was the Hunting Act 2004 unlawful? Held: At the first hearing and upon appeal, the Courts found for the Attorney General, determining that the Hunting Act and the Parliament Acts were lawful This decision was upheld on final appeal to the House of Lords

Facts:  Acts of Parliament sometimes contain a 'Henry VIII clause' which allows a nominated member of the executive to make amendments to legislation without the time and expense of making such a change in Parliament The EC Act 1972 provided that laws could be modified to attain compliance EC (or now EU) directives Thoburn claimed that it was legal to trade primarily in imperial measures Issue: To what extent did the European Communities Act 1972 empower the provision of subordinate legislation which was inconsistent with it? Held: Appeals were dismissed as the extent the 1972 empowered the provision of subordinate legislation was inconsistent with it Each specific right and obligation provided under the EC laws was incorporated into domestic law and took precedence