M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377

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 capacity
  • While the Crown itself cannot be found guilty of contempt of court, a minister in his official capacity can

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

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
Read more

Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (1610) 8 Co Rep 114 (Dr Bonham’s Case)

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...
Read more

‘The rules on standing in judicial review cases strike the right balance between access to the courts and not hindering the operation of government’. Discuss with reference to relevant cases.

Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of a decision of a public body. The claimant must have the right to claim by having enough interest in the matter. There are exclusion of judicial review by the Parliament. For people that are affected by the decision are able to ask for review, and the government will be affected only if they have made an unlawful decision.
Read more