List of cases studied in class

Theme

Case

Legal principle

General constitutional law

Prohibitions del Roy, 1607

Separation of powers: The court ruled that the king cannot judge any case (though he may sit at the King’s Bench). It was also stated that the king cannot arrest a man, since, in the instance of wrongful arrest, the victim would have no remedy, the king being incapable of punishment by the law.

General constitutional

law

Case of Proclamations, 1611

Separation of powers : Although the king can require his subjects to obey the law, he cannot make any new laws by proclamation, nor change the existing common law by proclamation. To do so he would require parliament’s approval. (“[T]he Law of England is divided into three parts: Common Law, Statute Law, and Custom; But the King's Proclamation is none of them.”)

General constitutional law

Entick v Carrington, 1765

Separation of powers/rule of law: The state is not above the law.  To enter a person's house and search it, government agents need a valid search warrant based on probable cause.

General constitutional law

A-G v De Keysers Royal Hotel, 1920

Rule of law: During WWI, the government requisitioned the claimant’s hotel for military use. After the war ended, the hotel sought compensation from the government for the use of its property during the wartime requisition. The court held that the authority held by the Crown and Parliament did not permit the taking of property from a citizen, even in matters related to the defense of the realm, unless the citizen received suitable and fair compensation.

Parliamentary sovereignty: “If the whole ground of something which could be done by the prerogative is covered by the statute, it is the statute that rules.”, Lord Dunedin

General constitutional law

Congreve v Home Office, 1976

Parliamentary sovereignty: The government decided to raise the cost of a TV licence but, after the planned increase was announced, a number of people bought new licences at the old price before the increase came into effect. In order to recover the money lost, the government decided to revoke the licences unless the increased fee paid. The court held that the actions proposed by the government amounted to a tax which had not been authorised by Parliament. The government could only levy taxes on the public where Parliament had expressly authorised them to do so.  

General constitutional law

Re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada, 1981

Sources of constitutional law: The court recognized the existence of a constitutional convention but refused to make it legally enforceable.

General constitutional law

C-213/89 Factortame (no.1), 1990

Parliamentary sovereignty/hierarchy of norms: Where a national law or procedural rule fails to observe rights granted under EC law, the courts have a duty to apply EC law and disregard the conflicting national law(s).

General constitutional law

BBC v Johns (Inspector of Taxes), 1965

Sources of constitutional law: It is impossible to create new prerogative powers because prerogative powers are a residue of the original powers of the monarch

General constitutional law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (the GCHQ case), 1985

Sources of constitutional law: The court recognised that it had the power to review at least some of the prerogative powers exercised by the Crown – this had previously been thought impossible. Following the decision of the House of Lords in the GCHQ case, the courts have considered a number of prerogative powers.  Some have been held to be open to judicial review but others remain non-justiciable.  

Judicial review: The House of Lords ruled that national security concerns justified the Prime Minister's decision to ban trade unions at the GCHQ intelligence agency, recognising that some decisions could be excluded from judicial review based on their subject matter.

General constitutional law

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 1989

Sources of constitutional law: It was held that the prerogative power to issue passports was subject to judicial review as it was a power which affected the rights of the individual and did not have foreign policy implications. Provided that the Secretary of State communicated the reason for the refusal, together with the details of the warrant, the refusal to issue a new passport was within his powers.

General constitutional law

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, 2002

Sources of constitutional law: The concept of implied repeal states that if the Parliament passes successive statutes that make irreducibly conflicting provisions, the earlier statute is impliedly repealed by the later one. While, ordinary statutes can be impliedly repealed, constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed under common law.

Institutions of the State

R v New Statesman (Editor), ex parte DPP, 1928

Contempt of court: The New Statesman magazine published an article in which it was stated: ‘an individual owning to such views… cannot apparently hope for a hair hearing in a court presided over by Mr Justice Avory’. It was held that this brought the integrity of the judge into disrepute and so constituted a contempt of court.  

Institutions of the State

Attorney General v Hawkins ; Attorney General v Liddle, 2013

Contempt of court: contempt of court cases feature the misuse of social media to circumvent an order of the court. Sir John Thomas: “We must also take into account the very serious nature of publication on social media or otherwise on the internet … [which] can reach very many people as this case shows. Therefore the conduct of anyone who publishes such information, whether it be on the social media or elsewhere on the internet, has that very serious consequence.”

Freedoms and rights

R(F) (a child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2010

Declaration of incompatibility: It was held that, in the case of a person on the sex offender register who was able to demonstrate they no longer pose a risk, that there was no justification for continued interference with their Article 8 rights by insisting on future compliance with reporting requirements. Therefore, the court affirmed a declaration of incompatibility to the effect that the absence of any mechanism for review of the requirements under the 2003 Act was disproportionate interference with the rights under Article 8.  

Freedoms and rights

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) Ltd, 2004

Right to privacy: The defendant newspaper published details of model Naomi Campbell’s drug treatment including covertly taken photographs of her visits to Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The court held that there was no pressing need for the publication, which was a clear violation of the model’s right to privacy.

Freedoms and rights

DPP v Whyte, 1972

Freedom of expression: A husband and wife ran a bookshop which was visited by police who seized a large amount of photography. It was argued that the customers of the shop could not be depraved and corrupted by the pornography sold by the couple because they were already used to viewing such materials. It was held that there was nothing in the wording of the Act which justified the defendant’s assertions. The Act is not merely concerned with the once and for all corruption of the wholly innocent; it equally protects the less innocent from further corruption.  

Freedoms and rights

R v Lemon, 1979

Freedom of expression: The magazine Gay News published a poem depicting the life of Jesus and describing sexual acts committed on his body after crucifixion. The court held that there was no requirement for an intention to blasphemous. All that was needed was the publication of material which was later held to be blasphemous.

Freedoms and rights

Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd, 1985

Freedom of expression: Sarah Tisdall, who worked in the Foreign Office, revealed to the Guardian newspaper the secret arrival of American nuclear missiles at a UK airforce base. Tisdall claimed that revealing this information was in public interest. It was held that she had contravened the Official Secret Act and she was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment

Freedoms and rights

Flockhart v Robinson, 1950

Police powers: The defendant was accused of organising a political procession. This required the court to define what was meant in law by the term ‘procession’. The court defined it as “not a mere body of persons: [a procession] is a body, of persons moving along a route”

Administrative law

R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace, 1994

Locus standi : The environment campaign group Greenpeace sought to bring an action to challenge the policy of discharging toxic waste from the Sellafield nuclear plant into the Irish Sea. It was held that, although Greenpeace clearly was not directly affected by the policy, the act that it was an internationally recognised organisation, with access to resources and expertise, meant that it was much better equipped to bring an action that the actual residents affected by the policy.

Administrative law

Attorney General v Fulham Corporation, 1921

Judicial review (grounds): The corporation had a statutory obligation (in an attempt to prevent disease) to provide washhouses for the poor. The authority sought to open a commercial laundry under this power.It was held that the purpose of the power was to provide washing facilities for the very poorest people within the community. Opening a commercial laundry which would charge money to clean clothes was clearly not within the power and so was ultra vires.

Administrative law

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission, 1969

Judicial review (grounds): A landmark case that established the principle of jurisdictional error of law, in which the House of Lords held that the courts had the power to review decisions made by public authorities, even if the statute prohibits judicial review. The Foreign Compensation Commission made an error of law by interpreting its powers narrowly.

Administrative law

R v Home Secretary ex parte Venables and Thompson, 1997

Judicial review (grounds): The House of Lords held that the Home Secretary Michael Howard unlawfully took into account the irrelevant consideration of a petition organised by The Sun newspaper to not allow two men release from prison.

Administrative law

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, 1948

Judicial review (grounds): The local authority had the power to license cinemas to open on Sundays, subject to whatever, conditions it thought fit to impose. In considering this application, the authority decided that no person under 15 years should be admitted on a Sunday. The company challenged this decision as unreasonable. If a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the court can interfere. Lord Greene MR said : “as a general concept a decision would only be unlawful if no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority”.

Judicial review: A case that established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" standard for judicial review of public authorities, requiring that their decisions should not be irrational, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the goal being pursued.

Administrative law

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendary Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, 2000

Judicial review (grounds): It emerged that one of the Law Lords had close links with Amnesty International, which was pressing for the extradition to take place in this case. This raised the possibility of bias and so required the decision to be set aside and the case reheard.  

Administrative law

R v Baldwin, 1964

Judicial review (grounds): It was held that the right to a fair hearing required a person to be afforded the opportunity to present their case. Where the power to be exercised involves a charge made against the person who is dismissed the principles of natural justice have to be observed before the power is exercised.  

Administrative law

R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan, 2001

Legitimate expectations: Miss Coughlan claimed that she should be able to remain in social housing, a care home for people with severe disabilities after the health authority had assured her it was a 'home for life'. The Court of Appeal held that it would be an abuse of power, breaking the assurance was 'equivalent to a breach of contract in private law', and it 'was unfair because it frustrated her legitimate expectation of having a home for life'. The decision to close a residential care facility was unlawful, as it failed to fulfil the promise made to the residents about their long-term accommodation.