• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/4

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

4 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Entick v Carrington 1765

Facts The King’s messengers broke into Entick’s house on orders from the Secretary of State to seize both Entick and his papers (he was suspected of treason). Entick challenged the legality of the search but the Secretary of State argued that such powers were an essential part of government.
Legal principle: The state had to act within legal authority. Therefore, if there was no statute or common law precedent which authorised the search, it would be illegal. The state was not above the law
Concerning: the limits of state powers
NHS charges

Concerning: collective ministerial responsibility
Facts Faced with the cost of the new National Health Service, which had been intended to be free for all, the government decided to impose charges for some services. Three ministers, Aneurin Bevan, John Freeman and Harold Wilson, resigned.

Legal principle A minister who cannot stand by the decision of the government in public cannot retain their post.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985]



Concerning: the courts and prerogative power
Facts It was decided by the government that workers at the secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) should not be allowed to join a trade union in case this led to them going on strike. The government altered, by means of prerogative power, the terms of employment of the workers to prohibit union membership. The union sought judicial review of the policy.

Legal principle:: It was held that, although this particular prerogative power remained non-justiciable, there was nothing in principle to prevent the courts from considering the use of prerogative powers. This has led to various prerogative powers being challenged in later cases
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991]
Facts Spanish fishermen sought to avoid fishing quotas by registering their ships in the UK. The government introduced legislation to counter this, but the fishermen argued this was contrary to EU law.

Legal principle It was held that, where there was conflict between EU and domestic law, the courts must give effect to the EU provisions. The law of Parliament could be set aside