Al Rabbat Case Essay

I find The High Court’s decision to be appropriately aligned with the black letter of the law and without subjectivity. Subsequently a convincing decision for three key reasons: (i) the decision applies the doctrine of precedent, (ii) lack of legislation is addressed coherently and (iii) parliamentary supremacy and intention is upheld. While the facts and issues of the R (Playfoot) case are radically different to that of Al Rabbat both deal with judicial review cases. Superstone QC and Thomas LCJ apply the doctrine of precedent in their decisions. The claimant in Playfoot sought judicial review of the decision by the governors of her School to refuse her permission to wear a ‘purity’ ring symbolic of her belief as a Christian in pre-marital sexual abstinence. Superstone QC turned to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 and identified one of the particular issues before the court: whether the wearing of the ring was a manifestation of the claimant’s religious belief within article 9. Addressing the issue of manifestation Superstone applied the doctrine of precedent and relied on the House of Lords’ decisions in R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School3 (‘Begum’) and R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment4 …show more content…
Acts of torture prior to the implementation of the statue could not be persecuted due to lack of legislation. In comparison the court in the Al Rabbat case faced the same issue of having no legislation in order to persecute the crime. It would ludicrous for the court to suggest that the crime could be prosecuted in absence of legislation; the conclusion that there is no persecution of interested parties is therefore logical and