Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/18

Click to flip

18 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Entick v Carrington

Entick v Carrington [1765] is a leading case in English law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power. The case has also been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.In 1762, the King's Chief Messenger Nathan Carrington, and three other King's messengers, into the home of writer, John Entick "with force and arms" and seized Entick's private papers. Entick was arrested. The King's messengers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax "to make strict and diligent search for . . . the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers. Entick sought judgment against Carrington and his colleagues who argued that they acted upon Halifax's warrant. A jury returned a special verdict finding that the defendants had broken into Entick's home "with force and arms" and searched for and taken. Judge Camden held that Halifax had no right under statut

Rossminster

[1980] The Inland Revenue had certain powers under s20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 which enabled them to apply to the court for a search warrant in connection with suspected tax fraud. One such warrant was obtained against a number of persons including Rossminster Limited and the police and Revenue inspectors searched the relevant premises and seized a number of documents. They did not inform the persons of the offences of which they were suspected, nor did the search warrant contain particulars of the alleged offences. Rossminster judicially reviewed the grant of the warrants in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. The Divisional Court refused the application, but its decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Revenue then appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords concluded that:
• the warrants in question were within the Revenue’s powers and the suspects had no right to be told the nature of the offences alleged against them (Lord Salmon dissenting);
• whether there existe

Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

[1979] James Malone was on trial on suspicion of dealing in stolen goods. In the course of the trial it became clear that the police had intercepted Malones telephone calls thereby obtaining evidence of alleged criminality. Sir Robert McGarry B.C.E. rule that no trespass was committed by the police but the interception of communications was "a subject which cries out for legislation". Megarry VC said that the executive could do anything that was not prohibited by law (purporting to reverse Entick v Carrington). The Court refused to declare that an act of telephone tapping carried out by the post office, at the request of the police, was not unlawful because an act which is not specifically prohibited is permitted

Malone v UK

1984 Respect for private life has generated protection against telephone interception. In Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1979) the UK courts held that there was no right to privacy in UK law. This case was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights where in Malone v UK (1984) a different conclusion was reached. The European Court of Human Rights held in Malone that the tapping of telephone lines was in breach of Article 8 because it was ‘not in accordance with the law’ but was instead governed by unregulated police discretion. The European Court did not say that telephone tapping was illegal, but that unregulated telephone tapping was contrary to Article 8. The Government reacted by introducing the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to control telephone tapping by the police.

M v Home Office

[1993] Judicial Review – Home Secretary cannot ignore rule of law
M was to be deported. The Home Secretary’s counsel gave an undertaking that this would not happen until after the hearing of the appeal. However, M was deported. The court ordered that M should be taken off the plane when it stopped at Paris. The Home Secretary did not consider himself bound by the order and M was not taken off the plane.



Held: The Home Secretary was held in contempt of court but no punishment imposed.

The "rule of law" requires even government ministers to accept and obey the orders of the courts.



M disappeared shortly after his arrival in Zaire and was never heard from again.

R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union

(1994) Supremacy of Parliament – the Royal Prerogative – used today by ministers as Orders in Council]
Concerned the payment for criminal injuries paid under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme created in 1964 under prerogative powers. the Home Sec. decided that he would introduce a new tariff for compensation by using the Royal prerogative to amend the criminal injuries compensation scheme which had been introduced under the Royal prerogative rather than through an act of Parliament. However, in 1988 Parliament had passed the criminal justice which in part provided for amendments to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. All the relevant provisions had the not yet been brought into force. The question was whether the Home Sec. could use the prerogative rather than the statute the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords ruled that where a statute was enforceable thew Secretary could not avoid provisions and act under the prerogative he could persuade parliament to amend the act or to repeal th

A V Secretary for the Home Department 2005

A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; X and another v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 . The case began with 10 men who challenged a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to eject them from the country on the basis that there was evidence of them being a threat to national security. Under section 25 of this Act, they had the legal right to appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against their detention. They argued that the antiterrorism, crime and security act (ACSA) 2001, S. Number 23 to detain foreign terror suspects indefinitely was incompatible with the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Their Lordships issued a declaration of incompatibility, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliament decided to replace the ACSA 2001 with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.[2] This allows anyone of any nationality to be detained.

The Case of Prohibitions

The Case of Prohibitions (1607) A legal dispute had been judged personally by King James VI of Scotland and I of England but was overruled by the ordinary courts. In his judgment, Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, ruled that disputes were to be tried by legal experts according to law, not the best efforts of an untrained monarch. The law was the “golden metwand” (measuring rod) against which to judge the claims of citizens.

Case of Proclamations

Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74: making wanted to limit the building of new homes in London and also wanted to ensure that week was preserved for human consumption he issued proclamations to give effect to these objectives. The House of Commons objected to this lawmaking exercise and the king sought the opinions of the judges. The court stated that the law compromise statute, law custom and at the King's proclamations were none of these.Lord Coke held that the Crown has no prerogative to change the common law or statute, or to create new offences. He also held that the King only has the powers that the law allows him. This case is important as it is a move away from arbitrary government. It cements the separation of powers and the subjection of the executive to the rule of law.

Case of Proclamations

Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74: the king wanted to limit the building of new homes in London and also wanted to ensure that week was preserved for human consumption. He issued proclamations to give effect to these objectives. The House of Commons objected to this law making exercise and the king sought the opinions of the judges. The court stated that the law comprise statute, common law and custom and that the king's proclamations were none of these. Coke Coke L. CJ ruled that the king had no power to create new offenses and it became "have no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows himLord Coke held that the Crown has no prerogative to change the common law or statute, or to create new offences. He also held that the King only has the powers that the law allows him. This case is important as it is a move away from arbitrary government. It cements the separation of powers and the subjection of the executive to the rule of law.

Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel

[1920] the House of Lords ruled that where an act of Parliament covers the same scope as the prerogative the act of Parliament prevails in the prerogative, if not expressly abolished, is placed in advance bracket effectively suspended]. Accordingly, the government could not choose to use the prerogative to award a lesser amount of compensation for occupation of property in wartime than the amount provided for under the defense of the rounds

BBC v John's

1965 in BBC say heJohn's lowered the block gave judicial expression to this statement "it is 350 years and the Civil War too late for the Queens courts to broaden the prerogative."

Laker Airways versus Department of trade

1977 it was held that prerogative, in this case the treaty making power, could not be used to defeat a right granted under an act of Parliament. Laker Airways had been granted a license by the civil aviation Authority under statutory authority the Secretary of State had power to issue guidance to the civil aviation Authority Brackett CHA] as to its duties. As a result of a change in government, and consequent change in policy, the secretary of state issued "guidance" to the CAA as he was entitled to; the guidance, however, instructed the CAA to revoke Laker's license. The result would have been to give the then state owned British Airways and monopoly, in line with government policy Laker sought judicial review of this decision.The Attorney General contended that the power of the Secretary of State ‘to withdraw’ the designation was a prerogative power which could not be examined in the courts. It was a power arising under a treaty which, he said, was outside the cognisance of the courts.

Laker v Dept. of Trade

1977 the facts involve regulation of transatlantic air route. Under the Bermuda agreement of 1946, the United States and the United Kingdom governments agreed that air carriers should be approved by both governments: the "designation" requirement. In 1971 the civil aviation act was passed by Parliament arriving for the licensing of airlines by the civil aviation Authority [CAA [. The act provided that the Secretary of State should give guidance to the CA a pass to the policy to be followed in the consideration of license applications like her had been granted a license under the CAA act of 1971. Change of government led to a change in policy and was decided that British Airways should have a monopoly on the transatlantic route. Accordingly the Secretary of State issued guidance to the CAA to the effect of Mr. Laker's license should be revoked. Secretary Of State also requested that the United States government did not proceed to grant designation to Laker Airways under the treaty. An application for judicial

R. V. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Northumbria Police Authority

1985 the court of appeal ruled that the home Sec. had the power to issue weaponry to police forces under the prerogative. The supplied even though no direct authority could be found for there being a prerogative "keep the peace" as the home Sec. claimed. This was notwithstanding the police act of 1964 was provided, it inter alia, that such items could be issued following a request of the police authority and made no mention of the home Sec.'s power to issue the items on his own initiative.

Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [GCHQ]

The House of Lords said that executive action is not immune from judicial review merely because it is carried out in pursuant of a power derived from the Royal prerogative. Administers exercising power under the prerogative might depending on the just to see ability of its subject matter be under the same duty to act fairly as in the case of action taken under a statutory power.. The Prime Minister acting in her capacity as Minister for the civil service issued an oral instruction under the civil service order in Council 1982 Manning continued membership of trade unions at GEC HQ the Government communications headquarters, and intelligence facility which collects signal intelligence from around the world. The government having lost in the High Court cleated national security and the Court of Appeal and want. The House of Lords upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to enter be in matters of national security.

To press will matters were established in the DCH cu

R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs ex parte Everett

1989 it was held at the prerogative power to issue passports is revealed. The prerogative of mercy has also been judicially reviewed.

R V SECRETARY OF State for the home Department ex parte Bentley

the court exercise jurisdiction and "invited" the home Sec. to reconsider his refusal to recommend a post you must pardon for Bentley.