Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Con Case Law
Constitutional and Administrative Law: All Cases
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| When was the Entick v Carrington case? | 1765 |
| What ere the facts of Entick v Carrington? | - Government officials acting under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. - They broke into Entick's home and seized his private papers |
| What was legally wrong with the warrant in Entick v Carrington? | There was no legal basis in statute or common law authorising the warrant |
| What key principle did Lord Camden establish in Entick v Carrington? | "If it is law, it will be found in out books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law" |
| What does Entick v Carrington say about state power? | - The state may do only what the law authorises - Individuals may do anything not prohibited by law |
| What does Entick v Carrington say about judicial power? | - A court will not invent new powers for the state |
| How does Entick v Carrington support Dicey's Rule of Law? | - Government must act within the law - No arbitrary powers - Equality before the law - Rights enforced through ordinary courts |
| Why is Entick v Carrington important constitutionally? | - It confirms that it is Parliament, not the judiciary, that must grant new powers to government |
| What constitutional concepts does Entick v Carrington illustrate? | - Rule of Law - Role of the Judiciary - Doctrine of Precedent - Court-based constitution |
| What year was DPP v Shaw? | 1962 |
| What were the facts of DPP v Shaw? | Shaw published advertisements for prostitutes to assist their trade after street solicitation was banned |
| What offences was Shaw charged with? | - Conspiracy to corrupt public morals - Living off the earnings of prostitution - Publishing obscene articles |
| Why was DPP v Shaw controversial? | The House of Lords "discovered" a dormant common law offence with no clear precedent |
| What constitutional concern arose in DPP v Shaw? | - The judiciary effectively created a new criminal offence - Inventing new state powers |
| What happened to the case outcome? | - Dismissed |
| What doctrine is challenged by DPP v Shaw? | - Doctrine of Precedent - Separation of powers |
| When was R v Rimmington? | 2006 |
| What were the facts of Rv Rimmington? | - The defendant sent racist letters and packages to individuals |
| What offence was Rimmington charged with? | - Public nuisance |
| Why was the conviction of R v Rimmington overturned? | Public nuisance requires harms to a class of people, not individuals |
| What criticism did the court make of the common law offence? | - It was too vague - "Lacked precision and clarity of definition" |
| What constitutional principle does R v Rimmington support? | Legal certaintly as part of the Rule of Law |
| What year was Ex Parte Simms? | 2000 |
| What were the fatcs of Ex parte Simms? | Prisoners banned from journalist interviews unless not intended for publication |
| Which human right was engaged in Ex parte Simms? | Article 10 - freedom of expression |
| What did the House of Lords decide in Ex parte Simms? | The ban was unlawful |
| What key principle of statutory interpretation was established? | Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words |
| How does Ex parte Simms balance parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law? | Parliament can restrict rights, but only if it does so clearly |
| What doctrine is strengthened by Ex parte Simms? | Principle of legality |
| What year was R(Butt) v Home Secretary? | 2017 |
| What was challenged in R(Butt) v Home Secretary? | Prevent Duty Guidance including "non-violent extremsim" |
| What were Butt's legal arguments? | - Guidance was ultra vires - Too vague - Incompatible with Article 10 HRA 1998 |
| What was the courts decision in R(Butt)? | Most challenges were rejected |
| Why is the case constitutionally important? | Clarifies constitutional limits on guidance and executive powers |
| When was Miller 1? | 2017 |
| What were the key issues in Miller 1? | Whether the government could trigger Article 50 using prerogative powers |
| What did the Supreme Court decide in Miller 1? | Only Parliament could trigger Article 50 |
| Why would prerogative use violate the rule of law? | Because it would change domestic law without parliamentary approval |
| How does Miller 1 reflect separation of powers? | Courts decided who had the power, not whether Brexit should occur |
| What was said about the Sewel Convention in Miller 1? | It was a political convention, so not legally enforceable |
| When was the UNISON case? | 2017 |
| What was challenged in the UNISON case? | Employment Tribunal fees introduced by the Lord Chancellor |
| Why were the fees in UNISON unlawful? | - Prevented access to justice - Ultra vires |
| What remedy did the court grant? | Quashing order |
| What constitutional principle does UNISON reinforce? | Access to justice as a core element of the rule of law |
| When was the Belmarsh case? | 2004 |
| What legislation was challenged in the Belmarsh case? | Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 |
| What powers did the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allow in the Belmarsh case? | Indefinite detention without charge or trial |
| Which ECHR rights were breached in the Belmarsh case? | Article 5, 14 and 15 |
| Why was the legislation in the Belmarsh case discriminatory? | It applied only to non-UK nationals |
| What did the courts decide in the Belmarsh case? | Issue a declaration of incompatibility |
| Why is the Belmarsh case significant for Dicey'd Rule of Law? | People suffered punishment without breaking the law |
| When was the Jackson v Attorney General? | 2006 |
| What legislation was challenged in Jackson? | - Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 - Hunting Act 2005 |
| What was Jackson's argument? | - The 1949 Act was delegated, not primary legislation - Therefore the Hunting Act passed under the 1949 Act was not valid |
| What did the House of Lords decide in the Jacksons case? | The 1949 Act was valid primary legislation |
| What does Jackson say about parliamentary sovereignty? | Parliament can legislate without House of Lords consent in certain circumstances |
Created by:
N3
Popular Law sets