Lanbuk on Constitutional Law: cases
43 cases, each with its facts, the issue, what was held and the principle.
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Somerset v Stewart (1772)A power so odious needs positive law to support it. Without it, the detention could not stand.
- Entick v Carrington (1765)Public officers need legal authority for interfering with a person or his property. State necessity is not a defence.
- Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979)A rule is only law if it is accessible and precise enough for a citizen, with advice if needed, to foresee the consequences of his conduct.
- M v Home Office (1993)Ministers are subject to the orders of the courts. The executive is not above the law.
- R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham (1997)General words in a statute do not authorise interference with fundamental rights such as access to justice.
- Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs (1980)Parliament makes the law, and judges must apply clear statutes even if they dislike the result.
- X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd (1990)Lord Bridge said the rule of law rests on a twin foundation: Parliament is sovereign in making law and the courts are sovereign in interpreting and applying it.
- R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019)The courts decide the limits of prerogative powers by reference to constitutional principles such as parliamentary sovereignty and accountability.
- Case of Proclamations (1610)The Crown cannot legislate without Parliament. The courts decide the limits of the prerogative.
- R v Hampden (the Ship Money Case) (1637)The case shows how wide the prerogative was once thought to be. Parliament declared ship money unlawful in 1641.
- Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842)The enrolled Act rule.
- Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co (1871)Courts are bound to apply an Act of Parliament.
- British Railways Board v Pickin (1974)The courts will not look behind an Act of Parliament to examine its passage.
- Cheney v Conn (1968)A statute prevails over international law in the domestic courts of the United Kingdom.
- Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke (1968)A constitutional convention that Parliament will not legislate on a matter does not limit its legal power to do so.
- Manuel v Attorney-General (1982)The court applies the Act as enacted.
- R (Jackson) v Attorney-General (2005)Some Law Lords suggested, without deciding, that there could be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, for example to protect the rule of law or judicial review.
- Marbury v Madison (1803)The courts may review legislation and declare it void if it conflicts with a written constitution.
- Rivlin v Bilainkin (1953)Privilege attaches to proceedings in Parliament, not to everything that happens in the building.
- Beach v Freeson (1971)A Member's work outside the House may be protected by qualified privilege, but not by absolute parliamentary privilege.
- Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith (1971)A Member must have a complete right of free speech in the House without fear that his motives or reasoning will be questioned later.
- Hamilton v Al Fayed (2000)The courts must not question proceedings in Parliament, but a statutory waiver can allow the evidence to be used.
- Cook v Alexander (1973)Fair reports of parliamentary proceedings made in good faith are privileged.
- R v Stonehouse (1977)Membership of Parliament gives no protection against prosecution for crime.
- Sierra Leone Bar Association v Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and another (2004)The court will not imply a limit that the Constitution does not state. The Constitution requires parliamentary approval expressly where it intends it, and the oRead the full judgment
- Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment (1977)Acts of ministers in their official capacity are acts of the Crown, that is, of the Executive.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)The prerogative cannot be used to defeat a statutory scheme Parliament has enacted.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bugdaycay (1986)Lord Bridge: the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and decisions that may put it at risk call for the most anxious scrutiny.
- Liversidge v Anderson (1941)Lord Atkin, dissenting: every imprisonment without trial and conviction is prima facie unlawful, and it is for the person directing it to justify it. His dissen
- R v Jackson (1891)A husband has no right to imprison his wife.
- Shaaban bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam (1969)An arrest occurs when an officer says he is arresting, uses force to restrain, or makes it clear by words or conduct that he will use force if needed to prevent
- Walters v W. H. Smith and Son Ltd (1914)A private person who arrests without a warrant must show that the offence was in fact committed, as well as reasonable grounds to suspect the person arrested.
- Christie v Leachinsky (1947)A person is entitled to know in substance why he is being arrested, unless the circumstances make it obvious or he makes it impossible to tell him.
- DPP v Hawkins (1988)Reasons must be given at the time or as soon as practicable.
- R v Samuel (1987)Access to a lawyer is a fundamental right of a person in custody.
- Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (1920)Statute displaces the prerogative in the same field.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (1999)General words in a statute do not authorise the overriding of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression (the principle of legality).
- Sim v Stretch (1936)Lord Atkin: words are defamatory if they tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
- Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934)Matter that tends to make a person shunned and avoided is defamatory, even if it implies no moral blame.
- Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (Spycatcher) (1988)Confidence may justify restricting expression, but not where the information is already public and no further harm can be prevented.
- Thomas v Sawkins (1935)Police may enter private premises to prevent a reasonably apprehended breach of the peace.
- R v Smith (1900)Solomon J: a soldier who honestly believes he is doing his duty in obeying an order is protected unless the order is so manifestly illegal that he must or ought
- Keighley v Bell (1866)Willes J said the better opinion was that a soldier acting under orders that are not necessarily or manifestly illegal is justified by them.