1-20 of 89 Results  for:

  • Keyword: courts x
  • Constitutional & Administrative x
Clear all

Chapter

The aims of this chapter are threefold. It first briefly considers the events that have led to the creation of the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU). Secondly, it introduces the reader to the principal institutions of the Union: the European Council; the Council of Ministers; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the EU and General Court. The nature and functions of each of these bodies is considered. Thirdly, the chapter indicates, where appropriate, the nature of the institutional reforms which have occurred following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the member states.

Chapter

After the legal sources of the UK constitution considered in previous chapters, this chapter turns its attention to an important non-legal source of the UK constitution: its constitutional conventions. It will be shown that constitutional conventions relate to practical and significant political matters which allow the UK constitution to function. They also represent a means by which the executive branch can be made accountable for its actions. The discussion explores the nature of constitutional conventions, gives examples of constitutional conventions, enforcing conventions, the Cabinet Manual, and investigates the courts and conventions. Codification of conventions and the importance of conventions in relation to devolution is also discussed.

Chapter

This chapter begins by discussing the origins and meaning of the term ‘royal prerogative’. It identifies some examples of prerogative powers and considers how certain personal or reserve powers of the monarch might be exercised in practice. The chapter also explores the relationship between prerogative power and statutes, and focuses on how the courts have dealt with the prerogative. The chapter also discusses the adaptation of prerogative powers, the relationship between the prerogative and the courts, and the courts’ recent willingness to review the exercise of certain prerogative powers. The chapter concludes by looking at several ways in which the prerogative could be reformed.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which examines the nature and extent of executive power, begins by defining executive power, and by explaining where it is derived and who may exercise it. It then discusses the mechanisms by which an executive can be called to account for its exercise of power; the extent to which Parliament may hold the government accountable; and the extent that courts may hold the government accountable.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review, and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non Human Rights Act judicial review cases but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.

Chapter

This chapter presents an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights, an International treaty originating in the reconstruction of Europe’s political order following World War II. The chapter is organised as follows. Section I discusses the main procedural and substantive features of the Convention itself, whilst Section II assesses its status and use in English law up until (approximately) the early-1990s. Sections III and IV examine the leading judgments of the European Court on Human Rights in the areas of privacy and freedom of expression.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the remedies granted by the court. If a claimant successfully establishes that the public authority has acted in contravention of one of the grounds of review, then the court may grant a remedy. The purpose of a remedy is to tell the public authority what it has to do to comply with the judgment and to ensure, as far as possible, that it obeys the courts’ decision. There are two main types of remedies available in judicial review cases: ordinary remedies (injunction, declaration, and damages) and prerogative remedies (quashing order, prohibiting order, and mandatory order). The chapter also discusses situations that may cause the court to refuse a remedy and the courts’ powers to grant a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Chapter

This chapter examines the way in which the UK’s membership in the European Economic Community (EEC) prompted changes in the domestic constitutional order. The discussions include the founding principles of the Treaty of Rome; the accession of the UK into the EEC; EEC law, parliamentary sovereignty, and the UK courts; and the horizontal and vertical effects of directives. The chapter explores the controversies engendered by the Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Lisbon Treaties; and concludes by assessing whether continued EC membership will entail a loss of the UK’s ‘sovereignty’ to a federal European constitution and a rebalancing of power within the constitution between Parliament and the courts.

Chapter

Judicial review is a procedure whereby the courts determine the lawfulness of the exercise of executive power. It is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process as opposed to the merits of the actual decision. Thus it is supervisory rather than appellate. Emphasis is also placed on the fact that the jurisdiction exists to control the exercise of power by public bodies. This chapter discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, procedural reform, the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman, the public law/private law distinction, collateral challenge, and exclusion of judicial review. The procedure for making a claim for judicial review under the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 54 is outlined.

Chapter

This chapter discusses the primary and secondary laws of the European Union (EU). Treaties are the primary law of the EU. In addition to the treaties that originally established the three European Communities, a number of other treaties have subsequently been made. These include the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, and the Lisbon Treaty, all of which have made important amendments to the foundation treaties. Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) confers legislative power on the Union’s institutions to make secondary legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. This secondary legislation may take different forms: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. The chapter also discusses the concepts of direct applicability and direct effect, and the relationship between EU law and the English courts, and concludes by considering the likely enduring impact of EU law even after the UK has ceased to be a member state.

Chapter

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

Chapter

This chapter focuses on some of the laws relating to freedom of expression in the UK. Freedom of expression is widely considered to be a necessary feature in any democratic state. The chapter considers the extent to which restrictions are placed on the freedom of expression in the UK in two particular contexts. It considers laws for the control of obscenity and indecency, the publication of obscene matter, the test of obscenity, defences, powers of search and seizure, and the possession of pornographic images. The discussion also considers that part of the law of contempt of court which relates to restricting the ability of the media to report court proceedings. This chapter is confined to the law relating to obscenity and indecency and contempt of court on the basis that they share the important characteristic of being regulated by both statute and the common law.

Chapter

Administrative authorities deciding someone’s legal position must determine what the law is, and find the facts, and apply the law to the facts. This chapter asks how the courts control the exercise of power involved in each of those three elements of the application of the law. The chapter explains the famous decision of the House of Lords in the Anisminic case, and explains why that decision does not support the doctrine of ‘review for error of law’, which is commonly thought to have been established in Anisminic. The chapter explains why a power to apply the law is a discretionary power, and concludes with a discussion of the fundamental union (downplayed and sometimes denied by the judges) between judicial review for error of law, and other forms of control of discretionary power.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter describes the UK’s main constitutional bodies or offices and their roles. The state’s institutions and offices are linked to the three main powers at work within it: executive power, legislative power, and judicial power. The Queen is the head of state for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and heads the three branches of the state, although she is a constitutional monarch and her power is subject to constitutional limits. The executive is an umbrella term that describes two different entities: the political executive and the wider machinery of the government. The political executive contains the Prime Minister and government ministers. The wider machinery of government involves the collection of people who keep the country running, which includes the civil service, the police, the armed forces, members of executive agencies such as the Prison Service and the welfare benefits system. Parliament is the body tasked with law-making, the scrutiny of Bills, and holding the executive accountable. The courts oversee the operation of the rule of law by reviewing actions, omissions, and decisions taken by the executive to ensure that they are legal, rational, and procedurally proper, and comply with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. The chapter concludes with a discussion of elections to the Westminster Parliament—the mechanism through which MPs are elected and other ways in which those elections could be run.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The royal prerogative is a special form of common law that may be exercised by the Crown, either through the Queen as monarch (her personal prerogative) or through the executive as Her Majesty’s government (the political prerogative). This chapter begins by tracing the history and development of the royal prerogative, and the role of the Crown in the exercise of these powers, and then addresses the division between prerogative powers that are personally exercised by the Queen and those that are exercised on her behalf by the political executive. Next, it turns to the respective roles of Parliament and the courts in the operation and development of prerogative powers, considering the relevance of those powers today and proposals for reform, in part, in the context of the case study on the use of the Royal prerogative to trigger article 50 and take the UK closer to leaving the EU.

Chapter

This chapter provides an overview of the themes covered in Part 4 of the book, consisting of Chapters 16 to 20. Chapter 17 examines the constitutional position of judges within the United Kingdom, looking in particular at judicial independence and at the process by which judges are appointed. Chapter 18 looks at redress mechanisms outside the court system—a terrain often referred to as the landscape of ‘administrative justice’. Chapter 19 examines the grounds on which the courts will judicially review the legality of actions taken by public authorities; Chapter 20 examines the use of human rights arguments against these authorities.

Chapter

This chapter examines the procedural grounds of judicial review. It discusses how the courts have used the procedural fairness doctrine by reviewing a number of leading cases to identify the values that appear to be shaping the content of the law. The analysis focuses on case law drawn from the ‘modern’ (ie post-1960) era, but several seminal decisions from earlier periods are also considered. The concept of procedural fairness has generated a vast body of case law in the modern era and will continue to do so in future. But the law on this point, even when seen in conjunction with the law relating to the traditional substantive grounds on which government action can be held unlawful, offers only a partial picture of the way in which administrative law fits into the broader constitutional principles of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

Chapter

This chapter considers the fate of the royal prerogative in the courts during the twentieth century. The discussions cover the relationship between statute, the prerogative, and the rule of law; the traditional perspective on judicial review of prerogative powers and its erosion; Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHG) as the pivotal case in the development of judicial review of the prerogative; post-GCHG developments; and the notion of justiciability. The chapter concludes that the courts supervise the government’s use of prerogative powers more closely now than in the pre-revolutionary era. There has been an increase in the theoretical reach of the courts’ power of review since the 1967 decision in Lain. Administrative law also seems to treat prerogative and statutory powers in the same way.

Chapter

This chapter begins with discussions of the role of the judiciary in the UK, its relationships with other institutions, and qualifications for being a judge. It then considers the issue of judicial independence and how independence can be retained while ensuring that judges are accountable. There is a mini case study on the controversies surrounding media criticism of the judges following the decisions in the Miller case. The chapter also considers impartiality; the appointment of judges; the need to improve diversity of the judiciary; and the use of judges to chair public inquiries.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The court is tasked with checking the legality of government action, which is mainly done through the process known as judicial review. Judicial review is a special form of court process that calls the executive to account for its exercise of power. This chapter discusses the history of judicial review; the grounds of review; the judicial review of delegated legislation; judicial review and the constitution; the difference between judicial review and appeal; the role of the courts and the Human Rights Act 1998; the judicial review procedure; and the extent to which judicial review can act as a check on executive power.