Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom’s domestic jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

United kingdom (u.k.) Supreme court of judicature - court of appeal (civil division): n. V. Secretary of state for the home department

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-132
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Oral Argument ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This is an appeal against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“the IAT”) given on 20 February 2003 when it allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the determination of the Adjudicator promulgated on 10 July 2002. The Adjudicator had allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State, made on 26 April 2001, by which he refused the appellant leave to enter the United Kingdom. Permission to appeal to this court was granted by Pill LJ and Maurice Kay J on 26 June 2003, following earlier refusal by Kennedy LJ on 2 June 2003 on consideration of the papers only. I should add that shortly before the substantive hearing in this court the Terrence Higgins Trust (“the THT”) applied to intervene in the appeal. I directed that while the court would take account of the skeleton argument submitted by the THT, we would decide at the substantive hearing of the appeal whether or to what extent we wished to hear oral submissions on its behalf. In the event we received without objection certain further documentation from the THT but declined to hear oral argument from its counsel Ms. Webber. We are grateful for the documentary materials which the THT has provided.

R (on the application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, House of Lords. This case concerned the extra-territorial effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)—that is, the effect of the HRA beyond the physical jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The underlying substantive issue concerned six test cases where Iraqi civilians had died following interactions with British forces occupying the Iraqi city of Basra and the surrounding area. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, House of Lords. This case concerned the extra-territorial effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)—that is, the effect of the HRA beyond the physical jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The underlying substantive issue concerned six test cases where Iraqi civilians had died following interactions with British forces occupying the Iraqi city of Basra and the surrounding area. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The Implementation of Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Principles and Problems

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-564
Author(s):  
Dawn Oliver
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Executive Agencies ◽  
The Relationship

First, I want to express my gratitude and sense of honour in being invited to deliver the Lionel Cohen lecture for 1995. The relationship between the Israeli and the British legal systems is a close and mutually beneficial one, and we in Britain in particular owe large debts to the legal community in Israel. This is especially the case in my field, public law, where distinguished academics have enriched our academic literature, notably Justice Zamir, whose work on the declaratory judgment has been so influential. Israeli courts, too, have made major contributions to the development of the common law generally and judicial review very notably.In this lecture I want to discuss the process of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, and to explore some of the difficulties that lie in the way of reform. Some quite radical reforms to our system of government — the introduction of executive agencies in the British civil service, for instance—have been introduced without resort to legislation. There has been a spate of reform to local government and the National Health Service.

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document