R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
Commit Suicide

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 Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, UK Supreme Court. The case concerned assisted dying, specifically whether s. 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (Nicklinson and Lambs’ cases), and whether the prosecution guidance on assisting someone to commit suicide issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions was sufficiently clear (Martin’s case). However, the primary focus of this case note is on the justices’ discussion of the respective competences of Parliament and the courts to resolve the legal issues in this area. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Commit Suicide

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 Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, Supreme Court. The case concerned assisted dying, specifically whether s. 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (Nicklinson and Lambs’ cases), and whether the prosecution guidance on assisting someone to commit suicide issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions was sufficiently clear (Martin’s case). However, the primary focus of this case note is on the justices’ discussion of the respective competences of Parliament and the courts to resolve the legal issues in this area. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals Crown act of state and detention in Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Jane Rooney
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

The Serdar Mohammed litigation signalled a decisive change in judicial attitude towards scrutiny of extraterritorial executive action in armed conflict. The most significant indicator of a change in judicial attitude was the reinstatement of the act of state doctrine in the private law claim in tort. Act of state bars tort claims against the Crown when the Crown acts outside of its territory. The UK Supreme Court characterised act of state as a non-justiciability doctrine. The article argues that the UK Supreme Court exercised extreme deference in its adjudication of the act of state in the private law claim. This deference was then mirrored in the reasoning employed in the public law claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, departing from international and domestic standards on detention in armed conflict.

Cross-fertilisation of Constitutional Ideas

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Butler
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

This chapter discusses the New Zealand courts' jurisprudence in regard to the interpretative provisions — sections 4, 5, and 6 — of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It not only gives an overview of the relevant New Zealand case law but also compares the courts' approaches to those of their UK counterparts, in particular the UK Supreme Court (formerly, the House of Lords) in regard to section 3 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998. It is argued that the perceived difference in the approaches can be explained by different contexts rather than different methodology. The chapter thereby questions the view held in New Zealand that the UK courts, and especially the Supreme Court, are more activist than the New Zealand courts.

R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
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 Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court. This case addressed a further challenge to the rules against prisoner voting (see Hirst), and considered the limits of the courts’ role in relation to legislation deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Here the court was sceptical of the value of making a further declaration of incompatibility in an area where such declarations had already been made. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Parish Church ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Local Parish ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Definition Of

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, House of Lords. The underlying substantive issue in this case was the question of whether the Wallbanks were liable to pay for the repair of their local parish church. However, this case note focuses on the definition of public authorities under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public authorities are required to act in accordance with the HRA, and the Wallbanks contended that the Parochial Church Council was a public authority within the meaning of s. 6. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, before the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Religious Persecution ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Mirror Principle

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 Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords. The substantive issue in this case concerned an unsuccessful claim for asylum on the basis of a fear of religious persecution. However, the focus of this case note is on Lord Bingham’s views on the extent to which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights should influence the deliberations of the domestic courts in their application of the Human Rights Act 1998’via the ‘mirror principle’. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, before the UK Supreme Court. This case concerned whether a court order granting anonymity to a convicted and deported foreign national sex offender could remain in place, notwithstanding objections from BBC (Scotland). In answering the question, the Court articulated what it referred to as the common law principle of open justice, which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This case note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Religious Persecution ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Mirror Principle

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 Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, House of Lords. The substantive issue in this case concerned an unsuccessful claim for asylum on the basis of a fear of religious persecution. However, the focus of this case note is on Lord Bingham’s views on the extent to which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights should influence the deliberations of the domestic courts in their application of the Human Rights Act 1998 via the ‘mirror principle’. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document