R (on the application of Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Legal Limits

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, Supreme Court. This case concerned the constitutional-legal limits on a Prime Minister’s capacity to advise the monarch to exercise their power to prorogue Parliament. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Government Accountability ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Uk Supreme Court

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 Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament for a protracted period of time (c. five weeks), when significant constitutional changes were being debated (the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union). The Supreme Court considered the legality of the prorogation on the basis of two constitutional principles—parliamentary sovereignty and government accountability to Parliament. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
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 The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court. This case is concerned with the competencies of the Scottish Parliament, and the nature of devolution in the UK more generally. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. There is also a brief discussion of the Sewel Convention. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Is There a Need for an Amending Power Theory?

1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude Klein
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Power Theory ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Opinion Writing

In his case note on the famous Bergmann decision of the Supreme Court, Professor Akzin wrote: While the Court's conclusions seem to be perfectly justified and went so far as they could in the circumstances, the reasoning in its decision shows serious flaws… [others] seem to have sprung from the Court's unwillingness to look for help to the very thorough discussion of the issues by several Israeli scholars, notably Messrs. Sternberg, Akzin, Klinghoffer and Rubinstein. The dignity of the Court would not have suffered if the opinion-writing judge had taken a look at academic writing in a case where precedents offer little or no guidance.These remarks probably express the most original view ever put forward on this land mark case. They emphasize the crux of the complex constitutional problem discussed in the Bergmann case, i.e., the definition of the legal nature of the basic laws in the legal order of Israel. The extremely abstract questions involved in that discussion, indeed, the most abstract that exist in public law, concern the definition of the nature of the power which adopts the Constitution and more specifically, of the power which amends the Constitution.

R (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, Supreme Court (also known as R (on the application of Buckinghamshire CC))

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Secretary Of State

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, Supreme Court (also known as R (on the application of Buckinghamshire CC)). This case note is concerned primarily with the distinction between ordinary and constitutional statutes, and what happens where two constitutional statutes are in conflict. 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.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
The Common

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, 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.

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 Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. There is also a brief discussion of the Sewel Convention. 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document