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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

2021 ◽  
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.

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

2020 ◽  
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.

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

2019 ◽  
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, and considered the limits of the courts’ role in relation to legislation deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
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 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document