|
Answer
|
Hint
|
|
R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister and Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland (2019)
|
This landmark Supreme Court case ruled that the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson was unlawful: -They argued that the use of the royal prerogative, in this case, to prorogue parliament, must always respect the conventions of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. -Any prorogation that had 'the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature' would therefore be unlawful. -The prorogation in question had an 'extreme' effect on the 'fundamentals of democracy', coming as it did at such a crucial point in the Brexit process. -In consequence, the Court declared the prorogation unlawful and quashed the relevant Order in Council. -This meant that parliament had, in law, never been prorogued, so MPs were free to return. |
|
Tigere v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015)
|
This Supreme Court case demonstrated the way in which senior judges have been able to use the provisions of the ECHR to protect individuals against discrimination: -Beaurish Tigere arrived in the UK from Zambia aged 6 as a dependent of her father, who had travelled to the UK on a student visa. -When her father left the UK in 2003, Tigere remained, with her mother. -Although it took some years for the Border Agency to become aware that Tigere had 'over-stayed', they ultimately awarded her 'temporary permission' and then 'discretionary leave to remain' in the UK. -With her UK residency secure, Tigere completed her A-Levels and secured a place to read Business Management at Northumbria University. -However, she was not eligible for a student loan for her university degree, because she would not have been able to apply for the required 'indefinite leave to remain' in the UK until 2018. -In 2015, the UK Supreme Court accepted Tigere's appeal on the grounds that the negative impact on her rights under Article 2 of the ECHR (the right to education) and also Article 14 (prohibiting discrimination) could not be justified. |
|
R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
|
This Supreme Court case ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so: -This meant that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 had to be passed by parliament, in order for the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. -This took over 2 months. |
|
Reilly v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2016)
|
In this Supreme Court case, judges were asked to rule on the lawfulness of certain aspects of the government's 'welfare to work' scheme: -Reilly argued that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had infringed the protection against slavery provided in Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by requiring her to work for a private company in order to receive her benefit payments. -In 2013, the Supreme Court concluded that although the DWP had not 'established slavery' in violation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when introducing its 'welfare to work' scheme, it was still unlawful because the department had operated ultra vires, i.e. beyond the authority given to it by parliament. -By then, the government had already passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013. That Act changed the law retrospectively so that no offence had been committed. -In 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that getting around the earlier ruling by changing the law and making it retrospective was incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. -However, the Court also confirmed that it was entirely up to the government and parliament to decide how they wished to proceed in light of that declaration of incompatibility. |
|
Begum v. Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2020)
|
The Court of Appeal ruled that Shamima Begum, a young woman who had left the UK aged 15 to join Islamic State (IS), had a right under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR to challenge the UK government's decision to strip her of British citizenship: -It also said that in the interests of justice, she should be permitted to return to the UK to plead her case in person. -However, in February 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that she would not be allowed to return to the UK to fight her citizenship case. |
|
Rwanda Ruling (2023)
|
This Supreme Court case found that Rwanda is not a safe country to deport illegal immigrants or asylum seekers to for processing, asylum and resettlement: -Therefore, they ruled the Rwanda asylum plan was unlawful, as migrants might be sent away from Rwanda to face persecution. |
|
