| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1999] UKHL 33, [2000] 2 AC 115 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | |
| Keywords | |
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning parliamentary sovereignty.
Simms and another prisoner, both serving life sentences for murder, brought judicial review proceedings against the Home Secretary’s contention that they could not have oral interviews with journalists unless no part would be published. Under the Prison Act 1952 section 47(1) the Home Secretary had passed Prison Service Standing Order 5, paragraph 37-A which restricted oral interviews with journalists. The prisoners contended this impinged upon the right of journalists to free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights article 10, because practically the opportunity for any investigation into their convictions would be inhibited by not allowing them to speak. The prisoners could, however, engage in written correspondence.
Latham J held that the prisoners should be able to do oral interviews. The Court of Appeal held the prisoners could not do oral interviews.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal. Lord Steyn gave the leading judgment.
Lord Hoffmann agreed with Lord Steyn and said the following. [note 1]
Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights.
...
The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document.
Lord Hobhouse gave a concurring opinion. Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed with Lord Steyn. Lord Millett agreed with Lord Steyn and Lord Hobhouse.
Thomas Henry Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill,, was an eminent British judge who was successively Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord. He was described as the greatest lawyer of his generation. Baroness Hale of Richmond observed that his pioneering role in the formation of the United Kingdom Supreme Court may be his most important and long-lasting legacy. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers regarded Bingham as "one of the two great legal figures of my lifetime in the law". David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead described Bingham as "the greatest jurist of our time".
Johan van Zyl Steyn, Baron Steyn, PC was a South African-British judge, until September 2005 a Law Lord. He sat in the House of Lords as a crossbencher.
Leonard Hubert "Lennie" Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann is a retired senior South African–British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009.
Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege.
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1993] UKHL 8, [1994] 1 AC 531 was an important UK constitutional law case concerning applications for judicial review.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the Judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
A full court is a court of law sitting with a greater than normal number of judges. For a court which is usually presided over by one judge, a full court has three or more judges; for a court which, like many appellate courts, normally sits as a bench of three judges, a full court has a bench of five judges.
The United Kingdom constitutional law concerns the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With the oldest continuous political system on Earth, the British constitution is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over the centuries from common law statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus. In 1215, Magna Carta required the King to call "common counsel" or Parliament, hold courts in a fixed place, guarantee fair trials, guarantee free movement of people, and free the church from the state; it also enshrined the rights of "common" people to use the land.
The constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched; the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] 1 QB 26 was an English administrative law decision that first recognised the prerogative power to do whatever "was necessary to meet either an actual or an apprehended threat to the peace". It concerned the Home Office's decision to maintain a store of CS gas and plastic baton rounds. In 1986, a Home Office circular, 40/1986, authorised the Home Secretary to release this store to a police force without the approval of the Police Authority if Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary agreed that it was necessary. The Northumbria Police Authority brought a judicial review case against this decision, arguing that it was ultra vires. The Divisional Court which heard the case recognised a prerogative power to keep the peace, which authorised the Home Office's actions. On appeal to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the decision was confirmed, although several more grounds for allowing the distribution of the store were also given.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 that enables the Act to take effect in the United Kingdom. The section requires courts to interpret both primary and subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the Human Rights Act 1998. This interpretation goes far beyond normal statutory interpretation, and includes past and future legislation, therefore preventing the Human Rights act from being impliedly repealed by subsequent contradictory legislation.
R v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson [1997] UKHL 25 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the exercise of independent judgement in judicial review.
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte A was a 1999 case in the United Kingdom where a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) not to award compensation was quashed by the House of Lords as it was deemed to be a breach of the rules of natural justice. The case reaffirmed the principle of "misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact" and further developed the doctrine of error of fact; in that a decision could be quashed on the basis of it having taken into account a factual mistake. The case also dealt with the issue of undue delay and guiding principles were laid out.
Watkins v Home Office and others[2006] UKHL 17, was a United Kingdom legal case heard by the House of Lords where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature. The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.