Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords case concerning the awarding of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The case is considered significant in constitutional terms for its ruling on the extent of ministerial prerogative powers.
Lord Hoffmann in a case, R (Simms) v Home Secretary, which bridged the introduction of the Human Rights Act, said: [10] Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power.
This page was last edited on 24 October 2024, at 16:25 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
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".
R. (Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was a case decided on 3 November 2005 by the UK House of Lords that determined whether or not a delay in initiating an application to seek asylum limited an individual from receiving access to state relief. [1]
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. Facts
As Lord Hoffmann explained in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, "the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost", and so "[f]undamental rights cannot be overridden by general … words" in a statute, "because there is too great ...