the Separation of Powers (cases - main principles only)

Miller 2 [2019]

- ruled that the Executive cannot use prorogation to prevent Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without justification.

M v Home Office [1994]

- established that a Minister in their official capacity can be guilty of contempt of court.

Fire Brigades Union [1995]

- ruled that a Minister could not use prerogative powers to avoid implementing a statutory scheme passed by Parliament.

Matthews v Ministery of Defence [2003]

- Because Parliament had specifically chosen not to grant servicemen a right to sue for pre-1987 injuries, the judiciary could not use Article 6 to "create" a right that did not exist in domestic law.

R (Anderson) v SSHD [2002]

- The ruling established that the Home Secretary, acting as part of the executive, cannot interfere with sentencing, ensuring compliance with the right to an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the ECHR.

Scott v Scott [1913]

- Lord Shaw's judgment specifically referenced the dangers of "secret justice," linking it to the historical abuses of the Star Chamber.

- the case ensures that the judiciary operates as a distinct, transparent branch of government that cannot hide its reasoning or results from the citizens it serves.

Case of Prohibitions (1607)

- "The King cannot personally adjudicate legal disputes. Only the courts have the authority to interpret and apply the law. due to his lack of competence - Cocke LJ

Stockdale v Hansard (1839)

- Parliamentary privilege is part of the common law, not something Parliament can define for itself by resolution.

It is for the courts, not Parliament, to determine the existence and extent of privilege

- To do so would allow one branch of government to bypass the legislative process.

Coughlan v Minister of the Cabinet Office [2022]

- rejected the use of ministerial statements because they failed the strict Pepper v Hart criteria.

Ex p Witham [1988]

- established that access to the courts is a "constitutional right" that cannot be removed by secondary legislation without express authority.

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants [1996]

- The Court of Appeal held that fundamental rights granted by an Act of Parliament (the right to have an asylum claim determined under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993) cannot be taken away by secondary legislation unless Parliament has explicitly authorised such a drastic measure.

Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor [2016]

- ruled the Lord Chancellor could not use secondary legislation to exclude classes of people (a residence test) from legal aid.

UNISON [2017]

- quashed a tribunal fees order because it effectively blocked citizens from enforcing their statutory rights.

Pepper v Hart [1993]

Courts can look at Parliamentary records only if:

- (a) the law is ambiguous or obscure,

- (b) the statement is by a Minister/promoter, and

- (c) the statement is clear.