Judicial Review Cases and Rule of Law

The principle that different branches of government have distinct powers and should not interfere with each other's functions.

The minimum period a prisoner must spend in prison before being eligible for parole.

The Home Secretary's decision to increase the minimum sentence for Venables after public outcry was deemed unlawful because it was based on public opinion rather than legal principles.

The Home Secretary's role in setting the tariff was considered a judicial function, requiring them to act impartially and according to the law.

The Home Secretary was criticized for wrongly comparing the sentences of the young offenders to those of adults convicted of murder, highlighting the inappropriate application of adult sentencing guidelines.

The Home Secretary was instructed to focus on the facts of the case and balance public interest with the dictates of justice, highlighting the need for a detached approach in decision-making.

The principle that the courts should not interfere with the decisions of Parliament, even if those decisions are unpopular or seem unjust.

The legal doctrine that the courts can review the actions of the executive branch to ensure that they are consistent with the law.

A legal principle that requires the government to act fairly towards individuals or groups.

A situation where a minister has been given power by Parliament to make decisions, but uses that power in a way that is unfair or unreasonable, or goes beyond the scope of the power given to them.

A ministerial decision that is made without properly considering all the relevant factors, or without sufficient evidence to justify it.

A principle that the government cannot retroactively increase a sentence once it has been pronounced. Based on the idea that a person should know where they stand in terms of punishment.

This doctrine implies that individuals have a legitimate expectation of a certain outcome or treatment from the government. In the context of the Pierson case, the prisoner expected his sentence to be based on the evidence presented, not a mistaken interpretation.

A principle that the government must act fairly and transparently in its dealings with individuals. This includes providing clear reasons for decisions and allowing individuals to challenge those decisions in court. The court stated that HS sentencing system is unclear unlike sentencing for judges in open court.

The power of the government to act in a way that is not explicitly authorized by law. This power is usually limited by the principle of legality, but it can be justified in situations of public emergency. This applies to the Home Secretary being able to detain individuals without a trial for an undefined amount of time.

The principle that the government must respect the fundamental rights of individuals, even when enacting laws. This means that even laws that are passed by Parliament cannot violate fundamental rights, such as the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, or the right not to be tortured. The government did not respect the right to liberty in the Belmarsh case.

This refers to the government's ability to suspend some human rights during a public emergency. In the Belmarsh case, the government argued that the public emergency arising from terrorism justified indefinite detention of some individuals.

In the context of the Pierson case, this refers to the Home Secretary's ability to set a minimum tariff (the minimum time a prisoner must serve before they can be considered for release) for life sentences. The court found that this power was similar to a judge's sentencing power and therefore subject to the principle of legality.

A power that allows the Home Secretary to detain individuals without a trial, especially if they are suspected of terrorism. The court ruled that indefinite detention without a trial violated the fundamental right to liberty and was therefore unlawful.

The right of individuals to access courts and tribunals to resolve legal disputes and enforce their rights. This is considered essential for a functioning legal system.

A legal document issued by a court declaring that a law or government action is incompatible with certain rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998. This doesn't nullify the law, but calls for parliamentary action.

A situation where a law or regulation is considered to have a disproportionate impact on a specific group, often based on characteristics like gender, race, or disability.

A legal principle stating that subordinate legislation (like regulations) should not contradict or undermine the provisions of primary legislation (laws passed by Parliament).

The right to a fair and impartial trial or hearing, including the opportunity to present your case and challenge the evidence against you.

The process of settling a legal dispute without resorting to a full-blown trial, often through negotiation or mediation.

The process by which a decision is made, considering all the relevant facts and arguments, using a specific legal test.