Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Constitutional - From: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 25 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Rosie Blanchfield and others v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Chaguaramas Development Authority [2002] PC 1
22 Jan 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Sir Christopher Slade
Land, Constitutional, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) In the second world war, land was compulsorily purchased and let to the USA. In 1977 it was returned by the USA, but then vested in a public authority. The applicants said it should revert to them as descendants of the original owners. They said the purchase was for so long as the land was required for the purpose for which it was used, but the original owners had been compensated. There was no express reverter clause, and no law of reverter known to the law of Trinidad and Tobago. English highway law however was settled that if land was acquired for a highway, but ceased to be needed, it reverted to owners despite the absence of any express provision. Here, however the land had been vested in the Crown, and no reverter could therefore be implied.
Chaguaramas Development Authority Act 1972
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

 
 Taylor v Lawrence; CA 4-Feb-2002 - Times, 04 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 90; [2002] 2 All ER 353; [2002] 3 WLR 640; [2003] QB 528
 
Thakur Persad Jaroo v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago Times, 06 February 2002; Appeal No 54 of 2000; [2002] UKPC 5; [2002] 1 AC 871
4 Feb 2002
PC
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Scott of Foscote, Sir Christopher Slade and Sir Andrew Leggatt
Constitutional, Police, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant sought a declaration that his constitutional rights had been infringed. He had bought a car. When told it may be stolen, he took it to the police station, but after he heard nothing and it was not returned. He alleged that he had been deprived of his property in breach of the constitution. Only later did the police say it was still required as potential evidence. He claimed that the car had been held other than under due process. Held: To justify the continued detention of the car, the police had to show that there were reasonable grounds for its original and continuing retention. There were common law rights, by way of an originating motion, which the claimant could have exercised to make his complaint. He should take the method of constitutional challenge only in an exceptional case. This was not one, and the continued action was an abuse of process. Lord Hope of Craighead: "Their Lordships wish to emphasise that the originating motion procedure under section 14(1) is appropriate for use in cases where facts are not in dispute and questions of law only are in issue. It is wholly unsuitable in cases which depend for their decision on the resolution of disputes as to fact. Disputes of that kind must be resolved by using the procedures which are available in the ordinary courts under the common law."
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago 4(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Ogilvy v The Minister of Legal Affairs (Reasons for a decision upon a Notice of Motion) [2002] UKPC 7; (Reasons for a decision upon a Notice of Motion)
13 Feb 2002
PC

Constitutional
(St Lucia) The appellant had sought to challenge the refusal of his application for a position as a magistrate in St Lucia. This was his second application. The committee would only accept second petitions in exceptional circumstances, and none such had been shown here. The basis of the claim was that his application had been rejected by a procedure inconsistent with the constitution.
Constitution of Saint Lucia 91(2)
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council etc Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2001] EWCH Admin 195; [2003] QB 151
18 Feb 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Crane
Constitutional, European, Consumer
Various shopkeepers appealed convictions for breach of regulations requiring food sold by weight to be described in metric amounts. They claimed that the Regulations made under the 1985 Act, to the extent that they were inconsistent with it impliedly repealed the 1972 Act to that extent (2(2)). Held: The EC Treaty was unlike others in creating a new and unique legal order which was supreme above the legal systems of the member states. On accession under the 1972 Act, the United Kingdom bowed its head to that supremacy. The 1972 Act was a constitutional Act, and at common law could only be repealed by express provision. All specific rights and obligations created by European Law were incorporated into domestic law and ranked supreme by the 1972 Act, which was a constitutional statute, and could not be impliedly repealed. That the 1972 Act was a constitutional statute was derived from common law which recognised such a category. The fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU rested with the domestic, not the European legal powers.
European Communities Act 1972 2(2) - Weights and Measures Act 1985 1 - Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrification) (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994 No 2866) - Unit of Measurement Regulations 1994 (1994 No 2867) - Price Marking Order 1999 (1999 No 3042)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Hughes [2002] UKPC 12; [2002] 2 AC 259
11 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth
(Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment under article 5, and the Crown appealed to the Privy Council. Held: The mandatory death penalty is indeed to be regarded as inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The committee which exercised the prerogative of mercy was not an independent tribunal sufficient to save the procedure. The Crown's appeal was dismissed, and the case remitted for re-sentence.
Criminal Code of Saint Lucia 1992 172 - Saint Lucia Constitution Order 1978 (SI 1978 No 1901) 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Reyes v The Queen Times, 21 March 2002; [2002] 2 AC 235; [2002] UKPC 11; [2002] 2 WLR 1034; 12 BHRC 219; [2002] 2 Cr App R 16
11 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Human Rights, Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing
(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading treatment, and infringed his human rights under the constitution. Held: The crime of murder embraced a range of offences of widely varying degrees of criminal culpability. Developments in international law recognising the importance of human rights, and the development of independent legal systems against the background of constitutions guaranteeing fundamental rights. This required legislation to be interpreted. Before independence Belize had been subject to the Convention, and it could not be thought that rights had diminished. The preclusion of any judicial consideration of the degree of culpability was in inhuman treatment, and murder by shooting should be treated as a Class B murder, and the courts given discretion. "The court has no licence to read its own predilections and moral values into the constitution".
Constitution of Belize Art 7 - Criminal Code of Belize Art 102
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Berthill Fox v Regina (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 284; [2002] UKPC 13
11 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Constitutional
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all other laws, and guaranteed certain fundamental rights and freedoms. Though it allowed for the possibility of the death sentence for murder, he claimed the sentence was inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. Held: The council had already twice held that similar constitutions did not allow for a death penalty which was mandatory. The appeal was allowed, and the case remitted for re-sentencing.
Saint Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983 (SI 1983 No 881)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Berthill Fox v. The Qu' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Rusbridger and Another v Attorney General [2002] EWCA Civ 397
20 Mar 2002
CA

Constitutional, Human Rights, Media
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act. Held: The defendant had made no decision (other than not to prosecute) and there was no decision to challenge. Whilst the other applications should not proceed, the court considered that the possible incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the Human Rights Act was a proper matter of public interest and might be pursued.
Treason and Felony Act 1848 3 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Felix Augustus Durity v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2002] UKPC 20; Appeal No 52 0f 2000
13 May 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote
Crime, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Limitation, Human Rights
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant had been a magistrate, and challenged the application of a limitation period to his claim. He had been wrongfully suspended from his work, and the proceedings had been delayed and protracted. No effective progress having been made, he sought to challenge the original suspension. The court refused to hear the application as debarred by limitation. He said that the limitation period should have no application in a case involving a constitutional challenge and infringement of his human rights. Held: Where the state became liable in tort, it was appropriate that limitation defences available to tortfeasors should also be available to the state, but the considerations on constitutional proceedings are different, and the limitation period did not apply. As a magistrate, making a decision in good faith, even if incorrectly, to allow that mistake to be charged as misconduct was to impugn the independence of the judiciary. The failure to pursue the case over a long period of time, with the magistrate suspended amounted to an abuse of power.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

 
 Regina v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis, ex parte Rottman; HL 16-May-2002 - Times, 21 May 2002; [2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 AC 692; [2002] ACD 69; [2002] 2 WLR 1315; [2002] 2 All ER 865; [2002] HRLR 32; 12 BHRC 329
 
Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Others [2002] UKHL 32; [2002] NI 390
25 Jul 2002
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett
Constitutional
(Northern Ireland) The Northern Ireland Parliament had elected its first minister and deputy more than six weeks after the election, but the Act required the election to be within that time. It was argued that as a creature of statute, the Parliament could not act outside the powers spelled out. Held: When the Act had been drafted it was not expected that its implementation would be without difficulty. There was no explicit provision for this situation. The six week limit allowed for intervention by the Secretary of State, and the wording presumed that an election might still take place. The election was valid.
Northern Ireland Act 1998 31 32
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Adams and Others v Lord Advocate; IHCS 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 08 August 2002; [2002] ScotCS 344; 2002 SCLR 881; 2003 SLT 366; 2002 GWD 26-879; [2002] UKHRR 1189; 2003 SC 171
 
Du Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development (2002) 13 BHRC 187; [2002] ZACC 20; CCT 40/01
10 Sep 2002


Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination
(South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: "In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint adoptive parents who are unmarried, but who are partners in permanent same-sex life partnerships and who would otherwise meet the criteria set out in section 18 of the Child Care Act… Their exclusion surely defeats the very essence and social purpose of adoption which is to provide the stability, commitment, affection and support important to a child's development, which can be offered by suitably qualified persons… Excluding partners in same sex life partnerships from adopting children jointly where they would otherwise be suitable to do so is in conflict with the principle [of the paramountcy of the interests of the child]… It is clear from the evidence in this case that even though persons such as the applicants are suitable to adopt children jointly and provide them with family care, they cannot do so. The impugned provisions … thus deprive children of the possibility of a loving and stable family life… The provisions of the Child Care Act thus fail to accord paramountcy to the best interests of the children."
1 Citers

[ Saflii ]
 
Prince Pinder v The Queen Times, 04 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002; [2002] UKPC 46
23 Sep 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Constitutional, Commonwealth, Crime
(Bahamas) The applicant challenged his sentence to a flogging as an inhuman or degrading punishment. Held: The constitution of Bahamas did not prohibit flogging as an inhuman punishment. The constitution explicitly preserved modes of punishment which had been accepted on the island before its implementation. This was so despite its later revocation and revival. The article of the constitution had to be construed narrowly but properly. However the particular sentence failed to state whether the flogging was to be by a rod or a cat of nine tails, and so was incomplete and void. The choice of implement was a judicial one. (Nicholls and Hope dissenting)
Constitution of the Bahamas 17
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Benjamin and Wilson v The United Kingdom Times, 09 October 2002; 28212/95; [2002] ECHR 631; [2002] ECHR 636
26 Sep 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Health, Constitutional
The applicant challenged the system in the UK of deciding on his release from a secure mental hospital. He had been a discretionary life prisoner, but then later his detention was continued because of his mental condition. Though an independent tribunal reviewed his case, it was passed to the Secretary of State actually to decide on his release. Held: The system infringed the applicant's right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court. The system did not make a sufficient break between the branches of government. Thought the tribunal was independent, it did not have the power to release him which was essential to the right.
European Convention on Human Rights& Art 5.4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer); 31-Oct-2002 - 218 DLR (4th) 577; 168 CCC (3d) 449; 5 CR (6th) 203; 294 NR 1; JE 2002-1974; [2002] SCJ No 66 (QL); 117 ACWS (3d) 553; [2002] ACS no 66; 55 WCB (2d) 21; 98 CRR (2d) 1; [2002] 3 SCR 519; 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)

 
 Regina (on the application of Abassi and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another; CA 6-Nov-2002 - Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 06 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1598; [2002] All ER (D) 70; [2003] UKHR 76

 
 Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; CA 6-Nov-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1598; [2003] UKHRR 76; Times, 08 November 2002; [2002] All ER (D) 70
 
Howker v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another Times, 19 November 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1623
8 Nov 2002
CA
Peter Gibson, Mance, Hale LJJ
Benefits, Constitutional
The applicant challenged the validity of regulations made by the respondent. Held: The procedure under the Act envisaged that new regulations would be commented upon by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Committee could allow a regulation to go through without comment, provided it received appropriate confirmation from the first respondent that the effect of the regulations was neutral or similar. In this case, the regulation was so certified, but incorrectly so, and had not been examined by the committee. The regulation was therefore ultra vires and invalid.
Social Security Administration Act 1992 172 173 - Social Security (Incapacity for Work and General Amendments) Regulations 1996 (1996 No 484) 27
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson; HL 25-Nov-2002 - Times, 26 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] UKHL 46; [2002] 3 WLR 180; [2003] 1 AC 837; [2003] HRLR 7; (2003) 13 BHRC 450; [2003] UKHRR 112; [2003] 1 Cr App R 32; [2002] 4 All ER 1089
 
Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; [2002] 212 CLR 1; [2002] 77 ALJR 292; [2002] 194 ALR 161
12 Dec 2002

Gleeson CJ
Defamation, Constitutional
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Defamation - Defences - Qualified privilege - State election - Publication of electoral material - Reciprocity of interest - Proof of malice - Improper motive - Whether intention to cause political damage constitutes an improper motive - Relevance of honest belief in truth of statement - Relevance of reckless indifference to truth or falsity of published material - Relevance of knowledge of falsity of published material - Relationship of common law qualified privilege to extended qualified privilege as identified in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520.
Constitutional law (Cth) - Implied limitation upon laws restricting freedom of expression concerning governmental and political matters - Whether constitutional question arises having regard to issues before the State trial and appellate courts - Whether constitutional implication may be disregarded - Whether general common law relating to the occasion of qualified privilege is compatible with the Constitution - Whether general common law relating to malice is compatible with the Constitution - Whether common law needs to be developed to ensure compatibility - Ingredients of malice in the circumstances of the case - Whether malice established in communications published in a State electoral campaign. Words and phrases - "malice".
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others; QBD 17-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
 
A v The United Kingdom Times, 28 December 2002; 35373/97; [2002] ECHR 805; (2002) 36 EHRR 917; [2002] ECHR 811
17 Dec 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation, Legal Aid, Constitutional
The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court. Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within the margin of freedom enjoyed by a nation state. The applicant was not left entirely without remedy, and the freedom of parliament was properly to be protected. As to the availability of legal aid, limited legal advice was available, and a conditional fee arrangement might also have been available. "However, the right of access to court is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6(1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved."
European Convention on Human Rights 6 8.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) v Prime Minister and others; Admn 17-Dec-2002 - [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin); [2003] LRC 335; 126 ILR 727
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.