The claimant sought to challenge the decision by respondent not to offer a referendum before acceding to the Treaty of Lisbon. The claimant’s case was that the Government’s promise to hold a referendum in relation to the European Union Constitutional Treaty gave rise to a legitimate expectation that a referendum would be held in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.
Lord Justice Richards said: ‘We have expressed ourselves cautiously on the materiality of those various differences between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. We have done so because there is a further and deeper difficulty facing the claimant in relation to this issue. The court is in a position to determine the extent of factual differences between the two treaties, but how is it to assess the materiality of the differences that it finds? Whether the differences are sufficiently significant to treat the Lisbon Treaty as falling outside the scope of an implied representation to hold a referendum in respect of a treaty ‘with equivalent effect’ must depend primarily, as it seems to us, on a political rather than a legal judgment. There are, as Mr Sumption submitted, no judicial standards by which the court can answer the question. The wide spectrum of opinion, both within and outside the United Kingdom, to which the parties have drawn the court’s attention with regard to the extent of similarity or difference between the two treaties serves to underline the point.’
Judges:
Richards LJ, MacKay LJ
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Wheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another Admn 2-May-2008
The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review of the prime minister’s decsion not to hold a referendum on the ratification of the treaty of Lisbon.
Held: The claimant had arguable points under the 2000 Act and otherwise, and permission . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another QBD 28-Oct-2009
The claimant a prisoner detained after the expiry of his lfe sentence tariff as dangerous, sought a declaration that the refusal to allow him to register as a voter in prison infringed his human rights.
Held: Such a claim had already succeeded . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, European
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270376
