All privileges necessary for the 'energetic discharge' of parliament's functions conceded by the court 'without a murmur of doubt'
Prebble v NZTV ltd.
Privy council held that the courts will not allow any challenge on what is said or done within the walls of parliament in relation to its legislative functions and the regulation of established privileges. An individual member could not waive privilege when initiating court proceedings.
R v HM Treasury Ex p Smedley
Donaldson MR held that it was for the courts to decide whether an issue relating to what was said in parliament falls within its 'province' not parliament itself. This is especially important in light of human rights.
Bradlaugh v Gosset
Facts: MP excluded from commons because he refused to swear an oath to the crown.
Held QB: no jurisdiction to interfere because this is a matter of internal regulation.
R (on the Application of Bhatt Murphy) v The Independent Assessor
Facts: a firm of solicitors argued that the government had as a result of the code on consultation 2000, created a legitimate expectation that there would be a consultation by government, when it decided it changed the compensation mechanism for miscarriage of justice victims.
R v Secretary of State for the HD, ex parte Fire Brigades Union 
Facts: Home Secy announced he would NOT be bringing into force sections in the Criminal Justice Act, 1988. He said that the government would instruct the Criminal Injuries COmpensation Board to make future payments according to a tariff system calculated by the Home Office.
Held [AC]: Decision unlawful, he was not able to declare he would NEVER bring into action though he could review it and decide against impl. Govt. subsequently introduced its tariff system in a new act.
R (on the application of National Association of Health Stores) v Secretary of State for Health 
Facts: Medicine Act SI prohibited the sale of Kawa-kawa for medicinal purposes. Grounds: Minister ignored the relevant fact that prohibition was opposed by a leading pharmacological authority, Professor Ernst.
Held (EWCA): Knowledge of civil servants who briefed or advised a minister was not to be imputed to the minister if the civil servants did not impart that knowledge. Minister must know what is legally relevant. Here it was held that the minister was informed.
R (on the application of Javed) v Secretary of State for HD
Facts: Was the Asylum Order 1996 made lawfully by the HS? It sought to give legal effect to a policy that certain countries should be designated as free of persecution so deportation could be expedited. Javed claimed that the HS had acted unlawfully by putting Pakistan on the 'white list'. The court agreed, quashing the order.
Carltona Ltd. v Commissioner of Works 
Held: Civil servants act in the name of their ministers, not on their behalf. An act CS is an act of his minister.
Bushell v Secy State for the Environment 
Lord Diplock's ruling: The collective knowledge of civil servants in the dept...is to be treated as the minister's own knowledge. [This ruling was referenced in National Association of Health Stores]
Want to see the other 10 Flashcards in Parliament Cases (legislation)?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!