Help with law questions!

[orthodox_spin]

Could somebody kindly explain the 'constitutional significance' of either these cases please


Regina v. Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly

Wheeler v Leicester City Council

and Lastly R v Jackson 2006

Thank you

[Poison]

Ask The Blazer

[WithLoveFromCanada]

Poison what're these????

[Poison]

Landmark cases I assume man.

[WithLoveFromCanada]

okay i thought you're into this stuff....it'd have been pretty weird if you're into it considering what goes on in your life.

[Poison]

I am man I think these are British cases though so I have no idea! And what do you mean my life ??

[WithLoveFromCanada]

I was referring to what you've mentioned so far on this forum . With so much happening around, It would have been an enormous task to take time out for these landmark cases.

[orthodox_spin]

any help...?

[ozzy_07]

I presume you're looking at judicial review and some of the grounds that can be used to challenge a decision. Probably also to do with the differing approaches of the traditional Wednesdbury Test and the newer Human Rights Act proportionality approach.

Regina v. Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly

To do with the idea of whether a decision is proportionate. If a decision is held to be disproportionate to its aim, one could argue that a decision should be struck down under the grounds of irrationality. The case itself was about the legality of a prison cell searching policy which excluded prisoners from their cells while prison staff searched their stuff.

For a bit more context read this-

http://www.thelawyer.com/case-history/77492.article

Wheeler v Leicester City Council

This is to do with where a decision has been taken based on irrelevant considerations or where relevant considerations have been ignored in the decision-making process. If so, the decision can be struck down on the grounds of irrationality.

An example of this was in Wheeler, where Leicester Council banned a rugby club from using its rugby ground on the basis that that 3 of the rugby team members were on tour in South Africa during the Apartheid era (they were complaining that the club hadn't stopped/denounced this).

Jackson v AG 2005 (I believe this is the case you are referring to, due to its constitutional importance)

This is a copy and paste job from some old notes-

The Countryside Alliance, which represented pro-hunt campaigners wished to continue foxhunting, they argued the legislation used to force the ban through in England and Wales - the 1949 Parliament Act - was illegal. The government had used the Parliament Act to push the hunting ban through following continuous opposition to a ban in the House of Lords. The ban made hunting with dogs a criminal offence.

Held- the legislation was valid. Legislation passed using the Parliament Acts is not subordinate legislation but primary legislation. The hunting ban was upheld.

[orthodox_spin]

Thank you very much mate. Much appreciated ^^