Index
| Author | Frederic Reynold |
| Pages | 207-214 |
Index
A case of over-reaction by the Treasury?
See Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2), restriction and proportionality
Are there limits to the right to keep legal advice confidential? See
R v Special Commissioner and Another, ex p Morgan Grenfell
& Co Ltd, limits to confidential legal advice?
Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 1), ‘Spycatcher’ injunction discharge
background to upheld injunction by
House of Lords 33–35
Lord Brandon majority decision freedom to report must yield to public security, 35–36
Lord Bridge minority view
any national security remaining justifying injunction, 38
Lord Oliver minority view injunction misuse where parties not concerned, 38–39
Lord Templeman majority decision public interest and effects of injunction, 36–37
summary, 39–40, 132−133
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury
(No. 2), restriction and proportionality
application to set direction aside,
118−119
counter-terrorism direction, 117−118 ‘fairness issue’, 122−123, 124
Lord Reed minority view application to all banks matter for
Treasury policy, 121 proportionality, some concern for
Treasury, 120−121
Lord Sumption leading majority decision
no fairness as no prior notice, 122
no fairness, no ‘closed material’ in consultation, 122−123 objective achievable if all banks directed, 120
singling the Bank and justification for directive, 119−120
Lords Hope and Reed minority view fairness and limited practical value in consultation, 123
no fairness as legislative safeguards lacking, 123
proportionality rationality issue,
119−121, 123 summary, 123−124, 134
Chester v Afshar, causation and medical negligence
Australian case, influence of, 15, 16 Court of Appeal and House of Lords’ decisions, 15
facts, no warning of slight risk, 14–15 Lord Bingham minority view
need for causal link between negligence and harm, 16
risk liable to occur at random, 16 Lord Hoffmann minority view warning to enable avoidance or reduction of risk, 16–17
208 Disagreement and Dissent in Judicial Decision-making
Chester v Afshar, causation and medical negligence (continued)
Lord Hope, majority decision
‘justice require[d] … approach to causation to be modified’, 18–19
Lord Steyn majority decision
‘informed consent’, ‘policy and corrective justice’, 17–18
Lord Walker majority decision non-warning and lack of remedy,
19
summary, 19–20
Clashes of principle and competing moral judgments
constitutional niceties a matter of conscience, 45–48
Hart-Devlin debate, 27–28
is this really criminal conduct?, 28–33 policy or legal principle, 40–45
taking liberties with the will of
Parliament, 49–53
upholding a principle pragmatically turning a blind eye, 33–40 Compensating the innocent See R
(Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice, ‘miscarriage of justice’
Constitutional niceties a matter of conscience See Matthew v The State (Trinidad and Tobago), mandatory death penalty
Differing responses to constitutional and human rights issues
a case of over-reaction by the Treasury? 117–124
are there limits to the right to keep legal advice confidential? 111–117
how sacrosanct is the constitutional right to pursue a private prosecution? 106–111
is the ‘right of abode’ a fundamental right? 86–93
overview, 85
Private Smith and the reach of Article
1, 93–99
using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,
99–105
Disagreement in our own court of last resort
accountability, concerns about
Court, composition and balance, 145 dissent, as source of, 140−141 human rights, interventions only where ‘reasonable foundation’, 143−144
judicial review and involvement with policy and merits legislation, 142−143
judiciary, selection and appointment,
144−145
public policy and judicial decision-making, 141−142
commentary on cases discussed constitutional and human rights issues (Pt 4), 134
fair and just (Pt 1), 132
principle and moral judgments (Pt 2),
132−133
problems with ordinary words (Pt 3),
133−134
commentary on individual judicial responses
Baroness Hale, 139−140
Lord Bingham, 137−138
Lord Hoffmann, 139
Lord Mance, 138−139
ideological dimension, no recognisable,
135−136
ideological or mindset influence, general lack of, 136−137
legal analysis lacking where opinion divided, 131−132
personal nature of response to issues,
134−135
Disagreements in the US Supreme Court
Affordable Care Act, power of taxation challenge
C.J. Roberts majority judgment, shared responsibility
payments not under Congress taxation power, 128−129
J. Ginsberg minority judgment, ‘commerce’ embraced a healthcare system, 129
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, First
Amendment and J. Kennedy majority judgment, free speech included political speech by corporations, 127
J. Stephen minority judgment, failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial