Concluding remarks

Judicial Reasoning Under the UK Human Rights Act

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 424-443

  Leigh, Ian ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927067672     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511493775.017     Document Type: Chapter

References (52)

1. R. Bigwood, Legal Method in New Zealand (Wellington: Butterworths, 2001).
2. Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000).
3. Lord Steyn, ‘Deference: A Tangled Story’ [2005] PL 346.
4. Lord Hoffmann, views on deference expressed in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman [2001] UKHL 47, [2003] 1 AC 153 and R. (on the Application of ProLife Alliance) v. British Broadcasting Corporation [2003] UKHL 23, [2004] 1 AC 185.
5. Matadeen v. Pointu [1999] 1 AC 98, 110, per Lord Hoffmann.
6. B. Woodward and S. Armstrong, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005).
7. E. Lazarus, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2005).
8. M. Tushnet, A Court Divided (New York: Norton, 2005).
9. A. Paterson, The Law Lords (London: Macmillan, 1982).
10. J.A. G. Griffiths, The Politics of the Judiciary (London: Fontana Press, 1997).
11. R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 AC 295.
12. A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] AC 68.
13. R. Edwards, ‘Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act’ (2002) 65 MLR 859.
14. J. Jowell, ‘Judicial Deference and Human Rights: A Question of Competence’, in P. Craig and R. Rawlings (eds.), Law and Administration in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
15. J. Jowell, ‘Judicial Deference, Servility, Civility or Institutional Capacity’ [2003] PL 592.
16. R. Clayton, ‘Judicial Deference and Democratic Dialogue: The Legitimacy of Judicial Intervention under the Human Rights Act 1998’ [2004] PL 33.
17. K. D. Ewing, ‘The Futility of the Human Rights Act’ [2004] PL 829.
18. Lord Steyn, ‘Deference: A Tangled Story’ [2005] PL 346.
19. F. Klug, ‘Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act’ [2003] EHRLR 125.
20. Simon Brown LJ, ‘Constitutional dangers exist no less in too little judicial activism as in too much. There are limits to the legitimacy of executive or legislative decision-making, just as there are to decision-making by the courts’ (International Transport Roth GmbH and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158; [2003] QB 728 54).
21. International Transport Roth GmbH and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158; [2003] QB 728 (CA), paras. 83-7.
22. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 4 of 2002) [2005] 1 AC 264, para. 51.
23. Sheldrake v. DPP; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 4 of 2002) [2005] 1 AC 264, [2004] UKHL 43, at pp. 407-11.
24. Hoekstra, van Rijs and Others v. HM Advocate (No. 2), 2000 SLT 605.
25. Reith Lectures: J. H. McCluskey, Law, Justice and Democracy (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1987).
26. Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 284-5, per Lord Goff.
27. Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd[1993] AC 534, 550-1, per Lord Keith of Kinkel.
28. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] AC 115, 123-4, per Lord Steyn.
29. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004) [2004] EWCA Crim 1025, para. 14; p. 414 above.
30. R. v. Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 1 WLR 104.
31. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, exparte Simms [2000] AC 115.
32. Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v. The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106.
33. Fraser v. State Services Commission [1984] 1 NZLR 116, 121.
34. Taylor v. New Zealand Poultry Board [1984] 1 NZLR 394, 398.
35. Justice M. Kirby, ‘Lord Cooke and Fundamental Rights’, in P. Rishworth (ed.), The Struggle for Simplicity in the Law: Essays for Lord Cooke ofThorndon (Wellington: Butterworths, 1997), p. 331.
36. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696.
37. L. Lustgarten and I. Leigh, ‘Making Rights Real: The Courts, Remedies and the Human Rights Act’ (1999) 58 CLJ 509, 512.
38. Lord Justice Sedley in ‘Preface’, in M. Hill (ed.), Religious Liberty and Human Rights (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002), pp. ix-x.
39. R. (on the Application ofUllah) v. SpecialAdjudicator [2004] UKHL 26; [2004] 2 AC 323.
40. Tyrer v. UK (1978) 2 EHRR 1.
41. Cossey v. UK (1990) 13 EHRR 622, para. 35.
42. L. Lustgarten and I. Leigh, ‘Making Rights Real: The Courts, Remedies and the Human Rights Act’ (1999) 58 CLJ 509, 510-12.
43. Kay and Others v. Lambeth London Borough Council; Price v. Leeds City Council [2006] UKHL 10.
44. Harrow London Borough Council v. Qazi [2004] 1 AC 983.
45. Leeds City Council v. Price [2005] 1 WLR 1825.
46. Von Hannover v. Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1.
47. Whaley v. Lord Advocate, 2004 SLT 425.
48. R. (on the Application of Pretty) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] AC 800.
49. R. (Douglas) v. North Tyneside MBC [2004] HRLR 14.
50. R. (International Transport Roth GmbH) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department[2002] EWCA Civ 158, [2003] QB 728.
51. R. (M) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2001] EWHC Admin 553.
52. Begum v. Tower Hamlets LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 239, [2002] 1 WLR 2491.