Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System: A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The House of Lords upheld the Secretary of State's right to deny compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the ex gratia scheme to Mullen, whose conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions had been quashed by the Court of Appeal solely by reference to actions by the authorities (securing his illegal deportation to the UK) that constituted an abuse of process, without impugning the fairness of his trial or the accuracy of the verdict The note discusses the different judgments in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in terms of their implications for the respective roles of legal and political systems in determining guilt and innocence. In particular, the note explores the nature of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence as it operates in the context of successful appeals.     

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union: Three Competing Syllogisms

The Miller case concerned the constitutional requirements for the UK to give notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The parties made submissions in terms of two competing syllogisms. The Government argued that ministers, exercising Crown prerogative, had the power to give notice without statutory authorisation. The Applicants argued that the process required authorisation by Act of Parliament because the UK's withdrawal would deprive people of rights arising under EU law. However, a majority of the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Applicants based on a third and significantly different syllogism, based on the proposition that the European Communities Act had established EU law‐making and law‐interpreting institutions as new ‘sources of law’. This note assesses the three competing syllogisms and examines the constitutional significance of the majority's proposition that these new EU sources of law were integrated into UK domestic law without disrupting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.     

Foreign Acts of Torture and the Admissibility of Evidence: The Judgment of the House of Lords in A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)

The author discusses, from the point of view of internationalhuman rights law, the judgment of the British House of Lordsin A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department(No. 2), which held that statements obtained by torture couldnever be admissible in evidence. The judgment is concluded tobe fully consonant with international law and to provide anexcellent example for other courts faced with this highly topicalquestion.     

The ECHR in Iraq: The Judgment of the House of Lords in R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence

The House of Lords has held that the ECHR does not apply tothe acts of the UK armed forces in Iraq, except in their militaryprisons. More generally, the House has endorsed the positionthat the ECHR cannot apply to areas controlled by a state partyoutside the territories of the Council of Europe. The authordisputes the treatment of the European cases that led the Houseto this position, and criticizes the suggestions that the introductionof European human rights law was culturally inappropriate andeven unlawful under the regime of belligerent occupation.     

Equal Civil Partnerships,Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development

In R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development the Supreme Court unanimously declared that the ban on different‐sex civil partnerships was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a strikingly robust and, at times, acerbic manner, the Court systematically dismantled the Secretary of State's request for tolerance of a discriminatory and unsustainable legal position. The decision represents a clear victory for those campaigning for reform and the issuing of a declaration of incompatibility by the Court is likely to have influenced the later announcement by Prime Minister Theresa May in October 2018 that different‐sex civil partnerships will ultimately be introduced in England and Wales.