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.