The Defeat of Shabina Begum in the House of Lords

The Court of Appeal last year delivered a well-publicised judgment declaring that now 17-year-old Shabina Begum had been unlawfully excluded from Denbigh High School when she insisted on wearing the Islamic ‘jilbab’ ([2005] EWCA Civ. 199; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3372; [2005] 2 All E.R. 396 (Judgment of 2 March 2005); The Times, 4 March 2005, at p. 85. See also J. Gau, “Muslim Dress – School Exclusion – Human Rights”, Ecclesiastical Law Journal 8/37 (2005), pp. 239–240.). The dispute received huge national and international press coverage, but on Wednesday 22nd March 2006, in a remarkable u-turn, the House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision on all counts (R (On the Application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 (Judgment of 22 March 2006); The Guardian, 23 March 2006, at p. 6; and The Independent, 23 March 2006, at p. 4. Members of the Appellate Committee were Lord Bingham of Cornhill; Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead; Lord Hoffmann; Lord Scott of Foscote and Baroness Hale of Richmond.). The reversal meant Shabina’s Article 9 right to manifest a belief had not been violated by the school. This analysis will briefly examine the reasoning behind their Lordship’s judgment and will provide a short commentary on the likely effect the decision will have on religious groups wishing to wear religious symbols in UK schools. LLB (Hons), LLM, Cert. Ed. Mohammad Idriss is Senior Lecturer in Public Law at Coventry University, United Kingdom and is a PhD Candidate at the University of Birmingham; M.Idriss@Coventry.ac.uk     

House of Lords simplifies the law on patent entitlement

The House of Lords has held that, to claim entitlement to another'spatent or patent application, a person need only prove thathe was the inventor of the subject-matter of the patent, anddoes not also need to invoke ‘some other rule of law’as required previously by the Court of Appeal in Markem v Zipher[2005] RPC 31.     

The House of Lords and homeless people's rights

For the past 20 years, there has been legislation enshrining certain rights for homeless people. This essay is an assessment of the judiciary's role towards homeless people as far as it applies to the most senior court, the House of Lords. It describes the nature of those issues where the House of Lords have had the opportunity to discuss the operation of the homeless persons legislation. It also seeks to explore the reasons why the approach taken has been restrictive. The House of Lords has played an important part in interpreting the homeless rights legislation. The restrictive role of their Lordships is contrasted with other areas where the court has taken rather more generous perspectives on the rights of vulnerable people. It canvasses the various reasons why this should have occurred and notes that limited assistance can be gleaned from traditional approaches to this judicial task. It suggests that the concept of differential politicization throws useful light on the process.     

Disclosure and enablement: the House of Lords clarifies the law on novelty

In this important decision on the law of novelty, the Houseof Lords has reformulated, without significantly changing, theGeneral Tire test for a novelty-destroying prior disclosure,confirming that the requirement of enablement is distinct fromthat of disclosure.     

The House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Conflict – A Sequel

This article begins by commenting on an analysis undertaken by the late Stephen Livingstone of 13 cases relating to the troubles in Northern Ireland decided by the House of Lords between 1969 and 1993. It then attempts to repeat the analysis in respect of 12 such cases decided between 1994 and 2005. Areas of law arising for consideration during both periods include the rules on the use of lethal force, aspects of substantive criminal law and criminal procedure and the rights of persons arrested or imprisoned. The more recent cases also raise fundamental questions concerning the status and meaning of the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. The article concludes that there has been a sea-change in the way the Law Lords have handled the Northern Irish cases. From treating them in a way which might have suggested a built-in bias in favour of police, army and government perspectives, they have moved to analysing the competing arguments in the light of more modern approaches to statutory interpretation, the rule of law and human rights.     

The Crime of Aggression before the House of Lords: Chronicle of a Death Foretold

In the days preceding the invasion of Iraq by the Coalitionforces, groups of individuals committed acts of civil disobediencein British military bases to hinder what they thought were unlawfulpreparations for an aggressive war. In R v. Jones et al., theHouse of Lords examined the question of whether individualscan rely upon the alleged prevention of crimes against peaceto justify otherwise unlawful actions under English law. TheLords ruled that the crime of aggression is a crime under customaryinternational law, yet not under English law. This followedfrom the principle that customary crimes cannot be incorporatedinto the English legal system without statutory enactment. Asa result, the appellants could not invoke the ‘Nurembergdefence’ to elude responsibility incurred under domesticlegislation.