You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines the landmark cases that have defined the role of the judiciary in UK politics. Understanding key judicial decisions is essential for the Edexcel A-Level Politics specification because these cases illustrate how the courts check government power, protect rights, and shape constitutional principles. Each case reveals the dynamic tension between the judiciary, Parliament, and the executive.
In the UK's uncodified constitutional system, judicial decisions play a particularly important role in establishing and clarifying constitutional principles. Without a single written constitutional document, much of the UK's constitutional framework is defined through case law — the accumulated decisions of judges in individual cases.
Landmark cases matter because they:
After the 2016 EU referendum, the government argued that it could use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union — the formal process for leaving the EU — without an Act of Parliament. Gina Miller, a businesswoman and campaigner, challenged this in the courts.
The High Court ruled in November 2016 that the government could not trigger Article 50 using prerogative power alone, because doing so would remove rights that Parliament had granted through the European Communities Act 1972. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling by 8-3 in January 2017.
The majority held that:
In August 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue (suspend) Parliament for five weeks — from 9 September to 14 October. Critics argued this was designed to prevent Parliament from scrutinising the government's Brexit plans. Gina Miller brought a challenge in England; Joanna Cherry MP brought a parallel challenge in Scotland.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (11-0) — in a panel comprising all sitting justices — that the prorogation was unlawful, void, and of no effect.
Lady Hale, delivering the judgment, stated that the prorogation had the effect of frustrating the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The Court found that the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen was justiciable (i.e. the courts could rule on it) and that it was unlawful.
The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 required fishing vessels in UK waters to be majority British-owned. Spanish fishermen argued that this contravened EU law on freedom of establishment.
The House of Lords, following a reference to the European Court of Justice, disapplied the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, holding that UK legislation that conflicted with EU law must be set aside.
This was remarkable because it meant that an Act of Parliament was effectively overridden by EU law — something that appeared to contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
After the 9/11 attacks, the UK government passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed the indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism. The detainees were held in HMP Belmarsh — a high-security prison in London.
The government argued that the threat of international terrorism justified this exceptional measure. It had derogated from (opted out of) Article 5 of the ECHR (the right to liberty) to do so.
The House of Lords ruled 8-1 that the detention provisions were incompatible with Articles 5 (right to liberty) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.
The majority held that:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.