Discussing Public Administration Select Committee, Service Committee, Human Rights Act of 1998 - Assignment Example

Public Law Examination Essay Question 4 Attorney General v Jonathan Cape In this case, the Attorney General sought injunctions to prevent Jonathan Cape from breaching the Cabinet secrecy by publishing the detailed diary of the then deceased Harold Wilson who had been a Cabinet minister. For that matter, direction was needed on whether the Cabinet secrecy was enforceable by law. The court ruled that there was a need for Cabinet to preserve secrecy in order to maintain confidence. Standards and Privileges Committee report (HC 1998-99, 611) The Standards and Privileges Committee investigated claims that Peter Mandelson – the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry – had contravened the individual ministerial responsibility by receiving a loan of £373,000 from Geoffrey Robinson – the then Paymaster General of the Treasury. This case was escarbated by claims that Robbinson had been involved in financial misconduct that Mandelson had overlooked. The committee presented its findings in which they found that Mandelson had erred and violated the ministerial responsibility. Public Administration Select Committee (HC 2001-2, 303) The Public Administration Select Committee conducted a review of Jo Moore, special adviser to Stephen Byers – the then Transport Secretary –, conduct in making public sensitive government information. In addition to Moore resigning, Byers was also asked to resign since he was Moore’s immediate supervisor thereby creating a situation in which he (Myers) had contravened the ministerial responsibility. For that matter, they determined that Myers, as the secretary in charge of the ministry, was liable for the official conduct of his immediate subordinates. Public Administration Select Committee (HC 2000-01, 293) The Public Administration Select Committee sought to determine whether Ministers were accountable for their special advisor's actions. There sitting was necessitated by repeated incidences of government officials engaging in unbecoming conduct – as set by the ministerial responsibility – for which it was difficult to determine whether the cabinet secretaries, as their boss, were liable. The report referred to the Public Service Committee, Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (HC 1996-97, 313) report to determine that in addition to constitutional accountability, cabinet secretaries were also personally responsible and liable for the conduct of the immediate personnel. Public Service Committee (HC 1996-97, 313) The Public Service committee made distinctions about when a member of government and cabinet secretary was responsible for actions resulting from duties that they had delegated. In this case, the committee submitted that though a cabinet secretary was constitutionally accountable for their ministry, they were not necessarily personaly responsible and liable for actions in their ministry. This was especially relevant since all the duties carried out in the ministry had been delegated by the minister. Question 8 Human Rights Act of 1998 The Human Rights Act of 1998 is a set of 15 principles that have been adopted from the European convention on Human Rights (ECtHR). The 15 principles include: Right to life contained in article 2. Right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way contained in article 3. Right to be free from slavery or forced labor contained in article 4. Right to liberty contained in article 5. Right to a fair trial contained in article 6. Right to no punishment without law contained in article 7. Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence contained in article 8. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion contained in article 9. The right to freedom of expression contained in article 10. The right to freedom of assembly and association contained in article 11. Right to marry and found a family contained in article 12. Right not to be discriminated against in relation to any of the rights. Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Right to education. Right to free elections. Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis In 2009, Austin sued the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for infringing on his right to liberty. In this case, the police had cordoned off some of the demonstrators who had turned up in the May 1, 2001, London demos that protested the capitalist nature of the government. The over 3000 demonstrators were cordoned off for as long as 7 hours. The plaintiff in this case argued that, though the crowd control was acceptable under article 5 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 – Right to liberty –, the withdrawal of the freedom had been conducted arbitrarily, in bad faith and was conducted for longer than was necessary. The Court resolved that the use of cordons was not a deprivation of liberty. A v United Kingdom In 2009, 11 individuals sued the UK government for violating their rights to liberty and security. In this case, the plaintiffs wanted the court to determine whether the violations were justified on grounds of national security. For that matter, the 11 joint plaintiffs were non-British citizens who had been held on the grounds of being suspected terrorists. Under the British law, non-British terrorists can be detained indefinitely in the course of investigations. Due to the nature of the case, the plaintiffs were not allowed to have access to all the evidence in their case. Thus, the case was presented before the ECtHR and it was resolved that the plaintiffs had been unjustly discriminated against and needed to be provided with all the evidence to enable them to mount a credible defense against the allegations of being terrorists. OOO (and others) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis In this case, the plaintiffs sued the police for failing to protect their right to liberty and freedom from slavery. In this case, the plaintiffs had been providing slave labor after emigrating from Nigeria. The court determined that the police were liable since they had failed to investigate the case after the plaintiffs had been trafficked into the country and subjected to forced labor. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza In this case, the court sat to determine whether a same sex couple who had lived together were entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. For that matter, the court was to determine whether the preclusion of same sex couples from the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples violated their rights to prohibit from discrimination and private life. In its ruling, the court determined that same sex couples would enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. R v Shayler In this case, Shayler had been sued for violating the sections of the official secrets act by using his position as an intelligence analyst to gather secret government information and selling it to the press. In his defense, Shayler cited the freedom of expression and presented the opinion that it allowed him the right to disclose information on the basis of public interest. The court – in its deliberations – determined that the official secrets act superseded the freedoms and rights enjoyed by individuals if no lawful authorization had been solicited before the disclosure was made. Directorate of Public Prosecution v Jones (Margaret) and Anor The Directorate of Public Prosecution had sued the defendants for unlawfully assembling in an area that had been prohibited from tresspassory assembly under the Public Order Act of 1986. The court ruled that since the defendants had assembled in a public area and were not a nuisance, they had not violated the provisions of the act. Works Cited A v United Kingdom (Application No. 3455/05) ECtHR Judgment of February 19 2009. Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape [1976] 1 QB 752. Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5. Directorate of Public Prosecution v Jones (Margaret) and Anor [1999] 2 AC 249. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. OOO (and others) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 1246. Public Administration Select Committee, Special Advisers: boon or bane? (HC 2000-01, 293). Public Administration Select Committee,These Unfortunate Events: lessons of recent events at the former DTLR(HC 2001-2, 303) Public Service Committee, Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (HC 1996-97, 313). R vShayler [2003] 1 AC 247. Standards and Privileges Committee, Complaints against Peter Mandelson(HC 1998-99, 611) Read More