R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995]
Share
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 concerned the awarding of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The case held constitutional significance due to its examination of ministerial prerogative powers.
The Fire Brigades Union contended that the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, had a statutory duty to implement a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Although the Act provided for compensation to victims of violent crimes, it stipulated that it would come into force "on such day as the Secretary of State may... appoint". The Secretary of State, instead of enforcing the statutory scheme, opted for a non-statutory tariff scheme with less favourable compensation terms. The Fire Brigades Union challenged this decision, alleging both a failure to fulfil statutory duties and an abuse of prerogative powers.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the Home Secretary had the discretion to implement the legislation at his discretion. While there was no enforceable duty to bring the scheme into force at a specific time, it would be an abuse of power not to implement the legislation, as the Home Secretary had an ongoing duty to review the timing of implementation.
The House of Lords, by a majority, held that Section 107 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposed a continuous duty on the Secretary of State to consider bringing the statutory scheme into force. It was emphasised that the Secretary of State could not lawfully bind himself to refrain from exercising the discretion granted by the Act. The tariff scheme proposed by the Secretary of State was deemed inconsistent with the statutory scheme, rendering the decision to not bring certain sections into force and introduce the tariff scheme unlawful. Importantly, Section 171(1) did not establish a legally enforceable duty on the Secretary of State to implement the specified sections at any particular time.
This case underscored the delicate balance between ministerial discretion and statutory duties. It clarified that while certain duties were continuous, they did not mandate an immediate or fixed timeline for implementation. The judgment remains relevant in discussions on the limits of ministerial prerogative powers and the obligations imposed by statutory schemes.
The Fire Brigades Union contended that the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, had a statutory duty to implement a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Although the Act provided for compensation to victims of violent crimes, it stipulated that it would come into force "on such day as the Secretary of State may... appoint". The Secretary of State, instead of enforcing the statutory scheme, opted for a non-statutory tariff scheme with less favourable compensation terms. The Fire Brigades Union challenged this decision, alleging both a failure to fulfil statutory duties and an abuse of prerogative powers.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the Home Secretary had the discretion to implement the legislation at his discretion. While there was no enforceable duty to bring the scheme into force at a specific time, it would be an abuse of power not to implement the legislation, as the Home Secretary had an ongoing duty to review the timing of implementation.
The House of Lords, by a majority, held that Section 107 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposed a continuous duty on the Secretary of State to consider bringing the statutory scheme into force. It was emphasised that the Secretary of State could not lawfully bind himself to refrain from exercising the discretion granted by the Act. The tariff scheme proposed by the Secretary of State was deemed inconsistent with the statutory scheme, rendering the decision to not bring certain sections into force and introduce the tariff scheme unlawful. Importantly, Section 171(1) did not establish a legally enforceable duty on the Secretary of State to implement the specified sections at any particular time.
This case underscored the delicate balance between ministerial discretion and statutory duties. It clarified that while certain duties were continuous, they did not mandate an immediate or fixed timeline for implementation. The judgment remains relevant in discussions on the limits of ministerial prerogative powers and the obligations imposed by statutory schemes.
