R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995]
Share
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 is pivotal in UK constitutional law, particularly in assessing the boundaries of ministerial prerogative powers in the context of awarding compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
The case involved the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), representing members who were victims of violent crimes. The dispute centred on the Secretary of State (Home Secretary, Michael Howard), who was alleged to have a statutory duty to enact a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provided compensation for crime victims, contingent on the Secretary of State appointing a specific day for it to come into force under Section 171. The Secretary of State, instead of implementing the statutory scheme, opted for a non-statutory tariff scheme with less favourable compensation terms. The FBU claimed the Secretary of State acted unlawfully and abused prerogative powers.
In July 1994, the House of Commons, through the Appropriation Act 1994, approved funding for the proposed tariff scheme. The FBU argued that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to bring the statutory scheme into force and abused prerogative powers.
The Court of Appeal ruled there was no enforceable duty to bring the legislation into force promptly. The Home Secretary's discretion to implement it when deemed appropriate was acknowledged, and compelling immediate action would interfere with the legislative process. However, the Court noted that not implementing the legislation while under a duty to review its timing would constitute an abuse of power.
The House of Lords, by a majority, held that Section 107 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposed an ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to consider enacting the statutory scheme under Sections 108–117. Importantly, the Secretary of State could not lawfully bind himself to refrain from exercising the discretion granted. The introduced tariff scheme was deemed inconsistent with the statutory scheme, rendering the Secretary of State's decision not to implement Sections 108–117 and introduce the tariff scheme unlawful. However, Section 171(1) did not impose a legally enforceable duty on the Secretary of State to bring Sections 108–117 into force at a specific time.
The case clarified that while there was no fixed duty to enact the statutory scheme promptly, the Secretary of State could not foreclose the exercise of discretion conferred by the law. The ruling emphasised the ongoing duty to consider implementation and highlighted the unlawfulness of introducing a scheme inconsistent with statutory provisions.
The case involved the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), representing members who were victims of violent crimes. The dispute centred on the Secretary of State (Home Secretary, Michael Howard), who was alleged to have a statutory duty to enact a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provided compensation for crime victims, contingent on the Secretary of State appointing a specific day for it to come into force under Section 171. The Secretary of State, instead of implementing the statutory scheme, opted for a non-statutory tariff scheme with less favourable compensation terms. The FBU claimed the Secretary of State acted unlawfully and abused prerogative powers.
In July 1994, the House of Commons, through the Appropriation Act 1994, approved funding for the proposed tariff scheme. The FBU argued that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to bring the statutory scheme into force and abused prerogative powers.
The Court of Appeal ruled there was no enforceable duty to bring the legislation into force promptly. The Home Secretary's discretion to implement it when deemed appropriate was acknowledged, and compelling immediate action would interfere with the legislative process. However, the Court noted that not implementing the legislation while under a duty to review its timing would constitute an abuse of power.
The House of Lords, by a majority, held that Section 107 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposed an ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to consider enacting the statutory scheme under Sections 108–117. Importantly, the Secretary of State could not lawfully bind himself to refrain from exercising the discretion granted. The introduced tariff scheme was deemed inconsistent with the statutory scheme, rendering the Secretary of State's decision not to implement Sections 108–117 and introduce the tariff scheme unlawful. However, Section 171(1) did not impose a legally enforceable duty on the Secretary of State to bring Sections 108–117 into force at a specific time.
The case clarified that while there was no fixed duty to enact the statutory scheme promptly, the Secretary of State could not foreclose the exercise of discretion conferred by the law. The ruling emphasised the ongoing duty to consider implementation and highlighted the unlawfulness of introducing a scheme inconsistent with statutory provisions.
