Top 10 English Public Law Cases

Public law is a fundamental area of English law concerned with the relationship between individuals, public authorities and the state. It governs the exercise of governmental powers, the limits of executive authority, the accountability of public bodies and the protection of individual rights.

Over the years, judicial decisions have established important constitutional principles governing parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review and procedural fairness.

We have selected 10 particularly important cases in English public law, chosen for their constitutional significance and relevance to law students.

1. Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030

Government agents acting under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State entered the home of John Entick, a political writer, and searched his property, seizing private papers and documents. Entick brought an action for trespass, arguing that the officials had no lawful authority to enter his property or seize his belongings.

Lord Camden CJ held that the government officials had acted unlawfully because they could not identify any legal authority permitting the search and seizure. The Crown and its officials could not interfere with individual rights merely because they considered their actions necessary or convenient.

The case established a fundamental principle of the rule of law: public authorities must identify lawful authority for their actions. It is a landmark constitutional authority on the limits of executive power and the protection of individual liberty.

2. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5

Following the 2016 referendum on EU membership, the UK government intended to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin the process of withdrawing from the European Union. The government argued that it could exercise the royal prerogative to notify the EU of its intention to withdraw without obtaining parliamentary approval.

The Supreme Court rejected the government's argument. It held that ministers could not use prerogative powers to bring about changes to domestic law or remove statutory rights created by Parliament. Parliamentary authorisation was therefore required before Article 50 could be triggered.

The case established an important constitutional principle concerning the relationship between prerogative powers and parliamentary sovereignty. It confirmed that the executive cannot use its prerogative powers to alter domestic law or remove statutory rights without parliamentary authority.

3. R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41

In August 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for approximately five weeks ahead of the UK's planned departure from the European Union. The prorogation would have significantly restricted the time available for Parliament to scrutinise the government's Brexit plans. Gina Miller and others challenged the legality of the decision.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. The prorogation had the effect of frustrating or preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Consequently, the advice and the resulting prorogation were null and of no effect.

The case is a landmark constitutional authority on the limits of executive power and parliamentary accountability. It established that the exercise of the royal prerogative to prorogue Parliament is subject to judicial review where it has the effect of frustrating Parliament's constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

4. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

The government introduced a ban preventing employees at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) from joining trade unions. The decision was made by the Prime Minister, exercising powers under the royal prerogative, without prior consultation with the affected employees. The trade unions challenged the decision, arguing that the government had acted unfairly.

The House of Lords recognised that the exercise of prerogative powers could, in principle, be subject to judicial review. Lord Diplock identified three principal grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. However, the court held that national security considerations justified the government's decision not to consult the employees.

The case, commonly known as the GCHQ case, established the modern framework for judicial review in English administrative law. It also confirmed that the source of a governmental power, whether statutory or prerogative, does not automatically determine whether its exercise is reviewable by the courts.

5. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

A cinema operator obtained permission from Wednesbury Corporation to open its cinema on Sundays, subject to a condition prohibiting children under the age of 15 from attending, whether accompanied by an adult or not. The cinema operator challenged the condition, arguing that it was unreasonable and beyond the authority's powers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the condition. Lord Greene MR explained that a court could interfere with an administrative decision where the authority had acted unreasonably in the legal sense. This included decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made them.

The case established the Wednesbury principle of irrationality, which remains an important ground of judicial review. It demonstrates that courts generally do not substitute their own judgment for that of a public authority but may intervene where a decision falls outside the range of reasonable decisions available to it.

6. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40

Charles Ridge, the Chief Constable of Brighton, was dismissed following allegations of misconduct connected with his handling of criminal proceedings. The dismissal took place without giving him an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations. Ridge challenged the decision, arguing that the dismissal was unlawful because he had not been given a fair hearing.

The House of Lords held that the dismissal was invalid because the disciplinary process had failed to comply with the requirements of natural justice. Ridge should have been given an opportunity to know and answer the allegations against him before the decision was made.

The case restored the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. It is a landmark authority on natural justice and established that public authorities exercising powers affecting individual rights and interests may be required to provide a fair hearing.

7. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

Anisminic Ltd, a British company, owned property in Egypt that was seized following the Suez Crisis. The company applied to the Foreign Compensation Commission for compensation under a statutory scheme. The Commission rejected the application because it considered that the company's successor in title did not satisfy the relevant eligibility requirements.

The House of Lords held that the Commission had made an error of law in interpreting the statutory requirements. Its decision was therefore legally invalid. The court also held that the statutory provision seeking to exclude judicial review did not protect a purported determination affected by such an error.

The case established a fundamental principle concerning jurisdictional errors and the limits of ouster clauses. It significantly restricted the ability of public authorities to make legally erroneous decisions immune from judicial scrutiny and remains a leading authority on the scope of judicial review.

8. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provided for a statutory compensation scheme for victims of violent crime. However, the Home Secretary decided not to bring the statutory scheme into force and instead introduced a different compensation scheme under the royal prerogative. The Fire Brigades Union challenged the decision, arguing that the government could not use prerogative powers to undermine Parliament's legislative intentions.

The House of Lords held that the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully by introducing an alternative scheme that frustrated the purpose of the legislation Parliament had enacted. Although the government was not necessarily required to bring the statutory provisions into force immediately, it could not use prerogative powers to establish an alternative arrangement that undermined the statutory scheme.

The case is an important authority on parliamentary sovereignty and the limits of executive power. It established that ministers cannot use prerogative powers to frustrate or undermine the intentions of Parliament expressed through legislation.

9. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 (Belmarsh case)

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the UK government introduced legislation allowing the indefinite detention without charge or trial of certain foreign nationals suspected of involvement in international terrorism. Several detainees challenged the legality of their detention at Belmarsh prison under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

The House of Lords held that the government's derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. The detention arrangements were also discriminatory because British nationals suspected of similar terrorist activities were not subject to the same restrictions.

The case established that indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects without trial was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a landmark authority on proportionality, discrimination, human rights and the limits of executive power in the context of national security.

10. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33

Two prisoners serving life sentences sought permission to give interviews to journalists investigating possible miscarriages of justice. The Home Secretary's prison policy prohibited prisoners from participating in such interviews where journalists intended to use their words for publication. The prisoners challenged the policy, arguing that it unlawfully restricted their freedom of expression.

The House of Lords held that the policy was unlawful because it imposed an unjustified restriction on the prisoners' rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Lord Hoffmann explained that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous statutory language. Parliament must use clear and specific wording if it intends to restrict fundamental rights.

The case established an important application of the principle of legality, a constitutional principle requiring clear legislative authority before fundamental rights can be restricted. It is a leading authority on statutory interpretation, parliamentary sovereignty and the protection of individual rights.