Quizzes - Constitutional and Administrative Law

Test your comprehension with quizzes for each Part of the book, choosing the single best answer to each scenario or question.

Part 1

Question 1

How do legal scholars typically describe “what is a constitution”?

A set of rules established by the government to maintain control over citizens.

A document created only during times of crisis to establish temporary laws.

A fundamental set of rules and principles that define the structure and functioning of a political system.

A collection of historical laws that have no relevance to modern governance.

None

Question 2

The doctrine of constitutionalism suggests:

Governmental power should be unlimited and unchecked.

The Constitution should be viewed as a flexible document that can be easily changed.

The authority of government should be defined and limited by a constitution.

The constitution is irrelevant to the governance of a nation.

None

Question 3

What is the primary difference between a federal and a unitary constitution?

A federal constitution creates a strong central government with limited power to states or provinces.

A unitary constitution allows for independent states to govern themselves without central government interference.

A federal constitution divides powers between a central government and regional governments, while a unitary constitution centralizes power in a single national government.

A unitary constitution requires each state to have its own constitution separate from the national one.

None

Question 4

What is the difference between a republican and a monarchical constitution?

A republican constitution establishes a system where the head of state is elected, while a monarchical constitution establishes a hereditary monarchy with a monarch as the head of state.

A republican constitution has a hereditary monarch as head of state, while a monarchical constitution establishes elected leaders.

A republican constitution places ultimate authority in the hands of a monarch, while a monarchical constitution gives power to elected representatives.

A republican constitution abolishes all forms of government, while a monarchical constitution only functions in the presence of a royal family.

None

Question 5

What is the principal reason behind countries adopting a written constitution?

To establish a fixed set of laws that can never be changed or amended.

To provide a clear and formal framework for governing, ensuring stability, and protecting individual rights.

To limit the power of the legislature and ensure absolute control by the executive.

To create a symbolic document that has no practical impact on governance.

None

Question 6

The government’s new Fictional Bill 2025 has passed through all stages in both Houses of Parliament and is now before the King for Royal Assent. The King does not agree with the content of the Bill and intends to refuse to give Royal Assent. Can the King refuse Royal Assent?

Yes, the King has the constitutional right to refuse Royal Assent and prevent the Bill from becoming law.

No, the King must give Royal Assent as it is a formality, and refusal would be unconstitutional.

Yes, the King can refuse Royal Assent if the Bill conflicts with international treaties.

No, the King can only refuse Royal Assent if the Bill violates national security laws.

None

Question 7

What are the primary characteristics of the UK Constitution?

It is a rigid, written document that cannot be easily altered.

It is a constitution imposed by external forces and does not reflect the will of the people.

It is a mix of written laws and unwritten conventions. Laws can be amended by Parliament. Conventions can change through practice.

It gives supreme power to the monarchy, with little to no parliamentary influence.

None

Question 8

What was the ratio decidendi in Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd (1976)?

Ministers have a legal duty to preserve confidential government discussions. The court could not restrain publication because the information was over ten years old.

Parliamentary privilege overrides laws on confidentiality and can be used to prevent the publication of government-related documents.

The government could prevent the publication of a book based on national security concerns alone, without legal grounds.

The court ruled that ministers cannot be bound by confidentiality agreements once they leave office.

None

Time’s up

Part 2

Question 1

What is the primary difference between the rule of law and modern natural law?

The rule of law emphasises that laws should be created by a democratically elected body, while modern natural law focuses on universal moral principles independent of human legislation.

The rule of law asserts that law is based on moral principles inherent in nature, while modern natural law emphasizes the importance of judicial interpretation and human legislation.

The rule of law focuses on ensuring legal certainty and fairness, while modern natural law argues that laws must align with a higher moral order that transcends legal systems.

The rule of law prioritises the supremacy of the judiciary in lawmaking, while modern natural law insists that laws should be interpreted through a pragmatic lens with regard to social utility.

None

Question 2

How would you define the common law doctrine versus modern natural law?

Common law doctrine is based on judicial precedent while modern natural law asserts that law is derived from universal moral principles that exist independent of human enactments.

Common law doctrine relies on statutory law and legislative enactments, while modern natural law asserts that legal norms are purely a result of social consensus and empirical evidence.

Common law doctrine focuses on the literal interpretation of statutes, while modern natural law argues that law must always align with an objective moral truth, regardless of statutory language.

Common law doctrine is rooted in legal positivism and argues that law is valid irrespective of its moral content, while modern natural law is primarily concerned with how laws reflect social utility and pragmatic needs.

None

Question 3

In a democracy such as the United Kingdom, where individuals have access to elected representatives, a free press, and the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration, under what circumstances, if any, can an individual be morally justified in engaging in civil disobedience?

Civil disobedience is never morally justified in a democracy, as individuals have sufficient means to address grievances through established legal and democratic channels.

Civil disobedience is morally justified only when a law is perceived to be unjust and all legal avenues for change have been exhausted, and only after the individual has attempted peaceful demonstration and petition.

Civil disobedience is morally justified whenever an individual disagrees with a particular law or policy, regardless of the democratic processes available for redress.

Civil disobedience is morally justified only when the government is perceived to be corrupt, irrespective of the availability of democratic mechanisms for change or public protest.

None

Question 4

How would you define contemporary principles of the doctrine of separation of powers?

The doctrine of separation of powers requires a strict division between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, ensuring that no branch can influence or interfere with the powers of the others.

The doctrine of separation of powers advocates the allocation of distinct functions to each branch of government but allows for overlapping powers and interactions between branches to ensure a system of checks and balances.

The doctrine of separation of powers requires that each branch of government operates in total independence from the others, without any mechanisms for accountability or oversight by one branch over the others.

The doctrine of separation of powers requires the judiciary to remain independent, while the executive and legislature may collaborate freely to enact policy and legislation without restrictions.

None

Question 5

How would you define the modern British judiciary?

The modern British judiciary is a body that operates solely as an arm of the government, enforcing executive decisions without regard for individual rights or legislative intent.

The modern British judiciary functions primarily as a legislative body, creating laws through judicial decisions that reflect societal values, rather than interpreting existing legislation.

The modern British judiciary is a politically active institution that seeks to actively influence government policy and works in concert with the executive to achieve political goals.

The modern British judiciary is an independent and impartial institution that interprets and applies the law, ensuring that both the government and individuals are held accountable under the law, while maintaining the rule of law and constitutional principles.

None

Question 6

Zarah, 46, is a member of the royal family and third in line to the throne of the United Kingdom. While driving on a public highway in the Yorkshire Dales, she is stopped by the police for driving erratically. After taking a mandatory breathalyser test at the roadside, she is found to be four times over the legal drink-drive limit in charge of a motor vehicle, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988, s. 5(1)(b). Can she be charged with the offence?

No, as members of the royal family are immune from prosecution for criminal offences due to their constitutional position of ‘crown immunity’.

Yes, as the royal family is not exempt from the rule of law, and any individual, regardless of their status, is subject to the same legal requirements and penalties under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

No, as the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not apply to members of the royal family when they are acting in the course of their royal duties.

Yes, but only if the police can prove that the offence occurred in a public capacity, as members of the royal family have immunity from prosecution in private matters.

None

Question 7

How would you define justiciability in the context of UK constitutional law?

Justiciability refers to the ability of courts to hear cases that involve political questions, regardless of whether the issue has been addressed by Parliament or the executive.

Justiciability is a principle that allows courts to intervene in matters involving executive decision-making, regardless of whether they raise constitutional or statutory issues.

Justiciability refers to the principle that courts are bound by decisions of Parliament and cannot review the legality of legislation, even if it conflicts with human rights or constitutional norms.

Justiciability concerns whether a particular is appropriate for judicial resolution, determining whether the courts have the authority to hear a case based on the nature of the dispute and the proper role of the judiciary.

None

Question 8

The Prime Minister declares that Britain will provide ‘boots on the ground’ in another country to assist that country against the invasion of hostile foreign military forces. Is his action justiciable?

No, the action is not justiciable because matters relating to foreign policy and the deployment of military forces are non-justiciable and fall within the exclusive prerogative powers of the Crown (exercised by the executive).

Yes, the action is justiciable because it concerns a decision made by a member of the executive, which the courts have the authority to review to ensure compliance with international law.

Yes, the action is justiciable because the courts have the power to intervene in any decision made by the Prime Minister, including military interventions, if it affects domestic law or individual rights.

Yes, the action is justiciable, but only if it involves a breach of human rights or constitutional law, otherwise the courts would lack jurisdiction over foreign military decisions.

None

Question 9

In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1985), what was the ratio in relation to the minister’s prerogative powers, and what does judicial deference mean in this context?

The ratio established that the exercise of prerogative powers could not be challenged by the courts, as they were entirely immune from judicial review; judicial deference in this context means the courts will not interfere with matters related to national security.

The ratio determined that the minister’s use of prerogative powers was non-justiciable, and judicial deference in this case means that the courts will refrain from intervening in political matters involving national security or foreign policy.

The ratio affirmed that prerogative powers are subject to judicial review if they affect individual rights, and judicial deference in this context means that the courts will not interfere in matters relating to national security.

The ratio held that prerogative powers are entirely justiciable, and judicial deference means that the courts will actively review executive decisions to ensure they align with democratic principles and human rights.

None

Question 10

In R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019) (Miller No 2), Gina Miller argued before the Supreme Court that Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, could not simply prorogue Parliament by using his prerogative powers. Why?

Miller argued that proroguing Parliament for an extended period during a crucial political crisis was an abuse of prerogative powers, as it interfered with Parliament’s constitutional role in passing legislation and scrutinising the executive.

Miller argued that proroguing Parliament was beyond the scope of the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers, as it violated the principle of separation of powers by infringing upon the legislative function of Parliament.

Miller argued that proroguing Parliament would violate the principle of democratic legitimacy, as it would undermine the ability of Parliament to hold the executive accountable and prevent the government from governing effectively.

Miller argued that proroguing Parliament was unconstitutional, as it disrupted the normal functioning of the parliamentary calendar and deprived Parliament of its essential role in the legislative process.

None

Question 11

What is the distinction between political and legal sovereignty? How, if at all, do they relate to one another?

Political sovereignty refers to the power held by the electorate to determine the direction of government policy, while legal sovereignty refers to the authority of Parliament to make or unmake any law. The two are unrelated, as political sovereignty is more concerned with democratic legitimacy, while legal sovereignty is tied to formal constitutional structures.

Political sovereignty refers to the power exercised by the government, while legal sovereignty refers to the final authority in lawmaking, typically vested in the judiciary. The two are directly related, as political sovereignty can be overridden by legal sovereignty when courts interpret laws contrary to government policy.

Political sovereignty refers to the power of the electorate to make decisions affecting governance, while legal sovereignty refers to the power of the legislature, specifically Parliament, to make and enforce laws. The two are related in that political sovereignty ultimately shapes the will of the legislature, but legal sovereignty ensures that laws passed by Parliament are supreme.

Political sovereignty refers to the ability of the executive to implement laws and make decisions regarding policy, while legal sovereignty refers to the ability of the judiciary to interpret laws. The two are unrelated and operate in separate spheres of governance.

None

Question 12

Explain the doctrine of implied repeal. Under what circumstances, if any, will the doctrine not apply?

The doctrine of implied repeal states that when a new statute is enacted that is inconsistent with an older statute, the older statute is automatically repealed. The doctrine does not apply if the new statute expressly preserves the old statute or if Parliament explicitly intends to maintain the old statute in force.

The doctrine of implied repeal allows a later statute to override or repeal an earlier statute if they conflict. However, the doctrine will not apply in cases where the older statute specifically grants immunity to future laws or explicitly preserves its provisions despite subsequent legislation.

Implied repeal is a rule that enables the later statute to take precedence over the earlier one, regardless of any inconsistency. However, it does not apply when the earlier statute deals with criminal law or matters related to personal liberties.

The doctrine of implied repeal holds that if a new statute is inconsistent with an existing statute, the older statute (or part thereof) is automatically repealed. The doctrine will not apply if the new statute is a constitutional statute or if the repeal would undermine fundamental constitutional principles.

None

Question 13

The traditional doctrine states that the UK Parliament may legislate on any subject-matter, that no Parliament may be bound by a previous Parliament or bind a further Parliament, and that no one, including a court of law, may challenge the validity of an Act of Parliament. Have the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Devolution Acts of 1998 changed parliamentary sovereignty?

Yes, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Devolution Acts of 1998 have significantly altered parliamentary sovereignty by allowing courts to strike down Acts of Parliament that are incompatible with human rights or devolved legislative powers.

No, while the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Devolution Acts of 1998 have affected parliamentary sovereignty in some respects, they have not fundamentally changed the doctrine, as Parliament retains the ultimate authority to legislate and is not bound by any external limitations.

Yes, the Human Rights Act 1998 has effectively transferred ultimate sovereignty to the European Court of Human Rights, while the Devolution Acts of 1998 allow devolved parliaments to override Westminster legislation, thus undermining the traditional notion of parliamentary sovereignty.

No, both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Devolution Acts of 1998 have had no impact on parliamentary sovereignty, as they merely introduce mechanisms for consultation and recommendation, without altering the constitutional supremacy of Parliament.

None

Question 14

In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002), Sir John Laws argued that: ‘the traditional doctrine [of parliamentary sovereignty] has in my judgment been modified. It has been done by the common law, wholly consistent with constitutional principle’ (at paragraph 59). You are working as a trainee solicitor in the Government Legal Department. A minister asks you to help with the interpretation of this quotation.

Sir John Laws is suggesting that parliamentary sovereignty remains absolute and unmodified under any circumstances.

Sir John Laws is arguing that the traditional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty has been modified by the common law (relating to implied repeal), though the special status remains in relation to constitutional statutes.

Sir John Laws is claiming that parliamentary sovereignty is no longer relevant in the UK constitutional framework.

Sir John Laws is stating that common law has entirely replaced parliamentary sovereignty in UK law.

None

Time’s up

Part 3

Question 1

The European Union is often described as a “unique constitutional entity.” What does this mean in legal terms?

The European Union operates solely as an international organisation with no supranational powers, meaning its member states retain full sovereignty in all matters.

The European Union is a legal entity that possesses its own legal personality, distinct from its member states, having its own institutions and law-making powers, capable of creating rights and duties within the legal systems of the Member States.

The European Union has a purely intergovernmental structure where the decisions of the EU institutions are binding only if unanimously agreed by all member states.

The European Union is a federal state, meaning it has a single unified legal system that overrides national legal orders in all areas, including domestic law.

None

Question 2

What is the legal principle of subsidiarity in EU law?

The principle that EU law can only intervene in areas where it is more effective than national law, ensuring that decisions are made at the most local level possible.

The principle that EU law takes precedence over national law in all areas of governance, regardless of the subject matter.

The principle that national governments retain absolute sovereignty in all areas not explicitly covered by EU law, preventing any EU interference.

The principle that EU institutions can legislate in areas of national competence only if the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states acting individually.

None

Question 3

What is meant by the principle of proportionality in EU law?

The principle that EU law must always seek to achieve its objectives through the least restrictive means possible, ensuring that the measures adopted do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the intended purpose.

The principle that EU law must always apply uniform and identical measures across all member states, regardless of local circumstances or differences in national law.

The principle that the EU is required to apply the same level of scrutiny in all areas of governance, irrespective of the specific legal or political context.

The principle that EU law can only intervene in areas where it is justified by the economic interests of the Union, disregarding non-economic factors.

None

Question 4

Explain the constitutional function of the concepts of subsidiarity and proportionality. What is their constitutional significance in the relationship between the EU and Member States? How do these concepts interact, if at all?

Proportionality requires that all EU laws be proportionate to the economic interests of the Union, while subsidiarity ensures the EU cannot interfere in purely national matters. Together, they dictate that EU law must always prioritize economic objectives over social or cultural concerns.

Subsidiarity ensures that the EU has exclusive competences in all areas of governance, while proportionality dictates that EU law must be applied equally across all member states. The two concepts are unrelated and serve distinct, separate functions within EU law.

Subsidiarity and proportionality serve as tools for ensuring that the EU does not exceed its competences. While subsidiarity limits EU action to areas where member states cannot act effectively, proportionality ensures that EU measures do not go beyond what is necessary. Together, they maintain a balance of powers by protecting national sovereignty and ensuring EU interventions are reasonable.

Subsidiarity is a principle that restricts EU law to areas that fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, while proportionality requires that all EU laws are subject to national vetoes. These principles interact to prevent member states from losing sovereignty in all areas of lawmaking.

None

Question 5

What are the roles and functions of the Council of the European Union (formerly the Council of Ministers)?

The Council of the European Union functions as an executive committee for the European Parliament, advising on legislative proposals and managing the budgetary process but does not participate in decision-making on foreign or security policy.

The Council of the European Union is a judicial body that ensures the uniform application of EU law by national courts and acts as a final arbiter in disputes between EU institutions.

The Council of the European Union is a purely administrative body responsible for executing EU laws and implementing decisions made by the European Commission, with no involvement in the legislative process.

The Council of the European Union plays a key role in coordinating policies, representing member states at the EU level and determining the EU’s foreign policy and security decisions. It also serves as a legislative body, working with the European Parliament to adopt EU laws.

None

Question 6

What do “direct applicability” and the “doctrine of direct effect” mean in EU law?

Direct applicability refers to the ability of EU directives to be immediately enforced in national courts, while the doctrine of direct effect applies only to decisions made by the European Court of Justice, permitting individuals to challenge national laws directly in EU courts.

Direct applicability means that all EU regulations must be implemented by national legislatures before they can have any legal effect, whereas the doctrine of direct effect allows EU law to override conflicting national laws only in exceptional cases.

Direct applicability refers to the automatic incorporation of EU law into the national legal systems of member states without the need for national legislation, while the doctrine of direct effect means that individuals can invoke certain provisions of EU law directly before national courts, provided the provisions are sufficiently clear and precise.

Direct applicability means that EU directives automatically apply in all member states, while the doctrine of direct effect grants individuals the right to challenge national laws directly before the European Parliament.

None

Question 7

What is the difference between vertical and horizontal direct effect as established in Van Duyn v The Home Office (1975)?

Vertical direct effect applies only to regulations, allowing individuals to rely on EU law in disputes with other private individuals, while horizontal direct effect applies solely to directives, permitting individuals to invoke EU law in disputes with national governments.

Vertical direct effect refers to the ability of individuals to rely on EU law against public authorities, while horizontal direct effect allows individuals to invoke EU law in disputes between private parties.

Vertical direct effect means that individuals can invoke EU law in disputes with other private individuals, while horizontal direct effect only allows EU law to be applied in cases involving national authorities.

Vertical direct effect enables individuals to invoke EU law only against national authorities, while horizontal direct effect enables individuals to rely on EU law in disputes between private individuals, regardless of state involvement.

None

Question 8

What is the principle of state liability expressed in Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (1991)?

The principle that member states are liable for damages only if they fail to implement EU regulations, but not if they fail to implement EU directives.

The principle that EU law can impose financial penalties on member states for breaches of EU law, but such penalties cannot be passed on to individuals in the form of compensation.

The principle that member states are not liable for any damages caused by breaches of EU law, as the responsibility lies solely with the European Union.

The principle that individuals can claim compensation from member states for harm caused by breaches of EU law, provided that the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct link between the breach and the harm suffered.

None

Time’s up

Part 4

Question 1

It is said that the Crown ‘reigns but does not rule’. What is meant by this statement?

The Crown has absolute power to make and enforce laws, but it does so only through elected officials.

The Crown is the constitutional head of the executive, legislature and judiciary but real political power is exercised by the elected government.

The Crown has full legislative authority but only exercises this authority in times of national emergency.

The Crown acts as the supreme ruler of the nation, controlling all aspects of governance directly.

None

Question 2

You are watching the State Opening of Parliament outside the Palace of Westminster and are explaining to an American tourist the constitutional tradition surrounding this event, which dates back to the 16th century. Which of the following best describes the constitutional role of the Monarch during the State Opening of Parliament?

The Monarch’s primary role during the State Opening is to announce the Prime Minister’s resignation, signalling the start of a new government, but this is done solely for ceremonial purposes with no real constitutional significance.

The Monarch’s role during the State Opening is purely symbolic, with no formal constitutional function, as all decisions related to government policy and the opening of Parliament are now exclusively in the hands of the Prime Minister.

The State Opening is a formal occasion where the Monarch fulfils their constitutional duty to open Parliament, outlining the government’s legislative agenda for the coming year, marking the beginning of the parliamentary session. This reflects the constitutional relationship between the Crown in Parliament.

The Monarch presides over the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons during the State Opening, marking the beginning of the parliamentary session, but has no further involvement in the process.

None

Question 3

What is the composition and jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council today?

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is composed of senior judges from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and serves as an appellate body for certain Commonwealth nations, British Overseas Territories, and Crown dependencies.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is composed solely of senior judges from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and it has jurisdiction to hear appeals in both domestic and international cases concerning constitutional law.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is composed only of judges from the House of Lords, and its jurisdiction is limited to civil cases in the United Kingdom.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is composed of the Lord Chancellor and Lord President of the Council with jurisdiction to review matters concerning all British Overseas Territories.

None

Question 4

The Prime Minister is formally primus inter pares. Does this represent the reality of the contemporary relationship between the Prime Minister and other Ministers? What powers does the Prime Minister have which suggest that it is not an accurate reflection of the relationship?

The Prime Minister is entirely subservient to the Cabinet, with no significant influence over the decisions made by other Ministers or government policy.

The Prime Minister is first among equals, but only in matters of ceremonial importance, with no real control over Cabinet decisions, relying solely on the agreement of other Ministers for government action.

The Prime Minister is essentially a figurehead with no real authority, relying on the Cabinet to make all important decisions without exercising any direct influence over government policy.

Whilst the Prime Minister is on a par with other Cabinet Ministers, the reality is that the Prime Minister holds significant informal and formal powers meaning the relationship with other Ministers is not one of strict equality.

None

Question 5

According to the Ministerial Code, Ministers are expected to adhere to the Seven Principles of Public Life (the ‘Nolan Principles’ 1995), set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and apply to all public office holders. You are a Civil Servant working to a Minister, explain what these seven principles are and what they mean.

The Seven Principles of Public Life are ethical guidelines that Ministers are expected to follow, which include Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership, ensuring they act in the public interest and with the highest standards of conduct.

The Seven Principles of Public Life primarily focus on the financial integrity of Ministers, requiring them to disclose all personal assets and investments, while offering no guidance on broader ethical behavior.

The Seven Principles of Public Life are a set of guidelines that apply exclusively to senior civil servants, not Ministers, and are focused on ensuring neutrality and political impartiality in decision-making.

The Seven Principles of Public Life require Ministers to adhere strictly to a code of conduct regarding party-political activity, ensuring they maintain complete independence from political influence in their official duties.

None

Question 6

In AXA General Insurance Ltd v The Lord Advocate (2011), the Supreme Court (UKSC) ruled that the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 was within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. What test did the UKSC apply when determining whether an 2009 Act of the Scottish Parliament, or a provision of an Act, is within the competence of the Parliament?

The UKSC applied a broad interpretation of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative powers, only considering whether the 2009 Act was in conflict with any existing UK law, and not whether it infringed upon reserved matters.

The UKSC focused on whether the2009 Act related to an issue reserved under the Scotland Act 1998 and, if so, whether it was inconsistent with the legal framework established by the UK Parliament in relation to reserved matters.

The UKSC considered whether the 2009 Act fell within the scope of the devolved matters outlined in the Scotland Act 1998, focusing on whether the Act fell within the devolved powers, and not whether it conflicted with UK law or broader constitutional principles.

The UKSC applied a strict interpretation of the Scotland Act 1998, ruling that any Act of the Scottish Parliament that may potentially affect UK-wide legal principles, even indirectly, is beyond the Parliament’s competence.

None

Question 7

What is meant by the statement that devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is ‘asymmetrical’?

Devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is based on identical legal frameworks, meaning that each devolved legislature has the same powers and functions.

Devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is inherently unstable, as the asymmetry refers to the unequal political relationship between the devolved governments and the UK government.

Devolution is a temporary arrangement, and the powers granted to each region are subject to frequent review and reallocation based on political needs.

Devolution arrangements differ between Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, with each having different levels of legislative powers and political structures, reflecting the different constitutional, historical, and political contexts in which devolution was implemented in each nation.

None

Question 8

In his report The Implications of Devolution for England (CM 8969, 2014), William Hague MP, then House of Commons’ Leader, addressed the West Lothian Question in relation to devolution, first raised by Tam Dalyell, MP for West Lothian. What is meant by this term?

The West Lothian Question refers to the constitutional issue surrounding the granting of full voting rights to Scottish MPs in the House of Commons on laws that do not apply to Scotland, such as on matters affecting only England.

The West Lothian Question relates to the representation of English MPs in the Scottish Parliament, questioning whether they should be allowed to vote on Scottish domestic matters that do not affect England.

The West Lothian Question concerns the unequal distribution of powers between the UK Parliament and the devolved governments, particularly with regard to how decisions affecting England alone should be made in the context of devolution.

The West Lothian Question refers to the question of whether Wales should have the same level of devolution as Scotland, considering the political and constitutional implications of further devolution.

None

Question 9

You work for the Welsh Government Civil Service, supporting the Senedd in its functions. In advising a Senedd Member regarding their legislative powers, how do the Senedd’s powers compare to those of the Scottish Parliament under the current devolution framework?

The Senedd’s legislative powers are more restricted than the Scottish Parliament’s, with legislative competence limited to devolved matters and all other powers reserved to Westminster.

The Senedd has the same legislative powers as the Scottish Parliament, including the ability to legislate on all matters except those explicitly reserved to Westminster.

The Senedd’s legislative powers are more extensive than those of the Scottish Parliament, including areas like immigration and defence.

The Senedd can legislate on all domestic matters, including tax and constitutional reform, similar to the Scottish Parliament’s powers.

None

Question 10

When and how does the Sewel Convention apply in the context of the UK’s constitutional framework?

The Sewel Convention applies whenever the UK Parliament wishes to legislate on devolved matters, requiring consent from the devolved legislatures, but it is not legally enforceable in court.

The Sewel Convention requires that the UK Parliament must seek the consent of the devolved legislatures before passing laws on matters that are devolved, and its breach is considered justiciable in the courts.

The Sewel Convention is a formal legal requirement that mandates the devolved governments to approve any legislation passed by the UK Parliament, regardless of whether it pertains to devolved matters.

The Sewel Convention applies only in situations where the UK Parliament intends to legislate on non-devolved matters, and it ensures that devolved legislatures have no say in the legislative process.

None

Question 11

In advising a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly regarding its legislative powers, which of the following best describes the areas in which the Assembly can legislate, and those explicitly reserved to the Westminster Parliament?

The Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate on all matters related to taxation and criminal justice, while Westminster retains control over domestic policy areas such as health, education, and housing.

The Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate in all areas except those related to social welfare, education, and health, which remain exclusively reserved to Westminster.

The Northern Ireland Assembly has legislative competence only in local matters, such as planning and housing, while national matters such as defence and immigration remain the responsibility of Westminster.

The Northern Ireland Assembly has full legislative powers in all areas other than those which are ‘excepted matters’ and reserved to the UK Parliament. Excepted matters include the constitution, foreign affairs, national security, defence etc.

None

Question 12

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 is a key piece of legislation following the UK’s departure from the European Union. What is the main purpose of the Act and how does it relate to devolution in the United Kingdom?

The Act seeks to completely revoke all retained EU law, with the UK Parliament gaining full control over all legislation previously governed by EU law, without any consultation with devolved governments.

Under the Act, the UK government can review retained EU law and decide whether to maintain, amend, or revoke such laws, while granting the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland a veto on any changes that affect devolved matters.

The Act allows the UK Parliament to unilaterally reform retained EU law, with no regard for the powers or legislative competences of the devolved governments, thereby centralising legislative authority in Westminster.

The Act grants the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland full control over the process of revoking and amending retained EU law in their respective territories, completely excluding Westminster’s involvement.

None

Time’s up

Part 5

Question 1

You are advising a Latvian citizen, currently studying at postgraduate level and residing in the halls of residence at the University of Leeds. They have recently been refused a vote in the upcoming UK General Election. Which of the following best explains the legal basis for this refusal?

Latvian citizens are not permitted to vote in any UK elections due to their non-Commonwealth status.

Specifically under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended) as an EU citizen, the Latvian student retains full voting rights in all UK elections post-Brexit.

The refusal was lawful and based on current legal frameworks. Only British, Irish, and qualifying Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK General Elections; EU citizens, including Latvians, are excluded.

The refusal was unlawful, as all residents in the UK are entitled to vote regardless of nationality if they reside here for more than six months and are registered with their local authority.

None

Question 2

You are advising a Polish lawyer on the differences between the United Kingdom’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system and proportional representation (PR). Which of the following best summarises the principal distinctions and the key merits and demerits of these systems?

FPTP offers proportionality and fair representation of smaller parties, while PR systems tend to exaggerate the dominance of larger parties, often leading to disproportional outcomes.

Both FPTP and PR systems operate on the principle of majority rule and therefore deliver identical electoral outcomes in practice. Many countries with PR (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands) have stable governance structures.

PR systems always lead to political instability and frequent elections, whereas FPTP guarantees political continuity and balanced representation resulting in more stable governance structures.

FPTP ensures a direct link between constituents and a single MP, often leading to strong single-party governments. In contrast, PR allocates seats based on the percentage of votes each party receives, ensuring a more accurate reflection of public support, though this often results in coalition governments and a weaker link between individual representatives and voters.

None

Question 3

You are working as a lawyer in the UK Government Legal Department. A Member of Parliament (MP), duly elected, has been convicted of a criminal offence and asks whether she must now relinquish her seat. What is the correct legal advice?

An MP must resign immediately upon any criminal conviction by submitting a formal letter to the Speaker of the House, headed “an office of profit under the Crown (e.g. Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds).”

An MP who receives any criminal sentence is automatically disqualified and a by-election must be held under the Representation of the People Act 1981. Expulsion of the MP from the House of Commons will be immediate.

MPs cannot formally resign their seat. However, under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, if an MP is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment or detention this can trigger a recall petition. If ten per cent of registered voters in the MP’s constituency sign the petition within a six-week window, the seat is declared vacant, and a by-election is held.

Under historical constitutional rules, MPs retain their seats regardless of criminal convictions unless a vote of expulsion is passed by the House of Commons.

None

Question 4

You are accompanying an American colleague to observe a debate in the House of Commons. During the proceedings, they ask what is meant by the term “Division” in the context of parliamentary voting. Which of the following best explains the concept?

A Division is when the House is split into political party groups for the purpose of holding internal party discussions whereafter a motion is decided in the whole chamber.

A Division in the House of Commons is the formal procedure by which Members of Parliament cast their votes on a particular motion, reflecting the UK’s long-standing emphasis on visible, accountable parliamentary procedure. MPs vote by physically walking into either the ‘Aye’ (yes) or ‘No’ (no) lobby which explains the term.

A Division refers to the Speaker dividing the House’s time between government and opposition debates which represents the highly structured and time-sensitive nature of House of Commons business.

A Division is an informal discussion period during which Members divide their attention between multiple motions under consideration. This is managed through the parliamentary timetable.

None

Question 5

You are preparing briefing materials for a newly appointed minister on the UK legislative process. The minister asks for a summary of the legislative stages and defining features of a Public Bill. Which of the following best describes this?

A public bill concerns matters of general public policy and passes through a structured legislative process with multiple stages in both Houses of Parliament, including First and Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading.

A Public Bill is a proposal affecting only specific individuals or organisations. It proceeds through a single reading in each House before receiving Royal Assent.

A Public Bill is introduced and sponsored by a member of either House and bypasses the Committee stage, proceeding straight to Royal Assent after debate in either House.

A Public Bill is a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, used to implement or amend existing legislation that automatically becomes law unless annulled by Parliament within 40 days.

None

Question 6

You are working for a newly elected Member of Parliament who has been tasked with drafting secondary legislation under an enabling Act. They ask you to explain the difference between the negative procedure and the affirmative resolution procedure. Which of the following provides the most accurate explanation?

Under the negative procedure, Parliament must approve the Statutory Instrument (SI) before it comes into force, whereas under the affirmative procedure, it takes effect automatically unless annulled within 40 days. This approach is generally used for less controversial measures.

Under both procedures, statutory instruments (SIs) require a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament before they can take effect within 28 days.

The negative and affirmative procedures are interchangeable under the enabling Act and may be used at the discretion of the Government department drafting the instrument which allows the instrument to take effect automatically unless annulled.

Under the affirmative resolution procedure, a statutory instrument (SI) requires active parliamentary approval, typically through a debate and vote in both Houses, before it can come into force. Under the negative resolution procedure, the SI is laid before Parliament and will automatically become law after 40 days unless either House passes a motion to annul it.

None

Question 7

Which of the following best explains what Henry VIII powers are and their implications, using a practical context?

Henry VIII powers are powers granted to Parliament to amend Statutory Instruments (SI) made by ministers from the Statute of Proclamations 1539; they are used to correct minor errors in primary legislation.

Henry VIII powers are emergency powers held by Parliament from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which suspend judicial review of secondary legislation during public health crises.

Henry VIII powers are the residual prerogative powers retained by the Crown, used to issue delegated legislation in emergency situations. These powers are constitutionally controversial because they blur the separation between primary and secondary legislation and undermine parliamentary scrutiny.

Henry VIII powers refer to provisions in primary legislation under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 that allow Ministers to amend or repeal Acts of Parliament using secondary legislation, usually by Statutory Instrument (SI).

None

Question 8

Which of the following best captures the primary role of the HoL Constitution Committee?

The HoL Constitution Committee examines all public bills for constitutional implications and investigates broad constitutional issues to hold the Government to account for its respect of constitutional principles.

To draft and amend primary legislation before it is debated in the House of Commons (HC), with a focus on political and constitutional implications.

To enforce constitutional norms through judicial proceedings, primarily acting as a quasi-judicial body for resolving disputes between branches of government and to uphold the rule of law.

To conduct investigations into matters of public policy that do not bear constitutional relevance, particularly in areas such as social welfare and criminal justice reform. The HoL Constitution Committee’s focus is on general public policy.

None

Question 9

Select Committees in the House of Commons (HC) and House of Lords (HoL) play a significant role in holding the Executive to account. However, they are not the only mechanisms for such accountability in the UK’s constitutional framework. Which of the following best represents another constitutionally significant way in which the Executive can be held to account?

Through public referenda and opinion poll which directly challenge decisions made by ministers and mandate government policy changes.

Through Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons and judicial review, whereby the courts assess the lawfulness of decisions or actions taken by the Executive.

Through local government consultations, which give communities the power to overturn central government decisions affecting their region.

Through party political broadcasts which provide a platform for ministerial appearances on social media platforms and televised interviews or press briefings to provide governmental transparency.

None

Question 10

An American colleague asks whether the UK should now abolish the House of Lords (HoL), questioning its legitimacy as an unelected body in a modern democracy. In explaining your answer, which of the following most accurately reflects what was achieved under the House of Lords Act 1999, and the ongoing advantages and disadvantages of the current second chamber?

The 1999 Act abolished the HoL in its entirety, replacing it with a fully elected second chamber, which improved democratic legitimacy but weakened legal expertise and institutional memory.

The 1999 Act transferred the HoL’s legislative powers to the devolved nations (e.g. to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). The Lords still plays an active legislative role at the national level.

The 1999 Act reduced the number of hereditary peers permitted to sit in the HoL to 92, leaving behind a largely appointed chamber of life peers. This change marked a step toward modernising the upper chamber, reducing its archaic and hereditary character. The HoL offers in-depth legislative scrutiny and benefits from the presence of legal, academic, and professional experts.

The 1999 Act established proportional representation within the HoL, thereby aligning it more closely with the democratic structure of the HC and enhancing its mandate to initiate legislation. Membership of the HoL is elected.

None

Question 11

Reform of the composition and powers of the House of Lords (HoL) has been a recurring issue in British constitutional politics since the early 20th century. Considering its current structure and recent proposals, particularly those put forward by the Labour Government, which of the following best characterises the present state of the House of Lords and the envisioned direction of reform?

The HoL remains entirely hereditary, lacking democratic legitimacy, and Labour proposes its complete abolition in favour of a unicameral system.

The HoL is composed predominantly of elected peers since the House of Lords Act 1999, and Labour has advocated maintaining this status quo while introducing minor procedural reforms.

The HoL is a fully devolved institution, with representation from each of the UK’s devolved governments. Labour has proposed decentralising its functions further towards complete devolution towards federalism.

The HoL is an unelected chamber largely composed of life peers, with Labour proposing its replacement with a fully elected “Assembly of the Nations and Regions” to enhance democratic accountability and regional representation.

None

Question 12

A peer in the House of Lords (HoL) has used parliamentary privilege to publicly name a prominent businessman who was previously protected by a superinjunction, granted by the High Court to safeguard his privacy. The businessman wishes to bring a claim in defamation and under Article 8 ECHR against the peer. Which of the following best reflects the legal position regarding his prospects of success?

The businessman can pursue both defamation and privacy claims against the peer, as parliamentary privilege cannot override fundamental ECHR rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. No one is above the law, even in Parliament.

The businessman may succeed in a defamation claim but not under Article 8 ECHR (‘privacy claim’), as parliamentary speech is exempt only from privacy obligations.

Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 gave statutory recognition to the freedom of speech in Parliament. The businessman cannot bring either a defamation or Article 8 ECHR claim, because the absolute privilege extends to all proceedings in Parliament, including statements made in the HoL.

The businessman can sue under Article 8 ECHR (‘privacy’) but not for defamation, since privacy is a qualified right under the ECHR. Parliamentary privilege is not a defence to privacy claims.

None

Time’s up

Part 6

Question 1

In respect of almost all articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or ‘The Convention’), there is an area of discretion afforded to subscribing Member States as to how they implement and protect substantive rights. This is referred to as the “margin of appreciation.” What does this concept most accurately refer to?

The obligation of Member States to apply all Convention rights in an identical manner regardless of national context or legal differences.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) permits a degree of discretion to domestic courts in balancing individual rights against competing public interests, which it reviews for reasonableness and proportionality.

A judicial doctrine mandating the ECtHR to strictly enforce its interpretations of the Convention across all signatory states without exception.

A procedural rule allowing Member States to derogate from any provision of the Convention without oversight from the ECtHR.

None

Question 2

On 5 June 2015, Ukraine notified the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that, given the emergency situation in the country, the Ukrainian authorities intended to invoke Article 15 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and derogate from certain Convention rights. You are working in the Attorney General’s Office, and a senior legal advisor asks you to clarify the legal conditions under which a Member State may lawfully derogate from its obligations under the ECHR. Which of the following best summarises the requirements under Article 15?

Article 15(1) ECHR permits derogation only in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. Such measures must be consistent with the Member State’s other obligations under international law.

Derogation is permitted whenever a Member State considers it necessary to preserve public order or national unity, subject only to domestic constitutional procedures.

Derogation is permitted if a Member State is undergoing political upheaval or significant protest, regardless of whether there is an existential threat to the nation as a whole. The ECtHR applies a stringent standard when assessing whether the derogation threshold is met.

Derogation is permitted from any Convention right as long as the Member State provides timely notification to the Council of Europe and commits to restoring rights once the crisis is over.

None

Question 3

In the context of human rights law, the doctrine of judicial deference plays a significant role in how domestic courts engage with legislative or executive decisions that may affect fundamental rights. A senior legal colleague in your law firm asks you to explain what best defines judicial deference and whether it is synonymous with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) doctrine of the margin of appreciation? Which of the following best captures the meaning of judicial deference and its relationship to the margin of appreciation?

Judicial deference is a principle by which domestic courts automatically uphold government decisions in all human rights cases, and it is functionally identical to the margin of appreciation used by the ECtHR.

Judicial deference is a political doctrine that requires courts to abstain from interpreting human rights provisions, leaving all such matters to national parliaments.

Judicial deference is a procedural rule compelling courts to apply human rights standards only where national legislation explicitly authorises it, mirroring the function of the margin of appreciation.

Judicial deference is a domestic judicial approach in which courts afford a degree of respect to the judgment of the executive or legislature in complex or sensitive policy areas such as national security; it is conceptually related to, but not identical with, the margin of appreciation used by the Strasbourg Court.

None

Question 4

You are representing a convicted serial killer serving a full life sentence at HMP Frankland. He has written a memoir, detailing his gruesome crimes. He now wishes to give an interview to the Sunday Mirror to promote his book and have extracts published. The prison authorities have refused access to the journalist, citing concerns about the prison regime under the Prison Act 1952, potential distress to victims’ families, and the risk of glamorising violent crime. With reference to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and relevant domestic case law, particularly R (Nilsen) v Governor of Full Sutton Prison (2004), are the prison authorities lawfully entitled to restrict this form of media access?

Yes, in Nilsen, the court held that prisoners have no Article 10 Convention rights while serving a sentence for a serious offence.

No, because Article 10 ECHR guarantees the right to receive and impart information regardless of status or prison setting. Prison authorities have no discretion to interfere.

Yes, the decision must be assessed against the three-part test under Article 10(2) ECHR as upheld in Nilsen: the interference must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate to maintain prison order or protect victim’s rights.

No, Prison Rules permit only written correspondence, not oral interviews; unless there is an interference under Article 17 ECHR (prohibit the abuse of rights).

None

Question 5

You are discussing English privacy law with a Swedish lawyer who expresses disbelief that the UK still has no recognised right to privacy in common law or statute law, referring to Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62. The Swedish lawyer notes that privacy is explicitly protected under their constitutional and civil law systems. In response, you explain that the UK has since developed privacy protections, albeit in a somewhat indirect manner. Which of the following best describes how UK courts have developed a “tort of privacy” via the back door, and why this evolution might appear unusual to European lawyers?

Although Kaye v Robertson confirmed there was no general common law right to privacy, UK courts have since used the action for misuse of private information, originally an offshoot of breach of confidence, to develop a de facto tort of privacy under common law, particularly in light of Article 8 ECHR.

The UK courts have expressly overruled Kaye v Robertson and enacted a statutory tort of privacy through the Human Rights Act 1998.

UK courts have refused to engage with privacy interests, instead leaving all such matters to Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights.

The common law in the UK remains entirely unchanged since Kaye, and no remedies exist in domestic courts for intrusions into private life unless property is physically damaged.

None

Question 6

You are representing a well-known BBC radio DJ who has been secretly video-recorded by a prostitute during their private encounters. The recordings have been given to a national tabloid, which published them alongside headlines portraying the DJ in sensational terms (print and online edition). The claim is brought under the common law action for misuse of private information and breach of confidence, alleging a violation of his Article 8 ECHR rights. The newspaper defends the publication on grounds of freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) and alleged public interest, citing the controversial nature of the acts and the DJ\’s public image as a family married man. Which of the following best reflects the legal approach the UK courts would adopt in determining whether the publication constituted a misuse of private information and breach of privacy?

The court will prioritise the freedom of the press under Article 10 ECHR and allow publication unless the information relates to national security or state secrets.

The court will apply a strict liability standard: any disclosure of intimate material without consent constitutes a breach of privacy, regardless of context.

The court will only recognise a privacy claim if the claimant can prove the published material was both false and defamatory, in line with traditional libel law principles.

In Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2008), the court held that even where conduct involves controversial or morally questionable acts, there is a high expectation of privacy. The court will conduct a balancing exercise between the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, assessing whether the publication was necessary and proportionate in the public interest.

None

Question 7

Following the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), the law of confidence in English law has undergone significant transformation, particularly in respect of Article 8 privacy rights. Which of the following best encapsulates the shift in common law development, regarding the protection of private information?

In Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] the law of confidence introduced equitable principles, requiring a pre-existing relationship between the parties. This approach is still used following the coming into force of the HRA.

Parliament has introduced privacy legislation, following the introduction of the HRA, replacing the equitable doctrine of confidence.

In Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, the House of Lords confirmed that the law of confidence had evolved to protect private information, arguably by introducing a tort of privacy influenced by Article 8 ECHR.

The HRA has had minimal impact on the law of confidence, as parliament has created a statutory right to privacy with direct influence from Article 6 ECHR.

None

Question 8

During a mass anti-austerity protest in central London, police implemented a “containment” strategy (commonly referred to as “human kettling”) under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), citing concerns about the risk of serious public disorder. Olivia, a lecturer with no affiliation to the protest, was inadvertently swept into the crowd and confined within a police cordon in Oxford Circus for over seven hours without access to basic amenities. She was not arrested or accused of any unlawful conduct. Olivia brings a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) alleging breaches of her rights under Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) ECHR. In light of the decision in Austin v United Kingdom (2012), which of the following is the most accurate statement of the legal position?

Olivia’s Article 5 ECHR right was violated because her confinement was not authorised by an express power of arrest under the POA, and the indiscriminate restriction on movement lacked a lawful basis.

Although Olivia’s Article 10 and 11 ECHR rights may have been engaged, her confinement did not breach Article 5, as the House of Lords in Austin (2009) held that containment measures do not amount to a deprivation of liberty if used proportionately and in good faith to prevent imminent disorder.

Section 14 POA does not permit containment of non-violent bystanders; therefore, Olivia’s Article 10 and 11 ECHR rights were unlawfully restricted, and her Article 5 right was breached due to arbitrary and disproportionate detention.

Olivia’s containment was lawful under Article 5(1)(b) ECHR as a necessary measure to prevent crime and maintain public order, and her rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR were justifiably suspended under the POA.

None

Question 9

In response to a rise in university departmental closures across England and Wales, approximately 2,000 students gathered for a protest in Bond Street, London. What began as a peaceful demonstration escalated rapidly. A large group of protesters, many wearing face coverings, began smashing shop windows, looting, and throwing bottles at police officers. Several participants set fire to bins and overturned vehicles. Surveillance footage captured at least 12 individuals actively encouraging others to engage in violent behaviour. The violence spread quickly and continued for over two hours. The Metropolitan Police arrested several individuals. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now considering charges under sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA). Which of the following is the most accurate assessment of the legal options available to the prosecution?

Only those who directly engaged in violent conduct amounting to use of violence for a common purpose” by 12 or more persons can be charged under section 1 POA (‘riot’); those encouraging violence may alternatively be charged under section 2 (‘violent disorder’) if fewer than 12 are involved at a given time.”

All protesters present during the disturbance may be charged under section 1 (‘riot’) POA, as group presence alone during a violent assembly constitutes participation in a riot.

The appropriate charge for this incident is under section 3 (‘affray’), as smply being present does not fulfil the actus reus of riot.

The offence of violent disorder under section 2 POA is most appropriate, as riot charges under section 1 are reserved exclusively for politically motivated conduct that causes structural damage.

None

Question 10

A group of 25 animal rights demonstrators held a peaceful protest outside a luxury store on Market Street, Manchester, known for selling real fur products. Protestors displayed placards, chanted slogans, and blocked part of the pavement, causing minor congestion. Some pedestrians had to step into the road to pass, and store staff complained to the police about disruption to business. Police issued warnings under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), citing the risk of serious disruption, and ordered the demonstrators to move. When they refused, several were arrested and later convicted under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for wilful obstruction of the highway. The Magistrates’ Court ruled that the obstruction was unlawful, as it interfered with the public’s right to pass freely. On appeal, the Divisional Court overturned the convictions, citing the protestors’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, and found that the Magistrates had failed to assess the proportionality of the interference with those rights. With reference to the relevant case law, which of the following best reflects the current legal position?

The convictions were lawful because the protest obstructed the highway, and the protestors refused police instructions under section 14 POA; the Highways Act 1980 creates strict liability offences not subject to human rights defences.

The convictions were rightly overturned, as established in DPP v Ziegler (2021) and DPP v Jones (1999), which affirm that peaceful protest on public highways may be lawful, and any criminal sanction must be proportionate under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.

The convictions should have been upheld, following Hirst v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1986), which confirms that police have broad discretion to disperse public protests where any obstruction occurs, regardless of the protest’s message.

The Divisional Court was wrong to interfere, as peaceful protest on a highway is not protected by the ECHR unless pre-authorised by the police. The protestors’ failure to move is not considered a public forum for expression.

None

Question 11

Outline the role and functions of MI5, SIS (MI6), and GCHQ. Which of the following best reflects the statutory framework regulating these three UK intelligence agencies?

The core statutory framework governing MI5, MI6, and GCHQ specifically are contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Data Protection Act 2018 provide the foundational framework for intelligence operations.

The regulatory framework imposing human rights obligations on public bodies, including intelligence agencies are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Official Secrets Act 1989.

The combination of legislation contained in the Security Service Act 1989 and the National Security Act 2023 address contemporary challenges of foreign hostile state activity, supplementing previous legislation.

None

Question 12

How did the House of Lords’ (HL) reasoning in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 (the “Belmarsh case”) differ from its position in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the “GCHQ case”) in relation to judicial scrutiny of national security matters?

In Belmarsh, their Lordships reaffirmed that all national security matters are non-justiciable, consistent with GCHQ, recognising fundamental human rights.

In Belmarsh, the HL deferred to the executive, confirming that detention under immigration law is traditionally outside the scope of judicial review.

In Belmarsh, their Lordships held that even in matters of national security, courts must assess whether measures infringe fundamental rights and are proportionate, thereby departing from the non-justiciability reasoning in GCHQ.

In Belmarsh, the HL declined to apply the Human Rights Act 1998 due to overriding concerns of national security.

None

Question 13

Control Orders, introduced under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, were eventually replaced by Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) under the TPIM Act 2011 (as amended by the Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021). Why was it considered necessary to abandon Control Orders, and to what extent do TPIMs differ from them in substance?

Control Orders were widely criticised for violating human rights, particularly under Article 5 ECHR. TPIMs were introduced to rebalance security needs with civil liberties, including limits on duration and fewer restrictions on movement.

Control Orders were found to be unlawful under domestic law, and TPIMs reintroduced emergency powers, providing for broader executive discretion.

Control Orders were abolished purely for cost-saving reasons, and TPIMs are functionally identical in scope and effect, expanding executive power.

Control Orders were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Belmarsh, and TPIMs were introduced as an alternative form of pre-trial detention.

None

Question 14

In Shamima Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2024) the Supreme Court upheld the decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to deprive Ms Begum of British citizenship. Which of the following best explains the Court’s reasoning in dismissing her appeal?

The Court found that Article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and trafficking) imposed a positive obligation on the UK to repatriate citizens who may have been trafficked.

The Justices accepted that Ms Begum was de facto stateless; however, national security concerns lawfully outweighed her individual rights, and no procedural unfairness was found.

The Court ruled that the deprivation of citizenship was unlawful because it failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and the principle of non-discrimination.

The Court determined that Ms Begum retained full access to UK courts and therefore could not claim procedural unfairness or jurisdictional exclusion.

None

Question 15

You have been appointed as Special Advocate by the Solicitor General to act on behalf of Applicant A, whose appeal is being heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). A is challenging a decision made on national security grounds, relying on Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial). During submissions, you request access to closed material allegedly held by the UK security services, concerning A’s alleged terrorist involvement in India. SIAC refuses the request, citing the need to protect national security and referencing the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)’s ruling in Yam v United Kingdom (2020) 141 EHRR 21, which upheld the use of Closed Material Proceedings (CMP) in national security cases. You further argue that the restrictions on your communication with the applicant after seeing closed material infringe A’s Article 6 rights. Which of the following best reflects the legal position following Yam v United Kingdom and the use of Special Advocates in CMPs?

The use of closed material and restricted communication between the Special Advocate is controversial, establishing automatic incompatibility with Article 6 ECHR.

Yam v United Kingdom held that any limitation on a defendant’s right to know and challenge the evidence against them is a per se violation of Article 6(1) ECHR.

The ECtHR in Yam ruled that closed proceedings did not breach the right to fair trial, provided the overall fairness of the trial is maintained and sufficient safeguards exist.

The existence of procedural mechanisms under the SIAC procedure must provide open disclosure of all materials, because Special Advocates are automatically permitted as per Yam to access sensitive material or challenge it effectively.

None

Time’s up

Part 7

Question 1

You are advising a parliamentary committee conducting a review of the constitutional role and effectiveness of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The committee is particularly concerned with whether the JAC has succeeded in enhancing judicial independence, improving diversity within the judiciary, and reinforcing the separation of powers. Which of the following statements best reflects the constitutional rationale behind the creation of the JAC and its continuing significance?

The creation of the JAC marked a critical constitutional shift towards greater institutional separation between the judiciary and executive, by transferring responsibility for judicial selection from the Lord Chancellor to an independent commission, thereby enhancing the perception and reality of judicial independence.

The JAC was established to ensure that judicial appointments are made exclusively by elected officials, thereby aligning the composition of the judiciary with prevailing political and parliamentary values in order to strengthen democratic accountability.

The principal purpose of the JAC was to reduce judicial workload by managing court staffing and case allocation; its role in appointment is secondary to its administrative support functions within Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

The JAC operates primarily to encourage diversity within the judiciary with its statutory remit to select and give priority to ethnic minority candidates for politically sensitive judicial roles.

None

Question 2

In a 1972 lecture, Lord Reid, then senior Law Lord, famously remarked: “There was a time when it was thought almost indecent to suggest that judges make law – they only declare it … But we do not believe in fairy tales any more.” This statement critically questioned the long-held declaratory theory of common law, suggesting a more candid acknowledgment of the judicial role in the development of legal principles. From a constitutional standpoint, which of the following best reflects the contemporary understanding of the judicial role in the British legal system?

Judicial law-making is incompatible with the constitutional separation of powers and the principle of legality, as only Parliament has the democratic mandate to create or alter legal rules applicable to the public.

While formally bound by precedent and statute, judges in the common law tradition necessarily develop the law through interpretation and social change by incremental reasoning. The modern UK judiciary acknowledges this creative yet constrained function within constitutional limits.

Judges are empowered by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to develop and amend legal principles in accordance with evolving social values, exercising a quasi-legislative function consistent with their new institutional status as a separate constitutional branch.

None

Question 3

The UK courts’ approach to statutory interpretation reveals a delicate constitutional equilibrium. You are advising a law reform commission tasked with reviewing judicial approaches to statutory interpretation in the UK, particularly in light of constitutional values such as parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, and the role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights. The commission is especially interested in the continued relevance of the literal, golden, and mischief rules, alongside the modern purposive approach and the interpretive obligations under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Which of the following best describes the contemporary constitutional role of statutory interpretation by UK courts?

Statutory interpretation remains a mechanical exercise, in which courts are required to apply the words of Parliament strictly and literally, irrespective of consequences, in order to preserve legislative supremacy and democratic accountability.

The purposive approach has displaced all other interpretive rules, enabling judges to interpret statutes solely by reference to policy goals or perceived legislative intent, regardless of textual constraints, ensuring maximum flexibility in protecting rights under section 4 HRA.

Section 3 HRA requires courts to disregard parliamentary intention where necessary to secure Convention rights, thereby granting judges a quasi-legislative role in aligning domestic statutes with Strasbourg jurisprudence.

The modern constitutional orthodoxy reflects the courts considering both linguistic meaning and broader statutory context, reflecting the purposive approach to statutory interpretation; thus giving effect to the intended purpose of Parliament whilst remaining within constitutional boundaries and section 3 HRA.

None

Question 4

As part of the principles of statutory interpretation, judges may refer to both internal and external aids to help determine the meaning of ambiguous or unclear legislative provisions. While internal aids include elements within the statute itself (e.g. long titles, headings), external aids are sources outside the statute which can assist the court in understanding Parliament’s intention. Which of the following sets contains only external aids to statutory interpretation?

Marginal notes which limit using external aids in human rights contexts as per Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251, and the Interpretation Act 1978.

Punctuation, the long title of the Act, and Schedules attached to the statute.

Headings within sections, precedent case law, and the short title of the Act.

Law Commission Reports, Hansard (especially following Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593) and international treaties ratified by the UK.

None

Question 5

In light of Lord Bingham’s dicta in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, what best describes the contemporary relationship between UK national courts and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), particularly with reference to the law of precedent?

UK courts are strictly bound by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, regardless of the domestic context. Judges in the domestic courts are under a statutory duty to apply the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

UK courts are not bound by ECtHR jurisprudence but are required by section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to take it into account” the Strasbourg decisions which are persuasive but not binding authority. This reflects the nuanced approach established by Ullah

UK courts have full discretion to disregard ECtHR case law if they disagree with its reasoning, as domestic precedent always takes priority.

Under section 2 HRA, UK courts must follow ECtHR judgments, but only if they are made by the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court, as these carry the highest form of legal authority.

None

Question 6

The UK tribunal system consists of both UK-wide and region-specific jurisdictions and is administered through various mechanisms, including local authorities, government departments, and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). HMCTS oversees a two-tier tribunal system comprising the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT), each divided into Chambers grouping similar subject-matter jurisdictions and expertise. The UT, a superior court of record, primarily hears appeals from the FTT, but can also act as a court of first instance and may include High Court judges. In this context, which of the following best characterises the legal and constitutional framework governing the tribunal system and its relationship with judicial review?

The UT, as a superior court of record, established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with the power to hear appeals and original claims, is immune from judicial review in all circumstances because it performs the same constitutional role as the High Court.

Because of its specialised nature and judicial independence, the UT cannot be judicially reviewed unless its decision involves a criminal sanction or contravenes international human rights obligations.

All tribunal decisions, whether from the FTT or UT, are immune from judicial review due to their internal appeal structures and status within the Ministry of Justice framework.

The UT, though a superior court of record, remains subject to judicial review in limited circumstances, especially where no further statutory appeal exists or where jurisdictional error is alleged.

None

Time’s up

Part 8

Question 1

In the context of judicial review in English law, what is the principal purpose of judicial review as established under the Senior Courts Act 1981 and developed through case law?

Judicial review is a mechanism by which the High Court, pursuant to section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, exercises appellate jurisdiction over administrative decisions, allowing it to substitute its own judgment where it finds a decision unreasonable or unlawful as per CPR Part 54.

Judicial review, as per section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981, is the procedure by which an individual, company or organisation can challenge the lawfulness of a decision or other conduct of a person or body whose powers are governed by public law. It exists to ensure that public authorities do not act unlawfully.

The purpose of judicial review under section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981 is to provide an alternative forum for individuals to appeal government decisions on their merits when no statutory right of appeal exists, especially in politically sensitive areas such as immigration and national security.

Judicial review, governed by section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981, enables the courts to develop and impose common law standards of good administration, including economic efficiency and public interest considerations, allowing for active judicial management of public policy outcomes.

None

Question 2

The UK Prime Minister, acting on the advice of senior political advisors, decides to prorogue Parliament for six weeks during a period of intense parliamentary debate over proposed legislation that would limit the government’s ability to negotiate international trade agreements without prior parliamentary approval. The Prime Minister publicly asserts that the prorogation is a “standard political manoeuvre” designed to allow the government to “reset its legislative agenda.” However, leaked internal communications suggest that the true motivation was to prevent Parliament from interfering with the government’s trade strategy and to avoid scrutiny during sensitive negotiations. A cross-party group of MPs and legal campaigners applies for judicial review of the Prime Minister’s advice to the monarch to prorogue Parliament. They argue that the Prime Minister’s action unlawfully frustrates parliamentary sovereignty and undermines democratic accountability. With reference to R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 (‘Miller No 2’), and broader principles of UK constitutional law, critically assess whether the Prime Minister’s decision is justiciable and, if so, whether it is unlawful.

The Prime Minister’s decision is unlawful because, under Miller (No. 2), the use of prorogation that frustrates or prevents Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification is justiciable and may be quashed.

The Prime Minister’s decision is a political question concerning the exercise of prerogative power and is therefore non-justiciable. Courts cannot interfere with the advice given to the monarch unless it breaches an express statutory limitation.

The Prime Minister’s decision is lawful under Miller No 1 (2017), provided it falls within a recognised prerogative power, regardless of its effect on Parliament, as courts defer to the executive in matters of national security and political strategy.

The Prime Minister’s decision is non-justiciable.. Until Parliament enacts legislation to limit prorogation, courts lack authority to declare such use of prerogative power unlawful.

None

Question 3

How to the courts determine whether a body qualifies as a public authority under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998?

A body will be classified as a public authority under section 6(3)(b) HRA only if it is created by statute and exercises powers conferred directly by legislation. Private or non-statutory bodies cannot be considered public authorities, regardless of their influence or regulatory function.

A body may be regarded as a public authority if it exercises public functions and plays a role within the governmental framework. The courts adopt a functional approach, assessing the nature of the function, not the body’s origin, as seen in ex parte Datafin. However, where regulation arises from private agreement rather than public law (as in ex parte Aga Khan), the body will not qualify.

Any organisation with public-facing responsibilities or financial influence in the market qualifies as a public authority. The focus is on accountability to the public, not the legal source of power.

A private body can only be a public authority if it has explicitly adopted a statutory duty to respect human rights.

None

Question 4

What is meant by “standing” (locus standi) in the context of judicial review, and how does the administrative court determine whether a claimant has a “sufficient interest” to bring a claim? With reference to authorities such as R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, and R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504, what is the correct approach to standing in judicial review?

Standing in judicial review requires that the claimant has a direct personal right or interest in the outcome of the case. The court will automatically deny standing to pressure groups or charities unless they are individually affected by the public body’s decision (Rose Theatre Trust).

Standing depends solely on whether the claimant has suffered a financial or property loss as a result of the public authority’s actions. Moral or ideological objections are insufficient to establish sufficient interest (R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses (1982)).

The courts will grant standing only to those who have statutory authority to bring a claim or who have been expressly authorised by a public body. There is no scope for judicial review based on public interest alone.

The test for standing is whether the claimant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates, which is assessed in the context of the case as a whole, including the merits of the challenge. Public interest may justify standing for individuals or groups not directly affected. Individuals cannot acquire standing merely by forming an association as per Rose Theatre Trust.

None

Question 5

In the context of R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, which of the following best explains the constitutional justification for the court’s decision to exercise judicial deference and refrain from adjudicating the matter?

The House of Lords (HL) determined that any decision by a government agency, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), automatically falls outside the scope of judicial review as non-justiciable.

In Re. Corner House Research, the HL concluded that judicial intervention was inappropriate because the Director of the SFO failed to exhaust all political remedies available through Parliament.

In Re. Corner House Research, the HL exercised judicial deference, recognising that the Director of the SFO was entitled to consider national security implications when halting an investigation into alleged corruption involving BAE Systems and Saudi officials.

The HL determined that the Human Rights Act 1998 precludes judicial oversight in matters involving national security and international diplomacy.

None

Question 6

The Secretary of State for the Home Department issues a policy stating that all applications for humanitarian leave from undocumented migrants will be refused without exception. Applicant F who fled persecution and faces a credible risk of torture in their home country challenges the refusal of their application. You are acting on behalf of F, arguing that the Home Secretary has unlawfully fettered her discretion and that the decision is irrational. Which of the following best explains the legal basis on which a court would likely find the minister’s decision unlawful?

The Home Secretary acted unlawfully because ministers are never permitted to adopt general policies in areas involving discretion, the Court of Appeal so ruled in R (Ali) v Secretary of State for Justice (2014).

The Home Secretary’s blanket policy may amount to an unlawful fettering of her discretion. This reflects well-established administrative law principles in British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade (1971). Her refusal to consider exceptional individual circumstances may render the decision irrational under the Wednesbury principle.

The Home Secretary’s policy is lawful, as per the ruling in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms (1999), if it reflects a legitimate public interest, such as maintaining immigration control, even if applied rigidly.

The Home Secretary’s decision is lawful provided that an applicant has a right to appeal to an independent immigration tribunal, so held by the Supreme Court in R (Lumba & Mighty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011).

None

Question 7

Which of the following best explains the concept of proportionality, including its comparative advantages and limitations over Wednesbury unreasonableness, and its scope of application?

Proportionality requires the court to assess whether a public authority’s action is manifestly unreasonable, and it applies only in judicial review claims that do not involve fundamental rights or EU law, particularly post-Kennedy v Charity Commission (2014).

Proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness are functionally identical tests, and courts may use either interchangeably, depending on the facts of the case (Dalston Projects Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (2024)).

Proportionality is only used in private law disputes and is therefore irrelevant to judicial review or public law challenges.

Proportionality permits a structured and intensive review of whether a public authority’s action pursues a legitimate aim in a way that is suitable, necessary, and balances individual rights. While traditionally linked to EU and human rights law, the UK courts now consider its broader application, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) (2013).

None

Question 8

A local authority launches a public consultation on a controversial planning application to redevelop a large area of public land into private housing. The consultation was announced on the council’s website but no letters were sent to affected residents. The consultation lasted only seven days. The planning committee of the local authority approved the application the day after the consultation closed, without reviewing most of the responses. You are acting on behalf of a local community group wishing to bring a judicial review claim, alleging procedural impropriety. Which of the following best explains your reasons why a court is likely to find the consultation process unlawful?

The consultation breached the common law duty of fairness, as established in R v Brent LBC, ex parte Gunning (1985) by failing to satisfy the required standards of proper consultation.

The local authority was under no legal duty to consult the public and was therefore entitled to approve the application as it saw fit (National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2024)).

The consultation is lawful as long as at least one public notice was issued, regardless of how long the consultation lasted or whether responses were considered.

The consultation process is lawful because planning decisions are a political matter and therefore not justiciable on procedural grounds.

None

Question 9

A local council has a longstanding practice of providing financial assistance to small businesses in its area that face economic hardship. The council has never published a formal policy, but it has consistently granted funding to businesses that meet certain informal criteria. One year, a business owner, who has previously received financial assistance under this informal system, applies again. However, this time the council refuses the application, citing changes in its internal priorities, but does not inform the applicant of these changes until after the refusal. The business owner challenges the decision, arguing that the council had created a legitimate expectation of receiving funding based on its past conduct. The council claims that it is not bound by any informal practice and that it retains full discretion to change its funding priorities. Which of the following best explains the difference between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations in the context of this case?

Procedural legitimate expectations arise where an individual expects to be consulted before a decision is made (R (Bibi) v Newham LBC (2001)), while substantive legitimate expectations arise where an individual expects a specific outcome, such as receiving funding, based on prior practice.

Substantive legitimate expectations arise only where a statutory right is involved, while procedural legitimate expectations apply only to cases involving non-statutory rights (R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2000)).

Procedural legitimate expectations allow an individual to challenge the substance of a decision, while substantive legitimate expectations focus on the fairness of decision-making procedures (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Hargreaves (1996)).

Procedural legitimate expectations focus on the fairness of decision-making processes, whereas substantive legitimate expectations concern the actual outcome of a decision, based on prior promises or practices (R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2000)).

None

Question 10

Under section 5(1) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, a member of the public can lodge a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, provided they claim to have suffered injustice due to maladministration. The Ombudsman investigates such complaints and makes recommendations for redress. However, in certain cases, the MP filter requires individuals to first obtain the support of a Member of Parliament (MP) to bring a claim, creating an additional hurdle for those seeking to challenge public body decisions. This filter is often justified as a way to prevent vexatious claims, but it has been criticized for limiting access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman system, particularly when claimants are unable to secure an MP’s support. Which of the following best summarises the potential impact of the MP filter being removed or retained?

The MP filter should be maintained since it ensures that only claims of public interest are pursued, thereby strengthening the Parliamentary Ombudsman system by preventing frivolous complaints from overburdening the system.

The MP filter should be retained because it prevents the Ombudsman from being overwhelmed by cases, while allowing MPs to act as a gatekeeper to assess the seriousness of the claims in matters of maladministration before they are investigated.

Maintaining the MP filter is out of line with other public service Ombudsmen in the United Kingdom – none of whom is restricted by a filter. The MP filter should be removed because some individuals, who may have a valid complaint, cannot secure an MP’s support, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the Parliamentary Ombudsman system.

The MP filter should be removed because it ensures that the Parliamentary Ombudsman only investigates claims that have legitimate political maladminstrative complaints.

None

Question 11

Following a major environmental disaster involving alleged regulatory failings by a public authority, the UK Government announces the establishment of a statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry is tasked with examining the government’s response, identifying systemic failings, and making recommendations for future policy reform. Which of the following best captures the primary purpose of public inquiries in the UK legal and constitutional framework?

To determine criminal liability of public officials and recommend prosecution. Where guilt is established, they can impose sanctions.

To provide a forum for victims to seek compensation and enforce civil liability against public bodies.

To adjudicate disputes of maladministration between public authorities and individuals where rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 are engaged.

To establish facts, promote transparency and accountability, and make recommendations for preventing future failures in public administration.

None

Question 12

In the aftermath of a scandal involving alleged systemic discrimination within a government department, campaigners call for a statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The government, however, announces a non-statutory review instead, citing concerns over cost and delay. Critics argue that a non-statutory review lacks independence and transparency. The decision is challenged by judicial review, with claimants arguing that the refusal to hold a statutory inquiry breaches the duty of fairness and frustrates the legitimate expectation created by prior ministerial statements promising a “full and independent investigation.” Which of the following best reflects the legal position on the judicial review of decisions relating to public inquiries?

Ministers are under a general legal duty to establish a statutory public inquiry whenever there is significant public concern, and failure to do so will always be unlawful.

Non-statutory inquiries may be established to examine a particular issue and may be preferred by the government on the basis that there can be greater flexibility in procedures. Witnesses may be more likely to cooperate with a non-statutory inquiry than an inquiry under the 2005 Act where the subject matter is controversial.

The decision to hold a public inquiry is purely political and not justiciable, meaning the courts have no jurisdiction to review it.

Where decisions are politically sensitive, positive judicial review of the merits of a Minister’s decision, must be applied, particularly where the refusal to establish an inquiry appears to be irrational (Wednesbury).

None

Time’s up

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

With thanks to Ursula Smartt for her contributions to the digital learning resources.