I'm revising for my public law exam which is in a few weeks but I'm really having a hard time with the subject
I went to a revision seminar with my lecturer on Monday and he gave guidance on the exam and for one question said if we could answer this, we should be fine for one of the exam questions
"An Act of Parliament gives the Home Secretary power to double any judicial sentence involving a sexual offence committed against a child. The Government had included the proposal in its election manifesto and believes it to be very popular with the electorate.
Why might such an Act be regarded as unconstitutional?
Is there any judicial process under which such an Act might be challenged? Who might bring a challenge?
Who do you think should have the last word on issues like this – Parliament or the courts?"
Any help on this?
My lecturer said it relates to the applicability of the HRA to primary and secondary legislation..
Does this relate to s3, interpreting legislation, and declaring legislation incompatible with human rights under s4 through parliamentary sovereignty?
Also could someone explain the difference between primary and secondary legislation? My lecturer confused me when he explained it
Turn on thread page Beta
Public law help!? watch
- Thread Starter
- 13-05-2015 17:46
- 13-05-2015 21:33
Just at a glance seems like Article 6 right to fair trial. HS is a branch of the executive not the judiciary. What caught my eye was that the HS can double ANY judicial sentence involving sexual offence against a child. His discretion is unfettered but he is not a judge.Last edited by JamessLad; 13-05-2015 at 21:36.
- 14-05-2015 13:04
Take a look at the 7 stage argument of counsel in R(Anderson) v Secretary of State for Home Department. That is the essential argument for a breach of Article 6, with some slight modifications. You will find at paragraph  onwards.Last edited by GeneralStudent95; 14-05-2015 at 13:08.