Constitutional - 1992

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 06 June 2013. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department: Ex parte Muboyayi; CA 1992

Regina -v- Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, Ex parte Wachmann [1992] 1 WLR 1036
1992 Simon Brown J	Ecclesiastical, Constitutional
	A local rabbi sought judicial review of the declaration of the Chief Rabbi, following an investigation into allegations of adultery with members of his congregation, that he was religiously and morally unfit to occupy his position. Held: Simon Brown J said: "As Mr Beloff points out, the court would never be prepared to rule on questions of Jewish law. Mr Carus, recognising this prospective difficulty, says that in advancing his challenge here, the applicant would be prepared to rely solely upon the common law concept of natural justice. But it would not always be easy to separate out procedural complaints from consideration of substantive principles of Jewish law which may underlie them . . That consideration apart, this court is hardly in a position to regulate what is essentially a religious function - the determination whether someone is morally and religiously fit to carry out the spiritual and pastoral duties of his office. The Court must inevitably be wary of entering so self-evidently sensitive an area, straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state. One cannot, therefore, escape the conclusion that if judicial review lies here, then one way or another this secular court must inevitably be drawn into adjudicating upon matters intimate to a religious community". The state has not surrendered or delegated any of its functions or powers to the Church. None of the functions that the Church of England performs would have to be performed in its place by the state if the Church were to abdicate its responsibility. The relationship which the state has with the Church of England is one of recognition, not of the devolution to it of any of the powers or functions of government. "the court would never be prepared to rule on questions of Jewish law" In relation to the determination of whether someone is morally and religiously fit to carry out the spiritual and pastoral duties of his office, the court "must inevitably be wary of entering so self-evidently sensitive an area, straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state"

Lennox Phillip and Others -v- Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same -v-Commissioners of Prisons [1992] 1 AC 545; [1992] 2 WLR 211;
19 Feb 1992 PC	Torts - Other, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights
	(Trinidad and Tobago) There had been an insurrection, and many people were taken prisoner by the insurrectionists. To secure their release, the President issued an amnesty to all the insurgents, including the applicant. After surrendering, the applicant was kept in custody, and now sought his own release. Writs of habeas corpus were refused. Held: The prisoners who had been pardoned before their trial, but had remained in custody because there were doubts about the constitutional propriety of their pardons, had an arguable case for habeas corpus application. They had established prima facie the validity of the pardons, and their continued detention without return to court to argue the habeas corpus application was unlawful. At the hearing of the habeas corpus application, the court would be able to determine the validity of the pardons.

Smithfield Foods Ltd -v- Attorney-General of Barbados
11 Mar 1992 PC	Constitutional, Commonwealth
	There is no appeal to the Privy Council for lack of adequate redress in the local courts where a local appeal was still available to the applicant.

Regina -v- Ali, Regina -v- Rasool (Mauritius); PC 25-Mar-1992

Ponsamy Poongavanam -v- Regina
6 Apr 1992 PC Lord Goff of Chieveley	Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Constitutional	1 Citers
	(Mauritius) The defendant appealed conviction on the ground that the jury had been all male. Women being effectively excluded from jury service in Mauritius. The question was whether, having regard to the composition of the jury, the appellant's trial violated a provision in the Constitution of Mauritius. Held: There was no basis for concluding that the justification for the means of selecting juries no longer had an objective justification. The board referred to the "fair cross-section" requirement adopted in the American case law. Whether such a broad principle can be derived from the Constitution of Mauritius depends upon the construction of the word "impartial". The Constitution was concerned with the actual tribunal by which the case is tried and with the impartiality of that tribunal. The American principle was directed to the representative character of the jury list. "Whether the jurisprudence on Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights is likely to develop in that direction, is very difficult to foresee; but any such development would require a substantial piece of creative interpretation which has the effect of expanding the meaning of the words of Article 6(1) beyond their ordinary meaning."

Regina -v- Greenaway Unreported, 25 June 1992
25 Jun 1992 CC Buckley J	Crime, Constitutional	1 Citers
	(Central Criminal Court) The defendant Member of Parliament had faced charges of accepting bribes in return for advancing the interests of a commercial company. Held: The charges were dismissed on the request of the prosecution after a separate trial in which the persons accused of having bribed him had been acquitted. Buckley J had earlier ruled that an MP could be charged with the common law offence of bribery. It had been common ground that in general, members of Parliament are subject to the criminal law and that it would be "unacceptable" for a member of Parliament to be immune from prosecution in the courts of law when there was prima facie evidence of corruption. Without it being suggested that he was questioning or impeaching words spoken in Parliament, he adopted the observations of Lord Salmon that: "To my mind equality before the law is one of the pillars of freedom. To say that immunity from criminal proceedings against . . any member of Parliament who accepts the bribe, stems from the Bill of Rights is possibly a serious mistake . . (the Bill of Rights) is a charter for freedom of speech in the House. It is not a charter for corruption . . the crime of corruption is complete when the bribe is offered or given or solicited and taken."

Government of Mauritius -v- Union Flacq Sugar Estates Co Ltd; Same -v- Medine Shares Holding Co; PC 16-Sep-1992

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Hart; HL 26-Nov-1992