Search

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Preventing the overconcentration of power is a central component of Western constitutional thought. However, in the British constitution power is generally concentrated in representative legislatures. Although these legislatures generally possess legitimating characteristics that courts lack, we cannot assume that this balance will hold true for all time. This article argues that the common law judicial review jurisdiction contains a power to invalidate the Acts of representative legislatures in certain extreme, hypothetical situations. The seeds of this line of thought began with dicta from a minority in Jackson v Attorney General and similar claims have appeared in several other landmark cases, such as AXA Insurance v Lord Advocate and Moohan v Lord Advocate. Rather than something novel, the power to invalidate legislation is best understood as a natural outgrowth of the seeds of a theory of legislative legitimacy present in the common law that began in the late 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the British Supreme Court case Bank Mellat v Her Majestys Treasury (Number one) related to the Closed Material Procedure (CMP). Topics include the presence of nine justices in the court case for revisiting a closed judgment of the Administrative Court including Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption, the ruling of the court in context with the freezing of funds of Bank Mellat and conduction of CMP by the court, as of April 2014.

The article presents information on housing detainees captured by the U.S. authorities attributing to unwilling effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment in Guantanamo's habeas corpus. It discusses decisions of several court cases such as Boumediene v. Bush, Rahmatullah v. Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, and Munaf v. Geren. It describes Habeas Corpus as a writ or jurisdiction of a court with origins from the 13th century English Law used to free prisoner from unlawful detention.