“How to define the nut; defining the rights lost.
In the case of R (Quila & anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 45,  1 AC 621,  1 FLR 788 (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/45.html) the Supreme Court were concerned with a Home Office regulation which – to help to combat forced marriages, it was said – raised the age for immigration to the UK for marriage to 21. Such evidence as there was suggested that many more unforced marriages would be impeded than forced marriages prevented. Had the Secretary of State (Mrs May, as it happens) acted rationally in deciding to agree to the regulation?
No said Lord Wilson (with whom three of the other four Supreme Court Justices agreed). She had identified a nut, but failed to identify the size of the nut to which she was taking a sledge-hammer:”
EU WITHDRAWAL AND PRIME MINISTER’S REASONS
The present Government proposes that the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union following a referendum on the issue in June 2016. A Bill giving the decision on triggering the process to withdraw to the Prime Minister is going swiftly through Parliament. This article considers how a Prime Minister must exercise her judgment in taking that decision, by considering the following questions:
- Discretion and reason – What is discretion and exercise of judgement; and how is it affected by operation of the rationality of the decision-maker (ie the Prime Minister in this case)?
- Referendum result – How does reason apply to the referendum result; and how far was the result ‘advisory’?
- Rights and EU withdrawal – How does the treatment of rights in EU withdrawal apply to an exercise of reason?
The EU withdrawal issue has been twice before the courts in recent months:…
View original post 4,489 more words