R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)
GPTKB entity
Properties (61)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:appeal |
gptkb:Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department
|
| gptkbp:area |
Administrative law
|
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
[2001] UKHL 26
|
| gptkbp:citedBy |
[2002] UKHL 26
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:UK_Supreme_Court
gptkb:House_of_Lords Composed of Law Lords. Emphasized the importance of legal certainty. Strengthened the role of courts in immigration matters. Ruling_against_the_Home_Secretary. |
| gptkbp:date |
May 2002
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
2002
|
| gptkbp:discusses |
Discussed in legal seminars.
Frequently discussed in law schools. |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Impact on detention policy.
Impact on future legal interpretations. Influenced subsequent immigration policies |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Lord_Bingham_of_Cornhill
Illegality Unanimous decision nan Procedural fairness |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Judicial review
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Discussed in legal journals.
Examined the limits of executive power. Respondent represented by the Attorney General Appellant_represented_by_David_Pannick_QC |
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Part of a series of cases on immigration detention.
Part_of_UK_constitutional_law. |
| gptkbp:legislation |
Human Rights Act 1998
Immigration Act 1971 |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
Documented in legal archives.
Available in legal databases. Referenced in legal textbooks. Cited in subsequent immigration law cases. Significant for civil liberties. Analyzed for its implications on executive power. Influenced public policy debates. Analyzed for its implications on human rights. Cited in human rights cases. Clarified the scope of judicial review Influenced legal standards for detention. Involved a challenge to the legality of detention. Relevant to asylum seeker rights. Relevant to discussions on state accountability. Relevant to discussions on state power. Set standards for detention reviews. Significant for judicial independence. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Appeal allowed
Led to increased scrutiny of detention. Reinstatement of the original decision Resulted in changes to detention practices. Resulted in enhanced legal protections. Resulted in policy reforms. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set precedent for future cases
|
| gptkbp:regulatoryCompliance |
Affirmed the authority of the judiciary.
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:R_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_(No_1)
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Impact on immigration law
|
| gptkbp:soundtrack |
March 2002
|