Cambridge BA: Constitutional Law Paper

In 2024, Parliament enacts the National Security (Emergency Powers) Act 2024. Section 1 grants the Secretary of State for the Home Department ('the Minister') the power to issue 'National Security Directives' by statutory instrument, which may 'do anything necessary or expedient for the protection of national security, including restricting the movement of persons reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity.' Section 2 provides that any such Directive 'shall not be subject to judicial review or challenge in any court or tribunal.' Section 3 states that the Act 'shall prevail over any inconsistent provision of the Human Rights Act 1998.' Acting under Section 1, the Minister issues Directive 7, which imposes an indefinite house arrest without charge on Tariq, a British citizen, and Amara, a Somali national with indefinite leave to remain. Neither has been charged with any offence. The Directive is not laid before Parliament before it comes into force. Tariq and Amara seek judicial review. The Minister argues: (i) the ouster clause in Section 2 bars the court from acting; (ii) Section 3 of the Act displaces the HRA 1998; and (iii) the executive has unreviewable discretion in national security matters. Advise Tariq and Amara as to their prospects of success, addressing the constitutional validity of each of the Minister's arguments and any available remedies.

The Boundary Reform and Elections Act 2025 is passed by Parliament with a majority of 320 votes to 280 in the House of Commons. The Act has not been considered by the House of Lords, which voted to reject the Bill at second reading. The Act contains the following provisions: Section 1: 'The Boundary Commission shall henceforth consist of five members, all of whom shall be appointed by, and removable at the pleasure of, the Prime Minister.' Section 2: 'General elections shall be held in such constituencies as the Prime Minister may by Order determine. No challenge to the boundaries of any constituency shall be entertained by any court.' Section 3: 'The next general election shall not be required until seven years have elapsed since the previous general election.' Section 4: 'This Act is declared to be consistent with the rule of law and with all relevant constitutional norms.' Green Party MP Harriet and the Electoral Reform Society ('ERS'), a registered charity, both seek judicial review of the Act, arguing that it was not validly enacted (given the Lords' rejection), that it undermines the rule of law and democratic constitutional norms, and that Section 3 unlawfully extends the parliamentary term. Advise both claimants on the justiciability and substantive merits of their claims, and on the available remedies.

Priya is a senior civil servant in the Department for Business and Trade. In 2023, she discovers that her Permanent Secretary, Sir Charles, has been improperly awarding government contracts to a company in which he holds a significant undisclosed financial interest. Priya raises her concerns internally but is told by Sir Charles that the matter is 'political and operational' and she should 'remain loyal to the Department.' When Priya then contacts the Cabinet Office to invoke the civil service whistleblowing procedure, she is informed that her complaint is 'not appropriate for escalation' and no investigation is begun. Priya proceeds to disclose the information to a journalist at a national newspaper, which publishes an exposé. The Government subsequently: (i) dismisses Priya from the civil service for breach of the Civil Service Code and misconduct; (ii) obtains an injunction from the High Court prohibiting the newspaper from publishing further details on grounds of national security and public interest; and (iii) announces that no Select Committee inquiry will be permitted into the contracts, citing 'executive privilege.' Advise Priya on the constitutional and public law principles engaged by each of the Government's three responses. Consider in particular the constitutional conventions, statutory protections, and judicial review grounds available to her.

'The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as classically stated by Dicey, is no longer an accurate description of the UK constitution. The combined effect of devolution, EU membership (and withdrawal), the Human Rights Act 1998, and the common law itself have produced a constitution in which Parliament is but one among several sources of constitutional authority.' Critically assess this claim with reference to judicial decisions and constitutional theory.

'The rule of law in the United Kingdom is best understood not as a formal principle requiring only legal validity, but as a substantive principle demanding that law be just, clear, prospective, and accessible, and that the executive be subject to independent judicial control. Recent case law demonstrates that the courts have increasingly embraced the substantive conception.' Critically evaluate this statement with reference to leading judicial authorities and academic debate.