R v Home Secretary, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, [2000] 2 AC 115

Cambridge First-Class Constitutional Law Notes

View

Premium
Notes

Model
Answers

Key Points

This case laid down the principle of legality, which states that common law fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words in Acts of Parliament
Thus, fundamental rights can only be overridden expressly, not impliedly, by Acts of Parliament

The Home Secretary placed a blanket ban on prisoners giving interviews to journalists, purportedly pursuant to Rule 33 of the Prison Rules 1964, a piece of subordinate legislation
Simms and another appellant (both life sentence prisoners) brought forward a judicial review proceeding against the Home Secretary
The appellants argued that this infringed on their right to free speech in common law

Appeal allowed; the blanket ban on prison interviews was contrary to the prisoners’ right to free speech

“The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual.”
“In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document.”
The principle of legality applies to subordinate legislation as much as to Acts of Parliament

The principles of fundamental human rights which exist at common law will be supplemented by a specific text
The principle of legality will be expressly enacted as a rule of construction in section 3
Where the legislative infringement of fundamental human rights is so clearly expressed as not to yield to the principle of legality, the courts will be able to draw this to the attention of Parliament by making a declaration of incompatibility

Prison regulations expressed in general language are also presumed to be subject to fundamental human rights
The ban made by the Home Secretary was thus unlawful as the legislation did not explicitly permit any interference with regards to freedom of speech

Lord Hoffman highlighted the fact that because Parliament is sovereign, it can change the law in anyway, including to eliminate fundamental rights in common law, as such it was important for the courts to only allow this in the circumstance where Parliament is explicit in its intention to do so
It is important to note that this case concerns the common law right to free speech, not Article 10 of the ECHR, the ECHR was not directly applicable in domestic law as the HRA 1998 was not in effect at the time
The practical significance of the common law principle of legality is now much reduced given that Convention rights are almost always relied upon in human rights litigation, more so than common law rights, and thus s3 HRA always comes into play

Get tutored by top graduates from Oxbridge