R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by [...]. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
express words in the statute or by necessary implication
Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by [...]. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
?
Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by [...]. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
express words in the statute or by necessary implication
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it spondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by <span>express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be dis
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.