As an example, the courts have considered whether there is scope for judicial review of a refusal to render diplomatic assistance to a British subject suffering violation of a fundamental right as the result of the conduct of authorities of a foreign state. In [ case ]the mother of a British citizen detained in Guantanamo Bay brought proceedings to compel the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to make representations on her son's behalf to the United States government. The Court of Appeal recognised that Abbasi had a legitimate expectation of diplomatic assistance, but that the expectation was very limited and the discretion of the FCO very wide. On the facts, the FCO was seen to have done all that was required of it. However, the court stated that there was no reason in principle why an FCO decision (or inaction by the FCO) could not be reviewable in the future, if it could be shown that a decision or inaction was irrational or contrary to a legitimate expectation. However, the court was quite clear that they could not enter into the 'forbidden areas', which included decisions affecting higher foreign policy itself.
Answer
R (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] EWCA Civ 1598
Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
As an example, the courts have considered whether there is scope for judicial review of a refusal to render diplomatic assistance to a British subject suffering violation of a fundamental right as the result of the conduct of authorities of a foreign state. In [ case ]the mother of a British citizen detained in Guantanamo Bay brought proceedings to compel the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to make representations on her son's behalf to the United States government. The Court of Appeal recognised that Abbasi had a legitimate expectation of diplomatic assistance, but that the expectation was very limited and the discretion of the FCO very wide. On the facts, the FCO was seen to have done all that was required of it. However, the court stated that there was no reason in principle why an FCO decision (or inaction by the FCO) could not be reviewable in the future, if it could be shown that a decision or inaction was irrational or contrary to a legitimate expectation. However, the court was quite clear that they could not enter into the 'forbidden areas', which included decisions affecting higher foreign policy itself.
Answer
?
Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
As an example, the courts have considered whether there is scope for judicial review of a refusal to render diplomatic assistance to a British subject suffering violation of a fundamental right as the result of the conduct of authorities of a foreign state. In [ case ]the mother of a British citizen detained in Guantanamo Bay brought proceedings to compel the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to make representations on her son's behalf to the United States government. The Court of Appeal recognised that Abbasi had a legitimate expectation of diplomatic assistance, but that the expectation was very limited and the discretion of the FCO very wide. On the facts, the FCO was seen to have done all that was required of it. However, the court stated that there was no reason in principle why an FCO decision (or inaction by the FCO) could not be reviewable in the future, if it could be shown that a decision or inaction was irrational or contrary to a legitimate expectation. However, the court was quite clear that they could not enter into the 'forbidden areas', which included decisions affecting higher foreign policy itself.
Answer
R (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] EWCA Civ 1598
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it courts have considered whether there is scope for judicial review of a refusal to render diplomatic assistance to a British subject suffering violation of a fundamental right as the result of the conduct of authorities of a foreign state. In <span>R (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 the mother of a British citizen detained in Guantanamo Bay brought proceedings to compel the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to make representations on her son's behalf to the Unit
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.