M v Home Office
| M v Home Office | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1994] 1 AC 377 |
| Keywords | |
| Rule of law | |
M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law.
Contents
Facts
An action for judicial review of the Home Secretary was brought by M, a deported teacher from Zaire. The Home Secretary had been told by the High Court to return a Zaire teacher to the United Kingdom on refugee status, after being deported.
Judgment
Court of Appeal
Nolan LJ held that the teacher had to be returned, and said the following.[1]
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
The proper constitutional relationship of the executive with the courts is that the courts will respect all acts of the executive within its lawful province, and that the executive will respect all decisions of the courts as to what its lawful province is.
House of Lords
The House of Lords held that the Home Secretary acted in contempt of court, and had to return the teacher.
Lord Templeman said the following.
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
For the purpose of enforcing the law against all persons and institutions... the courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of court...
[...]
[Otherwise it would mean...] the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War.
See also
Notes
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />
Cite error: Invalid <references> tag; parameter "group" is allowed only.
<references />, or <references group="..." />References
External links
- ↑ [1992] QB 270, 314
