can yo u answer the 2 questions using the template below and can you include the case law in the answer use all cases below

Question 1: Critically analyse the following statement: 'The Human Rights Act 1998 gives judges too much power to undermine Parliament'

To what extent do you agree? Refer to both parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers in your answer.

Is there tension between the role of parliament and judges under the HRA ?

section 3 HRA - Interpretation of legislation.

(1)So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

(talk about case law) (talk about how the British bill of rights wants to get rid of this section- this may suggest that this section gives judges too much, as parliament may see it as a threat)

Case law:

- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004) UKHL 30

- Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue

[2002] QB 48

- RvA(No2)[2001]UKHL25

- Sheldrake v DPP [2005] 1 AC 264

HRA review-provides academic opinions on whether Section 3 gives judges too much power

section 4 HRA- Declaration of Incompatibility , NOT striking down legislation

(Non binding, bill of rights doesn't want to get rid of it but it is trying to limit it, argument it may not give judges power it may give them political power)

Case law:

- A v United Kingdom (the Belmarsh case) [2004] UKHL 56

- R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] UKSC 63

Go over these sections- do these sections under the HRA give judges power

Intro- outline your main arguments Set out whether you think You can argue the following:

HRA give judges too much power,

HRA doesn't give judges too much power

Some parts of the HRA give judges too much power

Paragraphs First sentence-set out your argument for that paragraph What is the section about, and do you think it gives judges too much power Use evidence to support, or goes against your argument (critically analyse) Last sentence - Does not give judges power

Question 2:

Critically analyse whether it is ever appropriate for a court to review the substantive merits of a public body's decision? When and why?

Not talking about procedural impropriety or illegality

Talking more about (irrationality) wednesbury and proportionality

What do you think the purpose of JR

Is it rule of law, or parliamentary sovereignty

Is it ever appropriate for a court to look at the substance of a public body decision rather than the procedure?

Talk about and analyse wednesbury and proportionality

When and why ? - in what circumstances should courts be able to review the substance of PB decision

Use cases, journals/academic opinions Proportionality arguments - it can be moderated