Public Law Adjudication In Common Law Systems Process And Substance Process And Substance John Bell Mark Elliott Jason Ne Varuhas Philip Murray Editors

Public Law Adjudication In Common Law Systems
Process And Substance Process And Substance John
Bell Mark Elliott Jason Ne Varuhas Philip Murray
Editors download
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-adjudication-in-common-
law-systems-process-and-substance-process-and-substance-john-
bell-mark-elliott-jason-ne-varuhas-philip-murray-editors-50229012
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Max Planck Handbooks In European Public Law Volume Iii
Constitutional Adjudication Institutions Max Planck Handbook Public
Law In Europe Armin Von Bogdandy Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-max-planck-handbooks-in-european-
public-law-volume-iii-constitutional-adjudication-institutions-max-
planck-handbook-public-law-in-europe-armin-von-bogdandy-
editor-34960688
In Whose Name A Public Law Theory Of International Adjudication 1st
Edition Bogdandy
https://ebookbell.com/product/in-whose-name-a-public-law-theory-of-
international-adjudication-1st-edition-bogdandy-5845356
Public Law In Germany 18001914 Michael Stolleis
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-in-germany-18001914-michael-
stolleis-50588676
Public Law After The Human Rights Act Tom Hickman
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-after-the-human-rights-act-
tom-hickman-50667678

Public Law In A Multilayered Constitution Nicholas Bamforth Peter
Leyland Editors
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-in-a-multilayered-
constitution-nicholas-bamforth-peter-leyland-editors-50672424
Public Law And Private Power Corporate Governance Reform In The Age Of
Finance Capitalism John Cioffi
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-and-private-power-corporate-
governance-reform-in-the-age-of-finance-capitalism-john-
cioffi-51934666
Public Law And Economics 1st Edition Robert Cooter Michael Gilbert
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-and-economics-1st-edition-
robert-cooter-michael-gilbert-52032330
Public Law In A Multilayered Constitution Nicholas Bamforth
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-in-a-multilayered-
constitution-nicholas-bamforth-2418788
Public Law Directions Jbj62654 Dennett Anne
https://ebookbell.com/product/public-law-directions-jbj62654-dennett-
anne-37187742

PUBLIC LAW ADJUDICATION IN COMMON LAW
SYSTEMS: PROCESS AND SUBSTANCE
This volume arises from the inaugural Public Law Conference hosted in September
2014 by the Centre for Public Law at the University of Cambridge, which brought
together leading public lawyers from a number of common law jurisdictions. While
those from such jurisdictions share background understandings, significant differ-
ences within the common law world create opportunities for valuable exchanges of
ideas and debate.
This collection draws upon one of the principal sub-themes that emerged during
the conference—namely, the way in which relationships and distinctions between the
notions of ‘process’ and ‘substance’ play out in relation to and inform adjudication
in public law cases. The essays contained in this volume address those issues from a
variety of perspectives. While the bulk of the chapters consider topical issues in judi-
cial review, either on common law or human rights grounds, or both, other chapters
adopt more theoretical, historical, empirical or contextual approaches. Concluding
chapters reflect generally on the papers in the collection and the value of facilitating
cross-jurisdictional dialogue.

ii

Public Law Adjudication in
Common Law Systems
Process and Substance
John Bell, Mark Elliott, Jason NE Varuhas
and Philip Murray
OXFORD AND PORTLAND, OREGON
2016

Published in the United Kingdom by Hart Publishing Ltd
16C Worcester Place, Oxford, OX1 2JW
Telephone: +44 (0)1865 517530
Fax: +44 (0)1865 510710
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.hartpub.co.uk
Published in North America (US and Canada) by
Hart Publishing
c/o International Specialized Book Services
920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97213-3786
USA
Tel: +1 503 287 3093 or toll-free: (1) 800 944 6190
Fax: +1 503 280 8832
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.isbs.com
© The editors 2015
The editors have asserted their right under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work.
Hart Publishing is an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without
the prior permission of Hart Publishing, or as expressly permitted by
law or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic
rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction which
may not be covered by the above should be addressed to
Hart Publishing Ltd at the address above.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Bell, John, 1953– editor | Elliott, Mark, 1975– editor. | Varuhas, Jason,
editor | Murray, Philip, (Law teacher), editor.
Title: Public law adjudication in common law systems : process and substance / edited by John Bell,
Mark Elliott, Jason NE Varuhas and Philip Murray.
Description: Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references
and index. | Contributions based on a Public Law conference in September 2014 at the
University of Cambridge.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015042843 | ISBN 9781849469913 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Common law—Congresses. | Public law—Congresses. | Administrative
law—Congresses. | Comparative law—Congresses.
Classification: LCC K588.A6 P83 2016 | DDC 340.5/7—dc23 LC record available
at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015042843
ISBN: 978-1-84946-992-0
Typeset by Compuscript Ltd, Shannon

Foreword
SIR JOHN LAWS
‘Process and Substance in Public Law’ is, I suppose, a dry enough title for a confer-
ence. It sounds like the sort of thing you would find in a seminar room on a quiet
Thursday evening, attended by a few devoted specialists. But the colloquium at the
Centre for Public Law in Cambridge, held under that name and sponsored by Hart
Publishing in September 2014, was an international event with a remarkable range
of speakers whose papers traversed a very varied legal landscape. The convenors
sought contributions concentrating on the academic study of public law; in response
distinguished speakers from a series of common law jurisdictions produced papers
across a broad spectrum of theory and practice. The conference was attended by over
200 participants drawn from a wide variety of common law and other jurisdictions,
including Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.
I will not attempt to summarise here the learning and perception of individual
contributors: the editors have provided an admirable overview in the Introduction.
Rather I will make three points. I may start with this observation from the commen-
tary on the conference to be found on the Cambridge Law Faculty website:
The intellectual case for a conference of this nature stems from the fact that common law
systems are simultaneously similar to and different from one another. While those from
common law jurisdictions all work from background understandings that have enough in
common to facilitate fruitful engagement, significant differences between such systems open
up opportunities for valuable exchanges of ideas and debate.
This is true. Each common law jurisdiction is enriched by the others. To be sure, the
process demands a willingness among the judges to receive and respect the learn-
ing of other courts. In England and Wales, we are better at this than we once were.
The process can only be enhanced by an academic conference such as this. To take
just one example: Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, in his chap-
ter on ‘Remedies for Laws that Violate Human Rights’, has provided a conspectus
of remedies for rights violations across common law jurisdictions whose purpose
is to ‘examine the variety of remedies available for legislation that may infringe
human rights with a focus on how such remedies help define the respective roles of
courts and legislatures’. To an English lawyer, his essay provides a fresh hinterland
for the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular the remedy of a declaration of
incompatibility.
My second observation is related to the first. Enrichment from the legal materials
of other jurisdictions is especially apt for the betterment of the common law, because
of the common law’s own distinctive methodology. I have described it elsewhere as

vi Foreword
a process of continuous self-correction.
1
The combination of precedent and innova-
tion allows for an orderly development of principle, and the materials which may
enrich the process are open-ended; there is no closed category of the sources of
the common law. But the common law does not merely absorb external sources; it
makes them its own. This is what has happened—is happening—with such concepts
as proportionality, which we owe to Europe. The absorption of material from other
common law jurisdictions is a yet more natural process.
So far I have said nothing that is specific to public law, the subject of the confer-
ence. My third comment is that this is an area in which there are particular benefits
to be had from the fruits of such a conference. The reason is that although our
public law has its roots in the ancient prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition, its modern development (say, from the 1960s and the seminal decisions
of that era such as Anisminic) has been marked by the rapid evolution of principle
(supercharged, so to speak, by the advent of law from Strasbourg and Luxembourg)
in which academic lawyers have made signal contributions. Public lawyers in this
jurisdiction, and no doubt others, will be very familiar with the frequent use made
by the courts of such works as Sir William Wade’s Administrative Law (now Wade
and Forsyth). I remember a friend of mine at the commercial Bar telling me I was
lucky to practise in public law: most of the great questions in mercantile law (other
than fruits of statutes and treaties) had been settled by Lord Mansfield in the eight-
eenth century, or if not by him then by Scrutton, Bankes and Atkin LJJ in the 1920s,
whereas in our field we were still making the common law. We are still making it;
and the academics play a signal part. There is a lot of philosophy—moral and politi-
cal philosophy—in public law. Its practitioners, certainly the judges, need the con-
ceptual bricks and mortar which academic lawyers bring to the building of the law.
The contributions to this conference provide many good instances. Professor Jerry
Mashaw’s piece on public reason is but one. I particularly enjoyed his example, from
a New Yorker cartoon, of the view that ‘to refuse to give reasons is to assert author-
ity in a way that is fundamentally illegitimate’:
[A] small child is leaning forward from the backseat close to his driving father’s ear. [The
child is saying] ‘Why aren’t we there yet?’ ‘Why are you going so slow?’ ‘Why does Grandma
live so far away?’ And so on and on. At the bottom of the cartoon the caption gives the
harassed father’s response: ‘Shut up, he explained’.
Here is a deep truth; public administrators, as well as public lawyers, should know
this story.
This was a conference of very real value, for the depth and range of thought which
its contributors brought to Cambridge. Its product—the contents of this book—will
interest and stimulate thinking lawyers for a long time to come; an interest which
will be renewed by the conference’s successor. The intention is that it will become a
biennial event, and preliminary plans are under way to hold the second conference at
Cambridge in September 2016. Our public law will, of course, face new challenges
between now and then; but, as always, it will build on what has gone before. Succes-
sive conferences of this kind will be a muscular contribution to the process.
1
J Laws, The Common Law Constitution (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014) 9.

Foreword vii
I have spoken of the worth of the conference, but not the pleasure of it. Con-
viviality is no less important than scholarship; sound learning and good fellowship
enhance each other. This was a very convivial occasion. For that, and for much
besides, the convenors and organisers at the Faculty of Law at Cambridge, as well of
course as the participants, are much to be thanked.

viii

Contents
Foreword by Sir John Laws��v
Contributors��xi
Table of Cases��xvii
Table of Legislation��xlvii
1. Introduction��1
John Bell, Mark Elliott, Jason NE Varuhas and Philip Murray
2. Public Reason and Administrative Legitimacy��11
Jerry L Mashaw
3. Administrative Law: A Values-based Approach��23
Paul Daly
4. The Public Interest Conception of Public Law:
Its Procedural Origins and Substantive Implications��45
Jason NE Varuhas
5. Process, Substance and the History of Error of Law Review��87
Philip Murray
6. The Growth of Substantive Review: The Changes,
their Causes and their Consequences��113
Mark Aronson
7. ‘Blasphemy Against Basics’: Doctrine, Conceptual
Reasoning and Certain Decisions of the UK Supreme Court��145
Christopher Forsyth
8. The Legitimacy of Expectations About Fairness:
Can Process and Substance be Untangled?��165
Matthew Groves and Greg Weeks
9. Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation:
Why Favour Substantive Review over Procedural Review?��189
Andrew Edgar
10. Transubstantiation in Canadian Public Law:
Processing Substance and Instantiating Process��213
Mary Liston
11. Is Judicial Review Qualitative?��243
Alan Robertson

x Contents
12. Remedies for Laws that Violate Human Rights��269
Kent Roach
13. ‘Striking Back’ and ‘Clamping Down’:
An Alternative Perspective on Judicial Review��301
Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings
14. The Use and Effects of Judicial Review:
Assumptions and the Empirical Evidence��327
Maurice Sunkin and Varda Bondy
15. Common Law Public Law: Some Comparative Reflections��353
Cheryl Saunders
16. Comparison, Realism and Theory in Public Law��367
David Feldman
Index��381

Contributors
Mark Aronson is an Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales,
Australia. He has published widely in a number of areas, including civil and criminal
procedure, the law of evidence, tort liability of public authorities and administrative
law. His co-authored Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Sydney, Thomson
Reuters, 2013) is currently in its fifth edition.
John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of Pembroke
College, Cambridge, and a Fellow of the British Academy. He has particular research
interests in relation to public law and the legal systems of continental European
countries. He has published widely in these and other areas.
Varda Bondy is Senior Research Fellow at the University of Essex School of Law, and
a co-founder of the United Kingdom Administrative Justice Institute, a national pro-
ject funded by the Nuffield Foundation based at Essex. She practised as a legal aid
lawyer for 15 years, specialising in housing and public law, before joining the Public
Law Project where she was Director of Research until December 2013. Her Nuffield
Foundation funded empirical research studies focused on various aspects of judicial
review, including human rights, settlements. mediation and post-judgment impact.
Her other research interests are ombudsmen and design of redress mechanisms.
Paul Daly is Associate Dean and Faculty Secretary at the Faculty of Law, University
of Montreal. He is the author of A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law:
Basis, Application and Scope (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012),
numerous articles in leading peer-reviewed journals, and the award-winning blog,
Administrative Law Matters.
Andrew Edgar is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney.
He teaches administrative law in the undergraduate and JD programmes and
environmental planning law in the postgraduate coursework programme. Andrew’s
research focuses on judicial review of public interest decisions, in particular, public
participation in administrative decision-making processes and the law of standing.
Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of
St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, and Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select
Committee on the Constitution. His recent books include Public Law (Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2014) (co-written with Robert Thomas), The Cam-
bridge Companion to Public Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015)
(co-edited with David Feldman) and The Scope and Intensity of Substantive Review:
Traversing Taggart’s Rainbow (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2015) (co-edited with
Hanna Wilberg).

xii Contributors
David Feldman is the Rouse Ball Professor of English Law in the University of Cam-
bridge, a Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge, and an Academic Associate of
chambers at 39 Essex Street, London. He previously taught at the Universities of
Bristol and Birmingham (where he was Dean of Law 1997–2000) and has held vis-
iting positions at the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne,
and the University of Nottingham. He was the first Legal Adviser to the UK Parlia-
ment’s Joint Select Committee on Human Rights (2000–2004) and sat as an inter-
national Judge of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002–2010;
a Vice-President 2006–2009). His research and writing have been predominantly in
the field of public law, broadly defined, with a comparative flavour. He is a Fellow of
the British Academy and a Queen’s Counsel honoris causa, and served as President
of the Society of Legal Scholars (2010–2011).
Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in
the University of Cambridge. He is the author (with the late Sir William Wade) of
Administrative Law, 11th edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014), an authori-
tative text relied upon by courts throughout the common law world. He is also the
author of Private International Law, 5th edn (Cape Town, Juta, 2012), an authori-
tative text on South African private international law. He is an Honorary Professor
in the University of Stellenbosch, a practising barrister and a Bencher of the Inner
Temple.
Matthew Groves is a Professor in the Law Faculty of Monash University in Australia.
His research is mainly in administrative law, particularly judicial review of admin-
istrative decisions, the requirements of fairness and the bias rule. Matthew’s recent
books include (with Mark Aronson) Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th
edn (Sydney, Thomson Reuters, 2013) and (as editor) Modern Australian Adminis-
trative Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014).
Carol Harlow is Emeritus Professor of Law at the London School of Economics.
Her research is focused on the liability of the state, accountability and more specifi-
cally accountability in the European Union. In 2013, she acted as Special Adviser to
the House of Lords Select Committee on Inquiries. She is joint author with Richard
Rawlings of Law and Administration, 3rd edn (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 2009) and Process and Procedure in EU Administration (Oxford, Hart Pub-
lishing, 2014). She is currently working on an edited collection of essays on EU
Administrative Law. Carol is a Fellow of the British Academy and a Queen’s Counsel
honoris causa.
Mary Liston is an Assistant Professor at the Peter A Allard School of Law, Univer-
sity of British Columbia. Her research focuses on advanced and comparative pub-
lic law, Canadian administrative law, Aboriginal administrative law, theories of the
rule of law, and law and literature. Her work has been cited by the Supreme Court
of Canada. She is a co-author along with Craig S Forcese, Adam Dodek, Philip
Bryden, Peter Carver, Richard Haigh and Constance MacIntosh of Public Law:
Cases, Commentary and Analysis, 3rd edn (Toronto, Emond Publishing, 2015). She
is also a contributor to the leading casebook Administrative Law in Context, 2nd
edn (Toronto, Emond Publishing, 2013).

Contributors xiii
Jerry L Mashaw is Sterling Professor of Law and Management at Yale University,
where he teaches courses on administrative law, social welfare policy, regulation,
legislation and the design of public institutions His award-winning books include
Bureaucratic Justice (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1983), The Struggle
for Auto Safety (with David Harfst) (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press,
1990), Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law
(New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1997) and Creating the Administrative Con-
stitution (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2013). He is a frequent contributor
to legal and public policy journals and to newspapers and news magazines. Profes-
sor Mashaw is a founding member and past President of the National Academy of
Social Insurance, a Fellow of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was
founding co-editor (with OE Williamson) of the Journal of Law, Economics and
Organization.
Philip Murray was a Fellow in Law at St John’s College, Cambridge and an Affiliated
University Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge. He taught
constitutional law, administrative law and Roman law, with a particular interest in
the history of English judicial review. He was awarded the University of Cambridge’s
Yorke Prize for his doctoral thesis, ‘Judicial Review for Jurisdictional Error of Law
in Nineteenth-century Certiorari and Prohibition Proceedings’. Philip is now train-
ing for the priesthood at Westcott House, one of the Church of England’s theological
colleges.
Richard Rawlings is Professor of Public Law at University College London, having
previously been Professor of Law at the London School of Economics. Rick has writ-
ten widely in constitutional and administrative law, with works including Process
and Procedure in EU Administration (with Carol Harlow) (Oxford, Hart Publish-
ing, 2014), Sovereignty and the Law (jointly edited with Peter Leyland and Alison
Young) (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), The Regulatory State: Constitu-
tional Implications (jointly edited with Dawn Oliver and Tony Prosser) (Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2010), Devolution, Law-Making and the Constitution
(jointly edited with Robert Hazell) (Exeter, Imprint Academic, 2005), Delineat-
ing Wales: Constitutional, Legal and Administrative Aspects of National Devolu-
tion (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 2003), Law and Administration in Europe
(jointly edited with Paul Craig) (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), Pres-
sure Through Law (with Carol Harlow) (London, Routledge, 1992) and Law and
Administration, 3rd edn (with Carol Harlow) (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 2009). Rick was elected Honorary Bencher of Middle Temple in 2009, and is
a former Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution.
Kent Roach is a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto where he holds
the Prichard-Wilson Chair of Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto
Faculty of Law, with cross-appointments in criminology and political science. In
2002 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and in 2013, he
won a Fellowship from the Pierre Trudeau Foundation for his academic and social
contributions. Professor Roach’s books include Constitutional Remedies in Canada,
2nd edn (Toronto, Canada Law Book, 2013) (winner of the 1997 Owen Prize),

xiv Contributors
Due Process and Victims’ Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice
(Toronto, University of Toronto, 1999) (short-listed for the 1999 Donner Prize for
best public policy book), Brian Dickson: A Judge’s Journey (with Robert J Sharpe)
(Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2003) (winner of the 2004 JW Dafoe Prize)
and The 9/11 Effect (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011) (winner of the
Mundell Medal).
Alan Robertson was admitted to the New South Wales Bar from 1983 and practised
nationally, mainly in public law including constitutional law, administrative law,
revenue law and competition law. He was a part-time member of the Administrative
Review Council from 1992 to 1997 and was appointed Senior Counsel in 1995. He
became a judge of the Federal Court of Australia in 2011. He is a National Coor-
dinating Judge of the Court’s Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human
Rights National Practice Area. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law.
Cheryl Saunders is a Laureate Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne
and founding Director of its Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies. She
works in the areas of Australian and comparative public law, on both of which she
has written widely. She is a President Emeritus of the International Association of
Constitutional Law and a former President of the Administrative Review Council
of Australia. In 2005–06, she was the Arthur Goodhart Professor of Legal Science
at the University of Cambridge. She is an Officer in the Order of Australia and a
Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur of France.
Maurice Sunkin is Professor of Public Law and Socio Legal Studies at the University
of Essex. He is the General Editor of Public Law and an Associate Member of Land-
mark Chambers, London. His main research interests concern the use and effects of
judicial review, administrative justice and the human rights implication of big data
and new technologies. He is currently Director of the United Kingdom Administra-
tive Justice Institute, a national project funded by the Nuffield Foundation based
at Essex and Principal Investigation and Co-Director of an ESRC-funded project
on human rights and big data. For the parliamentary session 2013–14 he served as
Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. He was
a Trustee of the Public Law Project from 2000 to 2011.
Jason NE Varuhas is Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne, Associate
Fellow of the Centre for Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, and
Bye-Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge. His research and teaching interests cross
the public law-private law divide. His current research work includes major projects
on ‘mapping’ public law and the ‘socialisation’ of private law. He has published on
topics in private and public law in leading international journals, in a number of
edited collections, and has several books forthcoming including his sole-authored
monograph, Damages and Human Rights (Oxford, Hart Publishing), which stems
from his doctoral work for which he won the Yorke Prize at the University of
Cambridge. He is a founder and co-convenor of the biennial series of Public Law
Conferences.

Contributors xv
Greg Weeks is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of New South
Wales, where he teaches the Administrative Law and Advanced Administrative Law
courses. Greg’s research interests are primarily related to judicial review and state
liability and he has published a number of articles and book chapters in these fields.
He has two books forthcoming in 2016. The first, which will be published by Hart
Publishing, considers the remedies available when public authorities fail to adhere to
their own soft law instruments. The second is the sixth edition of Judicial Review of
Administrative Action, Australia’s leading administrative law text, which Greg joins
as a co-author alongside Mark Aronson and Matthew Groves.

xvi

Table of Cases
Australia
Amaba Pty Ltd v Booth [2010] NSWCA 344��117
Anderson v Director-General of the Department of Environmental
and Climate Change [2008] NSWCA 337, (2008) 251 ALR 633��258
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth
(1977) 139 CLR 54��266
Applicant NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 221 CLR 1��135
Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1��115, 122, 127, 178,
181, 185, 186, 203, 206,
243, 248, 249, 253
Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide
[2013] HCA 3, (2013) 249 CLR 1��121, 189, 200, 201,
202, 204, 208
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321��116
Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth [1980] HCA 53,
(1980) 146 CLR 493��193
Banks v Transport Regulation Board (Vic) (1968) 119 CLR 222��167
Bellinz v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 84 FCR 154��184
Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales v Evans [1981] HCA 69,
(1981) 180 CLR 404��197, 198
Bruce v Cole [1998] NSWSC 260, (1998) 45 NSWLR 163��200
Buck v Bavone [1976] HCA 24, (1976) 135 CLR 110��194
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372��130
Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd
(1979) 41 FLR 338, (1979) 24 ALR 307��251
Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389��116
Commissioner of Police v Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383��167
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394��184
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163��117, 244, 245
Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212��117
D’Amore v Independent Commission against Corruption (2013)
303 ALR 242��117, 136, 251
Delta Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1955) 95 CLR 11��167
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v JM (2013) 250 CLR 135��116
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979)
24 ALR 577��251, 252
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2),
Re (1979) 2 ALD 634��141
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
(2003) 197 ALR 389��122, 170
Duffy v Da Rin [2014] NSWCA 270, (2014) 312 ALR 340��257

xviii Table of Cases
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 176 ALR 643��32
Election Importing Company Proprietary Ltd v Courtice
[1949] HCA 20, (1949) 80 CLR 657��193
Enfield City Corporation v Development Assessment Commission
[2000] HCA 5, (2000) 199 CLR 135��137, 252, 253, 359
Ex parte Daisy Hopkins (1891) 61 LJQB 240��98
Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR
(NSW) 416��263
FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342��178, 198
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008)
237 CLR 146��125
Foster v Minister for Customs and Justice [2000] HCA 38, (2000)
200 CLR 442��258
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014]
HCA 26, (2014) 310 ALR 1��250, 265, 375
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2013)
211 FCR 158��118
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2014)
88 ALJR 754��118
Gosling, Re [1943] NSWStRp 20, (1943) 43 SR (NSW) 312��189, 196, 197
Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg [2003] NSWCA 388��250
Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990)
169 CLR 648��178
Heffernan v Comcare [2014] FCAFC 2, (2014) 218 FCR 1��264
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499��120, 261
Howells, Re; Re McCulloch [1949] NSWStRp 12, (1949)
49 SR (NSW) 238��193
Jaffarie v Director General of Security [2014] FCAFC 102��137
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48, (2000) 201 CLR 488��255
Kerrison v Melbourne City Council [2014] FCAFC 130��200
Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987)
14 ALD 291��258
Kindimindi Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2006]
NSWCA 23, (2006) 143 LGERA 277��258
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81, (1985) 159 CLR 550��189, 190, 192, 193,
197, 198, 199, 200
Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) [2010] HCA 1,
(2010) 239 CLR 531��115, 132, 138, 139, 140,
243, 245, 246, 358, 359
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390��116
Kuczborski v Queensland [2014] HCA 46��358
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70��256
Leask v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 579��121
Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455��122
Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013]
NSWCA 180, (2013) 85 NSWLR 86��123, 257
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (2008)
232 CLR 635��139
LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2011)
55 AAR 518��114

Table of Cases xix
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA [2014] NSWCA 184,
(2014) 310 ALR 113��264
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986)
162 CLR 24��123, 257, 258
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CZBP [2014]
FCAFC 105��123
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013]
FCAFC 114, (2013) 136 ALD 547��123, 248
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014]
FCAFC 1, (2014) 308 ALR 280��260
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSNW [2014]
FCAFC 145��118
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSRS [2014]
FCAFC 16, (2014) 309 ALR 67��123
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSY [2014]
FCA 1144��123
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Khadgi (2010) 190
FCR 248��123
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013]
HCA 18, (2013) 249 CLR 332��118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 128,
129, 130, 138, 139, 140, 200,
203, 260, 261, 262, 266, 267, 359
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO
(2009) 238 CLR 627��135
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS
(2010) 243 CLR 164��120, 123
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS
[2010] HCA 16, (2010) 240 CLR 611��118, 134, 137, 263, 265, 359
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW
(2010) 183 FCR 575��120
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT
[2013] FCA 317, (2013) 212 FCR 99��119, 123, 247, 248, 264
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Eshetu
(1999) 197 CLR 611��117, 129, 135
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic
(1990) 21 FCR 193��179, 184, 185
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh
(1995) 183 CLR 273��178
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang
(1996) 185 CLR 259��130, 132
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng
(2001) 205 CLR 507��123
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam
(2002) 210 CLR 222��117
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf
(2001) 206 CLR 323��134, 244, 245, 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex p Applicant
S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 59��116, 117, 118, 134,
263, 264, 265, 360

xx Table of Cases
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex p Lam,
Re (2003) 214 CLR 1��358
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex p Miah,
Re (2001) 206 CLR 57��135
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex p Palme,
Re [2003] HCA 56, (2003) 216 CLR 212��124, 130, 131, 263
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs, ex p Lam, Re [2003] HCA 6, (2003) 214 CLR 1��122, 127, 128, 166, 175,
177, 179, 182, 187, 255
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs v SCAR (2003) 128 FCR 553��120
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32, (2004) 207 ALR 12��117, 263
Minister for Local Government v South Sydney City Council
[2002] NSWCA 288, (2002) 55 NSWLR 381��199
Minister of State for Resources v Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd
[1993] FCA 366, (1993) 43 FCR 565��201
Momcilovic v R [2011] HCA 34, (2011) 245 CLR 1��121, 122, 269, 283
Monis v R (2013) 249 CLR 92��121
Mutton v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [1973] 1 NSWLR 233��198, 199
NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs [2005] HCA 77, (2005) 228 CLR 470��120, 122, 127,
135, 137, 254
NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs (2005) 147 FCR 51��123
Nambucca Valley Conservation Association v Nambucca Shire
Council [2010] NSWLEC 38��117
NEAT Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd [2003] HCA 35,
(2003) 216 CLR 277��257, 266
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [1981] HCA 50, (1981) 149 CLR 27��192
OV and OW v Members of the Board of Wesley Mission Council
[2010] NSWCA 155, (2010) 79 NSWLR 606, (2010) 270 ALR 542��264
Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369��364
Parramatta City Council v Pestell [1972] HCA 59, (1972) 128 CLR 305��193
Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Economic Regulation Authority
[2014] WASC 346��137
Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012)
246 CLR 636��125, 127, 165
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476��134, 358, 359
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998)
194 CLR 355��124
Public Service Association of South Australia Inc v Industrial Relations
Commission of South Australia [2012] HCA 25, (2012) 249 CLR 398��243
Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986)
159 CLR 656, (1986) 63 ALR 559��34, 35, 130
R v Coldham, ex p Australian Workers’ Union (1983) 153 CLR 415��364
R v Toohey, ex p Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327��258
R v Toohey, ex p Northern Land Council [1981] HCA 74, (1981)
151 CLR 170��198
Rathborne v Abel (1964) 38 ALJR 293��258

Table of Cases xxi
Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2013)
296 ALR 307��117
Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board v Carey
[2010] WASCA 109��114
Refugee Review Tribunal, ex p Aala, Re (2000) 204 CLR 82��244
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 294��135
Sabet v Medical Practitioners Board (Vic) (2008) 20 VR 414��121
Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010)
241 CLR 252��120, 170
Salemi v MacKellar (No 2) [1977] HCA 26, (1977)
137 CLR 396��193, 197, 198, 199
Sherlock v Lloyd (2010) 27 VR 434��130
Soliman v University of Technology, Sydney (2012) 207 FCR 277��130, 131
South Australia v Tanner [1989] HCA 3, (1989) 166 CLR 161��201, 205, 206
South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39, (2010) 242 CLR 1��243
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141��176
Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93��123
Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71��256
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152��135
SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 35,
(2007) 232 CLR 189��120, 135, 266
SZRMQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013]
FCAFC 142, (2013) 219 FCR 212��254
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship
[2013] FCAFC 80��254
TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd
[2014] FCAFC 83��123
Telstra Corp Ltd v Kendall (1995) 55 FCR 221��266
Testro Bros Pty Ltd v Tait (1963) 109 CLR 353��167
Theophanous v Commonwealth (2006) 225 CLR 101��121
Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross River Mining NL (1999)
46 NSWLR 55��117
Vanstone v Clark [2005] FCAFC 189, (2005) 147 FCR 299��201
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council [2001] HCA 12, (2001)
202 CLR 439��253
Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd and
Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73��192
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54��252, 264
Watson v South Australia (2010) 278 ALR 168��130
Weal v Bathurst City Council [2000] NSWCA 88, (2000)
111 LGERA 181��258
Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977��201, 203, 204, 209
Williams v City of Melbourne [1933] HCA 56, (1933)
49 CLR 142��189, 201, 202, 203,
204, 205, 206, 208, 211
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013]
HCA 43, (2013) 303 ALR 64��130, 131, 141, 243
Zheng v Cai (2009) 239 CLR 446��127

xxii Table of Cases
Canada
Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
[2013] 2 SCR 559��218
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’
Association [2011] SCC 61, [2011] 3 SCR 654��39
Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony [2009] SCC 37,
[2009] 2 SCR 567��191
Apotex v Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 3 SCR 1100��39
Attorney General of Canada v Inuit Tapirisat [1980] 2 SCR 735��35, 36, 191
Authorson v Canada (Attorney General) [2003] 2 SCR 40��35
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999]
2 SCR 817��33, 34, 221, 223,
224, 225, 228, 241
Bedford v Canada [2013] 3 SCR 1101��277, 282
Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers
against Violence Society [2012] SCC 45��358
Canada (Attorney General) v Mavi [2011] 2 SCR 504��171, 224
Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society
[2011] 3 SCR 134, 2011 SCC 44��218, 224
Canada (Attorney General) v Public Service Alliance of Canada
[1991] 1 SCR 614��253
Canada (Attorney General) v TeleZone Inc [2010] 3 SCR 585��41
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa [2009] 1 SCR 339��139, 236
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v LeBon,
2013 FCA 55��39
Canadian Children’s Foundation v Canada [2004] 1 SCR 76��276
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v Canada (Attorney General)
[2014] FC 651��288
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Health Care v Canada [2014] FC 65��278
Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution [1985] 2 SCR 643��35, 40, 223
Carter v Canada [2012] BSSC 886��272, 287, 298
Carter v Canada [2015] SCC 5��272, 278, 282, 298
Chaoulli v Quebec [2005] 1 SCR 791��277, 281
Charkaoui v Canada [2007] 1 SCR 350��277
Cock v Labour Relations Board (1960) 26 DLR (2d) 127��42
Corbiere v Canada [1999] 2 SCR 203��278
CUPE v Ontario (Minister of Labour) [2003] I SCR 539��358
D’Errico v Canada (Attorney General) 2014 FCA 95��39
Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012, SCC 12, [2012]
1 SCR 395��140, 191, 234,
235, 236, 237
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190��36, 37, 236, 358, 359
Guerin v R [1984] 2 SCR 335��226
Guimond v Quebec [1996] 3 SCR 347��280
Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) [2004]
3 SCR 511��226, 227, 228, 230
Halpern v Canada (2003) 225 DLR (4th) 529 (Ont CA)��279
Homex Realty v Wyoming (Village) [1980] 2 SCR 1011��36
Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12��218, 224

Table of Cases xxiii
M v H [1999] 2 SCR 3��279, 285
Mackin v New Brunswick [2002] 1 SCR 405��280
Magder v Ford, 2013 ONSC 263��41
Manitoba Language Rights, Re [1985] 1 SCR 721��277
May v Ferndale Institution [2005] 3 SCR 809��34
McLean v British Columbia (Securities Commission)
[2013] 3 SCR 895, 2013 SCC 67��218
Mission Institution v Khela 2014 SCC 24��218, 222
Mobil Oil Canada Ltd v Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board [1994] 1 SCR 202��40
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services)
v G (J) [1999] 3 SCR 46��34
Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and
Labrador (Treasury Board) 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 SCR 708��225
Newfoundland Telephone Co v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners
of Public Utilities) [1992] 1 SCR 623��33
Nicholson v Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners
of Police [1979] 1 SCR 311��34
Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc v Manitoba Association of
Health Care Professionals [2011] SCR 616��253
Old St Boniface Residents’ Association v Winnipeg (City) [1990]
3 SCR 1170��32
R v Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd [1998] 1 SCR 706��41
R v Demers [2004] 2 SCR 489��280, 287
R v Ferguson [2008] 1 SCR 96��275, 280, 291
R v Gladstone [1996] 2 SCR 723��227
R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103��234, 235, 237, 238
R v Seaboyer [1991] 2 SCR 577��276, 281, 291
R v Sharpe [2001] 1 SCR 45��276
R v Sparrow [1996] 3 SCR 101��226
R v Swain [1991] 1 SCR 933��296
Reference Re Secession of Québec [1998] 2 SCR 217��30, 361
Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43��227
Schachter v Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679��277, 278
Vincent v Ontario (1999) 70 CRR (2nd) 365 (Ont SC)��279
West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia (Chief Inspector
of Mines) 2011 BCCA 247��231
Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada [2002] 4 SCR 245��230
European Permanent Court of Arbitration
Republic of Mauritius v United Kingdom, Award made 18 March 2015��306
European Court of Human Rights
Abdulaziz v United Kingdom (A/94) (1985) 7 EHRR 471��319
Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (26766/05) [2012] 2 Costs LO 139,
(2012) 54 EHRR 23, 32 BHRC 1, [2012] Crim LR 375��284
Campbell v United Kingdom (7511/76) (1982) 4 EHRR 293��319
Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom (Admissibility) (35622/04) (2013)
56 EHRR SE15��306

xxiv Table of Cases
Firth v United Kingdom (47784/09)��293
Golder v United Kingdom (A/18) (1979–80) 1 EHRR 524��320
Greens v United Kingdom (60041/08) (2011) 53 EHRR 21,
[2010] 2 Prison LR 22, (2010) 160 NLJ 1685��293, 320
Hirst v United Kingdom (74025/01) (2006) 42 EHRR 41,
19 BHRC 546, [2006] 1 Prison LR 220, (2005) 155 NLJ 1551��292, 293, 321
Hutchinson v United Kingdom (57592/08) (2015) 61 EHRR 13,
38 BHRC 67��320
Maaouia v France (39652/98) (2001) 33 EHRR 42, 9 BHRC 205��311
Othman v United Kingdom (8139/09) (2012) 55 EHRR 1, 32 BHRC 62��322
Scoppola v Italy (126/05) [2013] 1 Costs LO 62, (2013) 56 EHRR 19,
33 BHRC 126��321
Stafford v United Kingdom (46295/99) (2002) 35 EHRR 32, 13 BHRC 260,
[2002] Po LR 181, [2002] Crim LR 828, (2002) 152 NLJ 880��320
Taxquet v Belgium (926/05) (2012) 54 EHRR 26, [2011] Crim LR 236��34
Thynne v United Kingdom; Gunnell v United Kingdom (12009/86);
Wilson v United Kingdom (11978/86) (11787/85) (1991)
13 EHRR 666��320, 324
European Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio SpA (199/82)
[1983] ECR 3595, [1985] 2 CMLR 658��316
Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany (C-46/93); R v Secretary of State
for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (C-48/93) [1996] QB 404,
[1996] 2 WLR 506, [1996] ECR I-1029, [1996] 1 CMLR 889,
[1996] All ER (EC) 301, [1996] CEC 295, [1996] IRLR 267��316
CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA (C-194/94) [1996]
ECR I-2201, [1996] 2 CMLR 781, [1996] All ER (EC) 557��80
Commission of the European Communities v Council of the
European Union (C-176/03) [2005] ECR I-7879, [2005]
3 CMLR 20, [2006] All ER (EC) 1, [2006] Env LR 18��80
Commission of the European Communities v Denmark (C302/86)
[1988] ECR 4607, [1989] 1 CMLR 619��80
Delvigne (C-650/13) Judgment of 6 October 2015��322
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications,
Marine and Natural Resources (C-293/12) [2015] QB 127,
[2014] 3 WLR 1607, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 1, [2014]
3 CMLR 44, [2014] All ER (EC) 775��317, 318
European Commission v Kadi (C-584/10 P) [2014] 1 CMLR 24,
[2014] All ER (EC) 123, (2013) 163(7578) NLJ 20��319
European Commission v United Kingdom (C-530/11) [2014] QB 988,
[2014] 3 WLR 853, [2014] 3 CMLR 6, [2014] Env LR D2��84
France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (C-27/09 P) [2013]
All ER (EC) 347��319
Francovich v Italy (C-6/90); Bonifacti v Italy (C-9/90) [1991] ECR I-5357,
[1993] 2 CMLR 66, [1995] ICR 722, [1992] IRLR 84��315
Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Région Wallonne (C-41/11) [2012]
2 CMLR 21, [2013] All ER (EC) 159��79, 80, 81, 83

Table of Cases xxv
Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
(222/84) [1987] QB 129, [1986] 3 WLR 1038, [1986] 3 All
ER 135, [1986] ECR 1651, [1986] 3 CMLR 240, [1987] ICR 83,
[1986] IRLR 263, (1987) 84 LSG 188, (1986) 130 SJ 953��316, 323
Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris
van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (C-127/02) [2004]
ECR I-7405, [2005] 2 CMLR 31, [2005] All ER (EC) 353, [2005]
Env LR 14, [2004] NPC 136��80
Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (C-326/96) [1998]
ECR I-7835, [1999] 2 CMLR 363, [1999] All ER (EC) 1,
[1999] CEC 3, [1999] ICR 521, [1999] IRLR 36��79
Magorrian v Eastern Health and Social Services Board (C-246/96)
[1997] ECR I-7153, [1998] All ER (EC) 38, [1998] CEC 241,
[1998] ICR 979, [1998] IRLR 86, [1997] OPLR 353, [1998] Pens LR 1��80
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA
(C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135, [1993] BCC 421, [1992] 1 CMLR 305��315
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (C-271/91)
[1994] QB 126, [1993] 3 WLR 1054, [1993] 4 All ER 586, [1993]
ECR I-4367, [1993] 3 CMLR 293, [1993] ICR 893, [1993] IRLR 445��79
Outokumpu Oy (C-213/96) [1998] ECR I–1777��80
Peterbroeck Van Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgium (C-312/93) [1995]
ECR I-4599, [1996] 1 CMLR 793, [1996] All ER (EC) 242��84
Plaumann v European Commission (25/62) [1963] ECR 95,
[1964] CMLR 29��17
Procureur de la République v ADBHU (C-240/83) [1985] ECR 531��80
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd
(C-213/89) [1991] 1 All ER 70, [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 351,
[1990] ECR I-2433, [1990] 3 CMLR 1, (1990) 140 NLJ 927��79
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (C-221/89)
[1992] QB 680, [1992] 3 WLR 288, [1991] 3 All ER 769, [1991]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 648, [1991] ECR I-3905, [1991] 3 CMLR 589,
(1991) 141 NLJ 1107��316
R (Cosgrove) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
CO/7701/2011��317
R (Wells) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government
and the Regions (C-201/02) [2004] ECR I-723, [2004] 1 CMLR 31,
[2005] All ER (EC) 323, [2004] Env LR 27, [2004] NPC 1��79
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v IRC (C-362/12)
[2014] AC 1161, [2014] 3 WLR 743, [2014] STC 638,
[2014] 2 CMLR 33, [2014] All ER (EC) 375, [2014] CEC 930,
[2014] BTC 27, [2014] STI 246��316
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v IRC (C-446/04)
[2012] 2 AC 436, [2012] 2 WLR 1240, [2007] STC 326,
[2006] ECR I-11753, [2007] 1 CMLR 35, [2008] BTC 222,
9 ITL Rep 426, [2006] STI 2750��316
European General Court
Kadi v European Commission (T-85/09) [2010] ECR II-5177,
[2011] 1 CMLR 24, [2011] All ER (EC) 169, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 43��319

xxvi Table of Cases
Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority (C-406/08)
[2010] PTSR 1377, [2010] 2 CMLR 47��84
New Zealand
Belcher v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
[2007] NZCA 54��284
CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General [1981] 1 NZLR 172��32
Moonen v Film and Literature Board [2000] 2 NZLR 9��292
Powerco Ltd v Commerce Commission [2006] NZHC 662��114
R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7��285
Schubert v Wanganui District Council [2011] NZAR 233��191
Thames Valley Electric Power Board v NZFP Pulp & Paper Ltd [1994]
2 NZLR 641��26
South Africa
Fedshure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan
Council 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC)��356
Mashavaka v President of the Republic of South Africa, 2005 (2)
SA 476 (CC)��278
Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie, 2006, 1 SA 524 (CC)��279, 280
Nyathi v MEC for the Department of Health, Gauteng, 2008
5 SA 94 (CC)��280
Zondi v Member of the Executive Council for Traditional and Local
Government Affairs, 2005 3 SA 589 (CC)��280
United Kingdom
A v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. See R v Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board, ex p A
A v Essex CC [2010] UKSC 33, [2011] 1 AC 280, [2010] 3 WLR 509,
[2010] 4 All ER 199, [2010] PTSR 1332, [2010] HRLR 32, [2010]
UKHRR 937, 30 BHRC 1, [2010] ELR 531, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 314,
(2010) 154(28) SJLB 30, SC��72
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56,
[2005] 2 AC 68, [2005] 2 WLR 87, [2005] 3 All ER 169, [2005]
HRLR 1, [2005] UKHRR 175, 17 BHRC 496, [2005] Imm AR 103,
(2005) 155 NLJ 23, (2005) 149 SJLB 28, HL��137, 284
Ahmed v HM Treasury (No 1) [2010] UKSC 2, [2010] 2 AC 534,
[2010] 2 WLR 378, [2010] 4 All ER 745, [2010] HRLR 15,
[2010] UKHRR 204, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 217, (2010) 154(4)
SJLB 28, SC��109, 153, 160, 356
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]
2 AC 147, [1969] 2 WLR 163, [1969] 1 All ER 208, (1968)
113 SJ 55, HL��36, 51, 89, 90, 93, 101,
104, 105, 105, 106, 107,
151, 152, 153, 155, 305,
310, 359, 375
Annamunthodo v Oilfields Workers Trade Union [1961] AC 945, [1961]
3 WLR 650, [1961] 3 All ER 621, (1961) 105 SJ 706, PC (West Indies)��41

Table of Cases xxvii
Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, [2004] QB 1124,
[2004] 2 WLR 603, [2004] 1 All ER 833, [2004] 1 FLR 8, [2003]
3 FCR 673, [2004] HRLR 1, [2004] UKHRR 1, 15 BHRC 526,
[2004] HLR 22, [2004] BLGR 184, (2003) 6 CCL Rep 415, [2004]
Fam Law 12, (2003) 100(44) LSG 30, CA��70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp
[1948] 1 KB 223, [1947] 2 All ER 680, (1947) 63 TLR 623,
(1948) 112 JP 55, 45 LGR 635, [1948] LJR 190, (1947)
177 LT 641, (1948) 92 SJ 26, CA��63, 65, 88, 113, 118,
119, 121, 123, 129, 130,
134, 137, 138, 140, 141,
142, 158, 172, 180, 192,
203, 206, 208, 248, 250,
254, 255, 256, 259, 260,
261, 262, 263, 267, 354, 358
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983]
2 AC 629, [1983] 2 WLR 735, [1983] 2 All ER 346, (1983)
127 SJ 188, PC (HK)��65, 178
AXA General Insurance Ltd, Petitioners [2011] UKSC 46, [2012]
1 AC 868, [2011] 3 WL.871, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122, 2011 SLT
1061, [2012] HRLR 3, [2011] UKHRR 1221, (2011) 122 BMLR
149, (2011) 108(41) LSG 22, SC��137, 310
Bagg’s Case (1615) 11 Co Rep 93b��150, 167
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury [2013] UKSC 39, [2014]
AC 700, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] 4 All ER 533, [2013]
HRLR 30, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 580, SC��25, 36,
75, 191, 202
Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer [1996] 1 WLR 814, [1996]
2 FCR 637, (1996) 93(22) LSG 28, (1996) 146 NLJ 749,
(1996) 140 SJLB 135, HL��307
Bates v Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone [1972] 1 WLR 1373,
[1972] 3 All ER 1019, (1972) 116 SJ 584, Ch D��35, 191, 197
Becker v Home Office [1972] 2 QB 407, [1972] 2 WLR 1193,
[1972] 2 All ER 676, (1972) 116 SJ 256, CA��174
Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] UKHL 5, [2003] 2 AC 430,
[2003] 2 WLR 388, [2003] 1 All ER 731, [2003] HRLR 16,
[2003] UKHRR 419, 14 BHRC 400, [2003] HLR 32, [2003]
BLGR 205, 2003 Hous LR 20, [2003] ACD 41, (2003) 100(13)
LSG 28, (2003) 147 SJLB 232, [2003] NPC 21, HL��263
Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] UKHL 19, [2007]
1 WLR 1420, [2007] 3 All ER 1007, [2007] NI 89, [2007]
HRLR 26, [2008] BLGR 127, [2007] LLR 312, (2007) 104(19)
LSG 27, (2007) 151 SJLB 575, HL��75, 137, 209
Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
the Regions (No 1) [2001] 2 AC 603, [2000] 3 WLR 420, [2000]
3 All ER 897, [2001] 2 CMLR 38, [2001] Env LR 16, (2001)
81 P & CR 35, [2000] 3 PLR 111, [2001] JPL 58, [2000]
EG 86 (CS), [2000] NPC 77, HL��82, 83

xxviii Table of Cases
Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, [1998]
2 WLR 639, [1998] 2 All ER 203, (1998) 162 JP 455, (1998)
10 Admin LR 321, (1998) 148 NLJ 515, HL��41, 108, 153, 157, 267
Bourgoin SA v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
[1986] QB 716, [1985] 3 WLR 1027, [1985] 3 All ER 585,
[1986] 1 CMLR 267, (1985) 82 LSG 3435, CA��50, 69
Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175,
[1971] 2 WLR 742, [1971] 1 All ER 1148, 10 KIR 120,
(1971) 115 SJ 203, CA��51
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610,
[1969] 2 WLR 892, [1970] 3 WLR 488, [1970] 3 All ER 165, HL��266
Brittain v Kinnaird 129 ER 789, (1819) 1 Brod & Bing 432, Ct of
Comm Pleas��100
Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854, [1972] 3 WLR 521, [1972]
2 All ER 1297, (1972) 56 Cr App R 799, [1973] Crim LR 56,
(1972) 116 SJ 647, HL��264
Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75,
[1964] 2 WLR 1231, [1964] 2 All ER 348, 1964 SC (HL) 117,
1964 SLT 218, (1964) 108 SJ 401, HL��304
Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574, [1979] 2 WLR 755, [1979] 2 All ER 440,
(1979) 123 SJ 112, PC (Aus)��40
Cocks v Thanet DC [1983] 2 AC 286, [1982] 3 WLR 1121, [1982]
3 All ER 1135, (1983) 6 HLR 15, 81 LGR 81, [1984] RVR 31,
(1982) 126 SJ 820, HL��49, 56, 57
Commins v Massam, 82 ER 473, Ct of KB��92
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works, 143 ER 414, (1863) 14 CB
NS 180, Ct of Comm Pleas��167
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]
AC 374, [1984] 3 WLR 1174, [1984] 3 All ER 935, [1985] ICR 14,
[1985] IRLR 28, (1985) 82 LSG 437, (1984) 128 SJ 837, HL��49, 51, 63, 64,
65, 66, 126, 138,
178, 261, 262
Credit Suisse v Allerdale BC [1997] QB 306, [1996] 3 WLR 894,
[1996] 4 All ER 129, [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241, [1996] 5 Bank
LR 249, (1997) 161 JP Rep.88, CA��153
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal
(Social Entitlement Chamber) [2014] EWCA Civ 65, [2014]
PIQR P10, (2014) 158(6) SJLB 37, CA��158
Crown Prosecution Service v T [2006] EWHC 728 (Admin), [2007]
1 WLR 209, [2006] 3 All ER 471, (2006) 170 JP 470, [2006] 3
FCR 184, [2007] ACD 71, (2006) 170 JPN 835, DC��108
Davy v Spelthorne BC [1984] AC 262, [1983] 3 WLR 742, [1983] 3
All ER 278, 82 LGR 193, (1984) 47 P & CR 310, [1984] JPL 269,
(1983) 133 NLJ 1015, (1983) 127 SJ 733, HL��50, 55
De Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,
Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69, [1998] 3 WLR 675,
4 BHRC.563, PC (A & B)��202
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v IRC [2006] UKHL 49, [2007] 1
AC 558, [2006] 3 WLR 781, [2007] 1 All ER 449, [2007] STC 1, [2007]
1 CMLR 14, [2007] Eu LR 226, 78 TC 120, [2006] BTC 781, 9 ITL Rep
201, [2006] STI 2386, (2006) 103(43) LSG 29, (2006) 150 SJLB 1430, HL��316

Table of Cases xxix
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors, 10 ER 301, (1852)
3 HL Cas 759, HL��32
Djanogly v Westminster City Council [2010] EWHC 1825 (Admin),
[2011] RTR 9, DC��344
Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 28, [2009] 3
All ER 319, [2009] BLR 287, 122 Con LR 32, [2009] HRLR 19,
[2009] UKHRR 617, [2010] HLR 9, [2009] 1 EGLR 167, [2009]
ACD 21, [2009] 5 EG 106 (CS), [2009] NPC 18, CA��74
DSD v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 646,
[2015] 3 WLR 966, [2016] 1 Cr App R 2, CA��74
Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337, [1967] 3 WLR 289, [1967] 2
All ER 152, (1967) 111 SJ 397, PC (Ceylon)��168
Dyson v Attorney General (No 1) [1911] 1 KB 410, CA��87, 103
E (A Child) v Chief Constable of Ulster [2008] UKHL 66, [2009] 1
AC 536, [2008] 3 WLR 1208, [2009] 1 All ER 467, [2009] NI 141,
[2009] HRLR 8, [2009] UKHRR 277, 25 BHRC 720, [2008]
Po LR 350, (2008) 152(45) SJLB 27, HL��75,137
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49,
[2004] QB 1044, [2004] 2 WLR 1351, [2004] INLR 268, [2004]
BLGR 463, (2004) 101(7) LSG 35, (2004) 148 SJLB 180, CA��38, 116,
247, 250, 263
F Hoffmann La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry [1975] AC 295, [1974] 3 WLR 104, [1974] 2 All ER 1128,
[1975] 3 All ER 945, (1973) 117 SJ 713, (1974) 118 SJ 500, HL��52, 61, 109
Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold Plc [2013] UKSC 11, [2013]
2 AC 28, [2013] 2 WLR 678, [2013] 2 All ER 339, [2013] 1 All
ER (Comm) 1089, [2013] Bus LR 302, [2013] 1 BCLC 353, [2013]
Lloyd’s Rep FC 305, (2013) 163 NLJ 267, (2013) 157(9) SJLB.31, SC��70
Findlay, Re [1985] AC 318, [1984] 3 WLR 1159, [1984] 3 All ER 801,
[1985] Crim LR 154, (1985) 82 LSG 38, (1984) 128 SJ 816, HL��66
Fisher (Thomas Cahill) v Keane, 1981 JC 50, 1981 SLT (Notes) 28��167
Fleet Street Casuals��45, 52, 56, 57, 58
Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 130,
[1983] 3 WLR 143, [1983] 2 All ER 770, [1983] Com LR 198,
[1983] 3 CMLR 43, [1984] FSR 23, (1983) 127 SJ 460, HL��69
General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627, [1943] 2 All
ER 337, (1943) 59 TLR 412, (1943) 169 LT 226, (1943) 87 SJ 298, HL��40
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557,
[2004] 3 WLR 113, [2004] 3 All ER 411, [2004] 2 FLR 600,
[2004] 2 FCR 481, [2004] HRLR 31, [2004] UKHRR 827,
16 BHRC 671, [2004] HLR 46, [2005] 1 P & CR 18, [2005]
L & TR 3, [2004] 2 EGLR 132, [2004] Fam Law 641, [2004]
27 EG 128 (CS), (2004) 101(27) LSG 30, (2004) 154 NLJ 1013,
(2004) 148 SJLB 792, [2004] NPC 100, [2004] 2 P & CR DG17, HL��285
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112, [1985]
3 WLR 830, [1985] 3 All ER 402, [1986] Crim LR 113, (1985)
82 LSG 3531, (1985) 135 NLJ 1055, (1985) 129 SJ 738, HL��49, 58, 68, 69
Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] UKHL 2,
[2006] 1 WLR 781, [2006] 1 All ER 731, 2006 SC (HL) 71, 2006
SLT 77, 2006 SCLR 276, [2006] ICR 267, (2006) 9 CCL Rep 404,
(2006) 103(9) LSG 33, (2006) 150 SJLB 127, 2006 GWD 3-66, HL��32, 33

xxx Table of Cases
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435, [1977] 3
WLR 300, [1977] 3 All ER 70, (1977) 121 SJ 543, HL��51, 53
Groenvelt v Burwell, 92 ER 967, (1705) Com 76, Ct of KB��92
Hamble Fisheries. See R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
ex p Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd
Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17, [2013] 1 WLR 935, [2013]
2 All ER 405, [2013] 2 Cr App R 11, [2013] EMLR 19, (2013)
163(7554) NLJ 25, SC��262
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, [1988] 2 WLR
1049, [1988] 2 All ER 238, (1988) 152 LG Rev 709, (1988) 85(20)
LSG 34, (1988) 138 NLJ Rep 126, (1988) 132 SJ 700, HL��69
HM Treasury v Ahmed (No 2) [2010] UKSC 5, [2010] 2 AC 534,
[2010] 2 WLR 378, [2010] 4 All ER 829, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep
FC 217, SC��159, 160, 161, 162
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004, [1970] 2 WLR
1140, [1970] 2 All ER 294, [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 453, (1970)
114 SJ 375, HL��64, 69
HTV v Price Commission [1976] ICR 170, (1976) 120 SJ 298, CA��64, 179
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11,
[2007] 2 AC 167, [2007] 2 WLR 581, [2007] 4 All ER 15, [2007]
1 FLR 2021, [2007] HRLR 22, [2007] UKHRR 759, 24 BHRC 74,
[2007] Imm AR 571, [2007] INLR 314, [2007] Fam Law 587, (2007)
151 SJLB 435, HL��75, 137, 371
IA (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 6,
[2014] 1 WLR 384, [2014] 1 All ER 1015, 2014 SC (UKSC) 105, 2014
SLT 598, 2014 SCL 366, [2014] Imm AR 613, [2014] INLR 559, 2014
GWD 4-86, SC��116, 263
ID v Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 38, [2006] 1 WLR 1003, [2006] 1 All
ER 183, [2005] INLR 278, CA��75
International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158, [2003] QB 728, [2002] 3 WLR 344,
[2002] 1 CMLR 52, [2002] Eu LR 74, [2002] HRLR 31, [2002] UKHRR
479, [2002] ACD 57, CA��114
Izuazu (Article 8: New Rules: Nigeria), Re [2013] UKUT 45 (IAC),
[2013] Imm AR 453, [2013] INLR 733��323
Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262,
[2005] 3 WLR 733, [2005] 4 All ER 1253, (2005) 155 NLJ 1600,
[2005] NPC 116, HL��310
JL & AT Baird v Environment Agency. See R (Baird) v Environment Agency
John v Rees [1970] Ch 345, [1969] 2 WLR 1294, [1969] 2 All ER 274,
(1969) 113 SJ 487, Ch D��176
Jones v First-tier Tribunal. See R (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal
(Social Entitlement Chamber)
K v Cornwall County Council [2005] EWHC 1585��76
Kennedy v Charity Commissioner [2014] UKSC 20, [2015] AC 455,
[2014] 2 WLR 808, [2014] 2 All ER 847, [2014] EMLR 19, [2014]
HRLR 14, (2014) 158(13) SJLB 37, SC��26, 75, 76, 121,
183, 261, 308

Table of Cases xxxi
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349,
[1998] 3 WLR 1095, [1998] 4 All ER 513, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep
Bank 387, [1999] CLC 332, (1999) 1 LGLR 148, (1999) 11 Admin
LR 130, [1998] RVR 315, (1998) 148 NLJ 1674, (1998) 142 SJLB 279,
[1998] NPC 145, HL��316
Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB.91, QBD��203, 204, 205, 209
Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643, [1977]
2 WLR 234, [1977] 2 All ER 182, (1976) 121 SJ 52, CA��185
Lawson v Serco Ltd; sub nom Serco Ltd v Lawson [2006] UKHL 3,
[2006] 1 All ER 823, [2006] ICR 250, [2006] IRLR 289, (2006)
103(6) LSG 36, (2006) 156 NLJ.184, (2006) 150 SJLB 131, HL��157
Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625, [1987] 2 WLR 821, [1987] 1 All
ER 1118, 85 LGR 545, [1987] RVR 58, (1987) 84 LSG 1240, (1987)
137 NLJ 265, (1987) 131 SJ 409, HL��33
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd (Leave to Appeal) [2000]
QB 451, [2000] 2 WLR 870, [2000] 1 All ER 65, [2000] IRLR 96,
[2000] HRLR 290, [2000] UKHRR 300, 7 BHRC 583, (1999)
149 NLJ.1793, [1999] NPC 143, CA��32
Local Government Board v Arlidge. See R v Local Government Board,
ex p Arlidge
M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, [1993] 3 WLR 433, [1993] 3 All
ER 537, (1995) 7 Admin LR 113, (1993) 90(37) LSG 50, (1993)
143 NLJ 1099, (1993) 137 SJLB 199, HL��302
Madzimbamuto (Stella) v Lardner Burke (Desmond William) [1969]
1 AC 645, [1968] 3 WLR 1229, [1968] 3 All ER 561, (1968) 112 SJ
1007, PC (Rhodesia)��302
Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) [1979]
AC 385, [1978] 2 WLR 902, [1978] 2 All ER 670, [1978] Crim
LR 355,(1978) 122 SJ 179, PC (Trin & Tob)��52
Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011]
IEHC 306, [2012] Eu LR 319, HC (Ireland)��35
Malloch v Aberdeen Corp (No 1) [1971] 1 WLR 1578,
[1971] 2 All ER 1278, 1971 SC (HL) 85, 1971 SLT 245,
(1971) 115 SJ 756, HL��40, 176, 306
Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011]
2 AC 104, [2010] 3 WLR 1441, [2011] 1 All ER 285, [2011]
PTSR 61, [2011] HRLR 3, [2010] UKHRR 1213, 31 BHRC 670,
[2011] HLR 7, [2010] BLGR 909, [2011] L & TR 2, [2010]
3 EGLR 113, [2010] 45 EG 93 (CS), (2010) 107(44) LSG 16,
(2011) 108(8) LSG 20, (2010) 154(42) SJLB 30, [2010] NPC 109, SC��320
Maritime Electric Co Ltd v General Dairies Ltd [1937] AC 610,
[1937] 1 All ER 748, PC (Can)��184, 186
McLaughlin v Governor of the Cayman Islands [2007] UKPC 50,
[2007] 1 WLR 2839, PC (Cay)��153
McR’s Application for Judicial Review, Re [2002] NIQB 58, [2003]
NI 1, QBD��271, 272, 290
Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2), Re [2001]
1 WLR 700, [2001] UKCLR 550, [2001] ICR 564, [2001]
HRLR 17, [2001] UKHRR 429, (2001) 3 LGLR 32, (2001)
98(7) LSG 40, (2001) 151 NLJ 17, (2001) 145 SJLB.29, CA��256

xxxii Table of Cases
MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013]
EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] 1 WLR 544, [2014] 2 All ER 543, [2014]
Imm AR 211, [2014] INLR 18, CA��323
MN (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014]
UKSC 30, [2014] 1 WLR 2064, [2014] 4 All ER 443, 2014 SC
(UKSC) 183, 2014 SLT 669, [2014] Imm AR 981, [2014] INLR 590,
2014 GWD 17-325, SC��116
Moohan, Petitioner [2014] UKSC 67, [2015] AC 901, [2015]
2 WLR 141, [2015] 2 All ER 361, 2015 SC (UKSC) 1, 2015 SLT 2,
2015 GWD 1-1, SC��310, 320, 321
Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] UKHL 44,
[2003] 1 WLR 1929, [2003] 4 All ER 162, (2003) 73 BMLR 201, HL��264
Nakkuda Ali v MF de S Jayaratne [1951] AC 66, 66 TLR (Pt 2) 214,
(1950) 10 CR 421, (1950) 94 SJ 516, PC (Ceylon)��150
Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1973] 1 WLR 45, [1973] 1 All ER 183,
[1972] ICR 501, [1972] IRLR 86, (1972) 13 KIR 328, [1973] ITR 23,
(1973) 117 SJ 33, NIRC��35
O’Connell v R (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 351��147
O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237, [1982] 3 WLR 1096,
[1982] 3 All ER 1124, (1982) 126 SJ 820, HL��41, 47, 49, 52, 54,
55, 56, 57, 61, 62,
63, 87, 103, 105
Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] AC 1115, [2013]
3 WLR 1020, [2014] 1 All ER 369, [2014] NI 154, [2014]
HRLR 1, (2013) 157(39) SJLB 37, SC��166, 170, 171, 172,
174, 176, 183, 308,
320, 341, 345
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]
AC 997, [1968] 2 WLR 924, [1968] 1 All ER 694, (1968)
112 SJ 171, HL��36, 51, 250, 305
Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010]
UKPC 32, [2012] 1 AC 1, [2011] 3 WLR 219, PC (Trin & Tob)��178, 233
Pearlberg v Varty (Inspector of Taxes) [1972] 1 WLR 534, [1972]
2 All ER 6, 48 TC 14, [1972] TR 5, (1972) 116 SJ 335, HL��34
Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56,
[1978] 3 WLR 736, [1979] 1 All ER 365, (1979) 38 P & CR 136,
(1978) 247 EG 1173, [1978] JPL 829, CA��105
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19,
[2015] 1 WLR 1591, [2015] 3 All ER 1015, [2015] 2 CMLR 49,
[2015] Imm AR 950, [2015] INLR 593, SC��76, 119,
121, 140, 358
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, [2002] 2 WLR 37,
[2002] 1 All ER 465, [2002] HRLR 16, [2002] HLR 16, [2002]
BLGR 51, (2001) 151 NLJ 1886, [2001] NPC 184, HL��256
Public Prosecution Service v McKee [2013] UKSC 32, [2013] 1 WLR
1611, [2013] 3 All ER 365, [2013] NI 133, [2013] 2 Cr App R 17,
[2014] Crim LR 77, SC��124

Table of Cases xxxiii
R v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) [2001] UKHL 25, [2002] 1 AC 45,
[2001] 2 WLR 1546, [2001] 3 All ER 1, [2001] 2 Cr App R 21,
(2001) 165 JP 609, [2001] HRLR 48, [2001] UKHRR 825, 11 BHRC
225, [2001] Crim LR 908, (2001) 165 JPN 750, HL��271, 275, 276,
281, 283, 286, 291
R v Allen, 104 ER 870, (1812) 15 East 333, Ct of KB��97
R v Amber Valley DC, ex p Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 298, [1984]
3 All ER 501, (1985) 50 P & CR 136, QBD��33
R v Arkwright 116 ER 1130, (1848) 12 QB 960, Ct of QB��98
R v Barnsley Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, ex p Atkinson
[1976] 1 WLR 1047, [1976] 2 All ER 686, (1976) 120 SJ 383, DC��307
R v Barnsley Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, ex p Atkinson
[1977] 1 WLR 917, [1977] 3 All ER 1031, (1977) 121 SJ 239, CA��307
R v Bedwellty Justices, ex p Williams [1997] AC 225, [1996] 3 WLR
361, [1996] 3 All ER 737, [1996] 2 Cr App R 594, (1996) 160 JP
549, (1996) 8 Admin LR 643, [1996] Crim LR 906, [1997] COD 54,
(1996) 160 JPN 696, (1996) 93(34) LSG 34, (1996) 146 NLJ.1149,
(1996) 140 SJLB 192, HL��105
R v Board of Works for the District of St Olave’s, Southwark, 120
ER 198, (1857) 8 El & Bl 529, Ct of QB��98, 99
R v Bolton, 113 ER 1054, (1841) 1 QB 66, Ct of KB��98, 99, 100, 101
R v Boundary Commission, ex p Foot. See R v Boundary
Commission for England, ex p Gateshead BC
R v Boundary Commission for England, ex p Gateshead BC; R v
Boundary Commission, ex p Foot [1983] QB 600, [1983] 2 WLR 458,
[1983] 1 All ER 1099, (1983) 127 SJ 155, CA��61, 261
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet
Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, [1999] 2 WLR 272, [1999] 1 All
ER 577, 6 BHRC 1, (1999) 11 Admin LR 57, (1999) 96(6) LSG 33,
(1999) 149 NLJ 88, HL��32, 33
R v C [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134, [2004] 2 WLR 335, [2004] 1 All
ER 1269, [2004] 2 Cr App R 10, [2004] HRLR 20, 16 BHRC 332,
(2004) 101(8) LSG 29, (2004) 148 SJLB 183, HL��26
R v Chertsey Justices, ex p Franks [1961] 2 QB 152, [1961] 2 WLR 442,
[1961] 1 All ER 825, (1961) 125 JP 305, 59 LGR 260, (1961) 12 P &
CR 278, (1961) 105 SJ 181, DC��102
R v Chief Constable of Merseyside, ex p Calveley [1986] QB 424, [1986]
2 WLR 144, [1986] 1 All ER 257, [1986] IRLR 177, CA��61
R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex p Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155,
[1982] 3 All ER 141, (1983) 147 JP 6, (1982) 79 LSG 1257, (1982)
126 SJ 549, HL��65
R v Chief Constable of Thames Valley, ex p Cotton [1990]
IRLR 344, CA��38, 176, 187
R v Civil Service Appeal Board, ex p Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310,
[1992] ICR 817, [1992] ICR 816, [1991] IRLR 297, [1991] COD 478,
(1991) 141 NLJ 455, CA��49, 53, 65
R v Clarke (Ronald Augustus) [2008] UKHL 8, [2008] 1 WLR 338, [2008]
2 All ER 665, [2008] 2 Cr App R 2, [2008] Crim LR 551, (2008) 105(7)
LSG 31, (2008) 152(6) SJLB 28, HL��124

xxxiv Table of Cases
R v Commissioners of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets, 109 ER 193,
(1829) 9 B & C 517 Ct of KB��97
R v Connell, ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407��263
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p Lain [1967] 2 QB 864,
[1967] 3 WLR 348, [1967] 2 All ER 770, (1967) 111 SJ 331, QBD��51
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p Warner [1987] QB 74,
[1986] 3 WLR 251, [1986] 2 All ER 478, (1986) 136 NLJ 536, (1986)
130 SJ 468, CA��158
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p A [1999] 2 AC 330,
[1999] 2 WLR 974, [1999] COD 244, (1999) 96(17) LSG 25, (1999)
149 NLJ 522, (1999) 143 SJLB 120, HL��37, 117
R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, ex p Caswell
[1990] 2 AC 738, [1990] 2 WLR 1320, [1990] 2 All ER 434, (1990)
2 Admin LR 765, [1990] COD 243, (1990) 140 NLJ 742, HL��67
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan
[1993] 1 WLR 909, [1993] 2 All ER 853, [1993] COD 234, (1993)
143 NLJ 163, CA��62
R v Electricity Commissioners, ex p London Electricity Joint
Committee Co (1920) Ltd [1924] 1 KB 171, CA��44, 150, 167
R v Epping and Harlow General Commissioners, ex p Goldstraw
[1983] 3 All ER 257, [1983] STC 697, 57 TC 536, CA��61
R v Essex CC, ex p Bullimore [1997] ELR 327, QBD��153
R v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex p Benaim [1970] 2 QB 417,
[1970] 2 WLR 1009, [1970] 2 All ER 528, (1970) 114 SJ 266, CA��151
R v Gough (Robert) [1993] AC 646, [1993] 2 WLR 883, [1993]
2 All ER 724, (1993) 97 Cr App R 188, (1993) 157 JP 612,
[1993] Crim LR 886, (1993) 157 JPN 394, (1993) 143 NLJ 775,
(1993) 137 SJLB 168, HL��32
R v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex p Armah (No 1); sub nom
Armah v Ghana (No 1) [1968] AC 192, [1966] 3 WLR 828, [1966]
3 All ER 177, (1967) 131 JP 43, (1966) 110 SJ 890, HL��37
R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, [1984]
1 All ER 983, [1983] Imm AR 198, (1984) 128 SJ 349, QBD��65
R v Greater Birmingham Appeal Tribunal, ex p Simper [1974] QB 543,
[1973] 2 WLR 709, [1973] 2 All ER 461, DC��307
R v Gul (Mohammed) [2013] UKSC 64, [2014] AC 1260, [2013]
3 WLR 1207, [2014] 1 All ER 463, [2014] 1 Cr App R 14, [2014]
Crim LR 315, SC��284
R v H [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134, [2004] 2 WLR 335, [2004]
1 All ER 1269, [2004] 2 Cr App R 10, [2004] HRLR 20, 16 BHRC
332, (2004) 101(8) LSG 29, (2004) 148 SJLB 183, HL;��26
R v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC, ex p M; R v Westminster City
Council, Ex p M (1998) 30 HLR 10, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504,
(1997–98) 1 CCL Rep 85, CA��309
R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex p Institute of Dental
Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 242, [1994] 1 All ER 651, [1994] ELR 506,
[1994] COD 147, DC��34
R v Hillingdon LBC, ex p Puhlhofer [1986] AC 484, [1986] 2 WLR 259,
[1986] 1 All ER 467, [1986] 1 FLR 22, (1986) 18 HLR 158, [1986]
Fam Law 218, (1986) 83 LSG 785, (1986) 136 NLJ 140, (1986)
130 SJ 143, HL��53, 63, 64,
252, 264

Table of Cases xxxv
R v Hillingdon LBC, ex p Royco Homes Ltd [1974] QB 720, [1974]
2 WLR 805, [1974] 2 All ER 643, 72 LGR 516, (1974) 28 P & CR 251,
(1974) 118 SJ 389, QBD��61
R v Horncastle (Michael Christopher) [2009] UKSC 14, [2010]
2 AC 373, [2010] 2 WLR 47, [2010] 2 All ER 359, [2010] 1 Cr
App R 17, [2010] HRLR 12, [2010] UKHRR 1, [2010] Crim LR 496,
(2009) 153(48) SJLB 32, SC��320
R v Inhabitants of Glamorganshire, 91 ER 1287, (1700) 1 Ld
Raym 580, Ct of KB��92
R v Inhabitants of Great Marlow, 102 ER 362, (1802) 2 East 244,
Ct of KB��93, 94
R v Inhabitants of Hitcham, 97 ER 628, (1760) 2 Burr 910��94
R v Inhabitants of the Parish of Walsall, 106 ER 324, (1818)
2 B & Ald.157, Ct of KB��97
R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994]
4 All ER 329, [1994] 2 CMLR 548, [1994] Env LR 76, [1994]
COD 116, [1993] NPC 126, QBD��193
R v IRC, ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545,
[1990] 1 All ER 91, [1990] STC 873, 62 TC 607, [1990] COD 143,
(1989) 139 NLJ 1343, QBD��179
R v IRC, ex p National Federation of Self Employed and Small
Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, [1981] 2 WLR 722, [1981] 2 All
ER 93, [1981] STC 260, 55 TC 133, (1981) 125 SJ 325, HL��45, 49, 51, 52,
57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 67, 215, 303
R v IRC, ex p Preston [1985] 1 AC 835��40, 61, 63, 65,
178, 179
R v James (1815) 2 M & S 321��97
R v Jarvis (1854) 3 E & B 640��98
R v Justices of Cambridgeshire (1835) 4 A & E 111��97
R v Justices of Cheshire (1838) 8 A & E 398��97
R v Justices of Denbighshire, 109 ER 916, (1830) 1 B & Ad 616, Ct of KB��97
R v Justices of Lancashire (1839) 11 A & E 144��97
R v Justices of North Riding of Yorkshire, 108 ER 409, (1827)
6 B & C 152, Ct of KB��97, 99
R v Justices of Somersetshire (1822) 1 Dow & Ry 443��97
R v Justices of the Central Criminal Court (1886) 17 QB 598��98
R v Justices of Weston-Super-Mare, ex p Barkers (Contractors) Ltd
[1944] 1 All ER 747, KBD��102
R v Lambert (Steven) [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545, [2001]
3 WLR 206, [2001] 3 All ER 577, [2002] 1 All ER 2, [2001]
2 Cr App R 28, [2001] HRLR 55, [2001] UKHRR 1074, [2001]
Crim LR 806, (2001) 98(33) LSG 29, (2001) 145 SJLB 174, HL��285
R v Lancashire CC, ex p Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941, (1986)
136 NLJ 562, CA��49, 61, 62, 63,
65, 126, 334
R v Lee (Robert) (1876) 1 QBD 198, QBD��98
R v Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, ex p Haynes-Smith
[1928] 1 KB 411, KBD��44, 150
R v Lincolnshire CC, ex p Atkinson (1996) 8 Admin LR 529, [1997] JPL
65, (1996) 160 LG Rev 580, [1995] EG 145 (CS), [1995] NPC 145, DC��83

xxxvi Table of Cases
R v Local Government Board (1873) LR 8 QB 227��98
R v Local Government Board, ex p Arlidge; sub nom Local
Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120, HL��35
R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham [1998] QB 575, [1998] 2 WLR 849,
[1997] 2 All ER 779, [1997] COD 291, (1997) 147 NLJ 378, (1997)
141 SJLB 82, QBD��308
R v Lord Mayor of London, ex p Boaler [1893] 2 QB 146, QBD��98
R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex p Page [1993] AC 682,
[1992] 3 WLR 1112, [1993] 1 All ER 97, [1993] ICR 114, (1993)
143 NLJ 15, (1993) 137 SJLB 45, HL��105, 152, 245, 358
R v Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex p Gilmore [1957] 1 QB 574, [1957]
2 WLR 498, [1957] 1 All ER 796, (1957) 101 SJ 248, CA��102
R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p Hamble
(Offshore) Fisheries Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 714, [1995] 1 CMLR 533,
(1995) 7 Admin LR 637, [1995] COD.114, QBD��178
R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996] QB 517, [1996] 2 WLR 305,
[1996] 1 All ER 257, [1996] ICR 740, [1996] IRLR 100, (1996)
8 Admin LR 29, [1996] COD 237, (1995) 145 NLJ 1689, CA��66
R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex p Argyll Group
Plc [1986] 1 WLR 763, [1986] 2 All ER 257, (1986)
2 BCC 99086, CA��27, 38, 49, 57,
68, 77
R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex p South Yorkshire
Transport Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 23, [1993] 1 All ER 289, [1993]
BCC 111, [1994] ECC 231, (1993) 143 NLJ.128, HL��156, 251, 253
R v Moreley, 97 ER 696, (1760) 2 Burr 1040, Ct of KB��93
R v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128, PC (Can)��100, 101, 140
R v North and East Devon HA, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213, [2000]
2 WLR 622, [2000] 3 All ER 850, (2000) 2 LGLR 1, [1999] BLGR 703,
(1999) 2 CCL Rep 285, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 306, (2000)
51 BMLR 1, [1999] COD 340, (1999) 96(31) LSG 39, (1999)
143 SJLB 213, CA��122, 126, 127, 165, 171,
172, 178, 179, 181, 182,
183, 184, 186, 187, 233,
249, 253, 255, 358
R v Northowram and Clayton Ratepayers (1865–66)
LR 1 QB 110, Ct of QB��98
R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal,
ex p Shaw [1952] 1 KB 338, [1952] 1 All ER 122, [1952]
1 TLR 161, (1952) 116 JP 54, 50 LGR 193, (1951–52) 2 P &
CR 361, (1952) 96 SJ 29, CA��36, 102, 103
R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Datafin Plc [1987]
QB 815, [1987] 2 WLR 699, [1987] 1 All ER 564, (1987)
3 BCC 10, [1987] BCLC 104, [1987] 1 FTLR 181, (1987)
131 SJ 23, CA��48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57,
62, 64, 67, 68, 126
R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Guinness Plc [1990]
1 QB 146, [1989] 2 WLR 863, [1989] 1 All ER 509, (1988)
4 BCC 714, [1989] BCLC 255, (1988) 138 NLJ Rep.244,
(1989) 133 SJ 660, CA��49, 53, 61, 63, 64, 246

Table of Cases xxxvii
R v Race Relations Board, ex p Selvarajan [1975] 1 WLR 1686,
[1976] 1 All ER 12, [1975] IRLR 281, (1975) 119 SJ 644, CA��33
R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex p Begbie
[2000] 1 WLR 1115, [2000] Ed CR 140, [2000] ELR 445, (1999)
96(35) LSG 39, CA��114, 126, 178,
181, 233, 260
R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Equal Opportunities
Commission [1995] 1 AC 1, [1994] 2 WLR 409, [1994] 1 All
ER 910, [1995] 1 CMLR 391, [1994] ICR 317, [1994] IRLR 176,
92 LGR 360, [1994] COD 301, (1994) 91(18) LSG 43, (1994)
144 NLJ 358, (1994) 138 SJLB 84, HL��315
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386,
[1995] 1 All ER 611, [1995] COD 211, (1995) 145 NLJ 51, DC��58, 193
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire
CC [1986] AC 240, [1986] 2 WLR 1, [1986] 1 All ER 199,
84 LGR 305, (1986) 83 LSG 359, (1985) 135 NLJ 1257, (1986)
130 SJ 36, HL��63
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991]
1 AC 696, [1991] 2 WLR 588, [1991] 1 All ER 720, (1991)
3 Admin LR 486, (1991) 141 NLJ 199, (1991) 135 SJ 250, HL��65, 66, 261, 319
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Bugdaycay
[1987] AC 514, [1987] 2 WLR 606, [1987] 1 All ER 940,
[1987] Imm AR 250, (1987) 84 LSG 902, (1987) 137 NLJ 199,
(1987) 131 SJ 297, HL��38, 66, 260
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody
[1994] 1 AC 531, [1993] 3 WLR 154, [1993] 3 All ER 92,
(1995) 7 Admin LR 1, (1993) 143 NLJ 991, HL��25, 26, 34, 35, 256
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades
Union [1995] 2 AC 513, [1995] 2 WLR 464, [1995] 2 All ER 244,
(1995) 7 Admin LR 473, [1995] PIQR P228, (1995) 145 NLJ 521,
(1995) 139 SJLB 109, HL��306
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Khan
(Asif Mahmood) [1984] 1 WLR 1337, [1985] 1 All ER 40,
[1984] Imm AR 68, [1984] Fam Law 278, (1984) 81 LSG 1678,
(1984) 128 SJ 580, CA��178
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Khawaja
[1984] AC 74, [1983] 2 WLR 321, [1983] 1 All ER 765, [1982]
Imm AR 139, (1983) 127 SJ 137, HL��117
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [2000]
2 AC 115, [1999] 3 WLR 328, [1999] 3 All ER 400, [1999]
EMLR 689, 7 BHRC 411, (1999) 11 Admin LR 961, [1999]
Prison LR 82, [1999] COD 520, (1999) 96(30) LSG 28, (1999)
149 NLJ 1073, (1999) 143 SJLB 212, HL��308
R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p Joint Council for the
Welfare of Immigrants [1997] 1 WLR 275, [1996] 4 All ER 385,
(1997) 29 HLR 129, (1997) 9 Admin LR 1, (1996) 146 NLJ 985 CA��309
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 5)
[2000] 1 AC 524, [1999] 3 WLR 1062, [1999] 4 All ER 906, [1999] 3
CMLR 597, [2000] Eu LR 40, (1999) 96(43) LSG 32, [1999] NPC 126, HL��316

xxxviii Table of Cases
R v Somerset CC, ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037, [1995] 3 All
ER 20, (1995) 7 Admin LR 761, [1996] COD 76, (1995) 92(16)
LSG 43, (1995) 145 NLJ 450, (1995) 139 SJLB 88, CA��157
R v Soneji (Kamlesh Kumar) [2005] UKHL 49, [2006] 1 AC 340,
[2005] 3 WLR 303, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20,
[2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, (2005) 102(31)
LSG 26, (2005) 155 NLJ 1315, (2005) 149 SJLB 924, HL��124
R v Stratford upon Avon DC, ex p Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 1319,
[1985] 3 All ER 769, 84 LGR 287, (1986) 51 P & CR 76,
(1985) 82 LSG 3533, (1985) 129 SJ 854, CA��67
R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, QBD��32
R v Wakefield, 97 ER 417, (1758) 1 Burr 485, Ct of KB��94
R v Westminster City Council, ex p M. See R v Hammersmith and
Fulham LBC, ex p M
R v Wicks (Peter Edward) [1998] AC 92, [1997] 2 WLR 876, [1997]
2 All ER 801, (1997) 161 JP 433, (1997) 9 Admin LR 349, [1997]
2 PLR 97, [1997] JPL 1049, (1997) 161 JPN 628, (1997) 94(35) LSG
34, (1997) 147 NLJ 883, (1997) 141 SJLB 127, [1997] NPC 85, HL��40, 108
R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8, [2009] 1 WLR 2557, [2010]
1 All ER 469, [2010] PTSR 106, [2010] 1 FLR 959, [2009] 3 FCR 607,
[2010] HRLR 9, [2010] UKHRR 63, [2010] BLGR 183, (2009)
12 CCL Rep 552, [2010] Fam Law 137, (2009) 159 NLJ 1701,
(2009) 153(46) SJLB 34, SC��117, 263
R (AA (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2013] UKSC 49, [2013] 1 WLR 2224, [2013] 4 All ER 140, [2013]
3 FCR 515, [2013] HRLR 34, [2014] I.NLR 51, (2013) 163(7569) NLJ 15 SC��117
R (Aguilar Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]
UKSC 45, [2012] 1 AC 621, [2011] 3 WLR 836, [2012] 1 All ER 1011,
[2012] 1 FLR 788, [2011] 3 FCR 575, [2012] HRLR 2, [2011] UKHRR
1347, 33 BHRC 381, [2012] Imm AR 135, [2011] INLR 698, [2012]
Fam Law 21, (2011) 108(41) LSG 15, (2011) 155(39) SJLB 31, SC��75, 137, 191
R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 AC 295, [2001]
2 WLR 1389, [2001] 2 All ER 929, [2002] Env LR 12, [2001] HRLR 45,
[2001] UKHRR 728, (2001) 3 LGLR 38, (2001) 82 P & CR 40, [2001]
2 PLR 76, [2001] JPL 920, [2001] 20 EG 228 (CS), (2001) 98(24) LSG 45,
(2001) 151 NLJ 727, (2001) 145 SJLB 140, [2001] NPC 90, HL��117
R (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15, [2008] 1 AC 1312, [2008] 2 WLR
781, [2008] 3 All ER 193, [2008] EMLR 8, [2008] HRLR 25, [2008]
UKHRR 477, 24 BHRC 217, (2008) 152(12) SJLB 30, HL��284, 289
R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003]
UKHL 36, [2004] 1 AC 604, [2003] 3 WLR 252, [2003] 3 All ER 827,
[2003] HRLR 31, [2003] Imm AR 570, [2003] INLR 521, (2003)
100(33) LSG 29, HL��308
R (Baird) v Environment Agency [2011] EWHC 939 (Admin), QBD��347
R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
[2008] EWCA Civ 141, [2009] PTSR 809, [2008] BLGR 239, [2008]
2 P & CR 6, [2008] JPL 1469, [2008] ACD 62, (2008) 105(10) LSG 27,
(2008) 152(10) SJLB 31, [2008] NPC 26, CA��258

Table of Cases xxxix
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2009] 1 AC 453, [2008] 3 WLR 955,
[2008] 4 All ER 1055, (2008) 105(42) LSG 20, (2008) 158 NLJ 1530,
(2008) 152(41) SJLB 29, HL��126, 306
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office [2001] QB 1067, [2001] 2 WLR 1219, [2001] ACD 18, (2000)
97(47) LSG 39, DC��306
R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2007] EWCA Civ 1139, [2008] ACD 7, CA��208
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors [2006] UKHL 15,
[2007] 1 AC 100, [2006] 2 WLR 719, [2006] 2 All ER 487,
[2006] 1 FCR 613, [2006] HRLR 21, [2006] UKHRR 708,
23 BHRC 276, [2006] ELR 273, (2006) 103(14) LSG 29, (2006)
156 NLJ 552, HL��75, 137, 140, 209
R (Berhe) v Hillingdon LBC [2003] EWHC 2075 (Admin), [2004]
1 FLR 439, (2003) 6 CCL Rep 471, [2003] Fam Law 872, (2003)
100(39) LSG 38, QBD��336, 337
R (Bibi) v Newham LBC (No 1) [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR
237, (2001) 33 HLR 84, (2001) 98(23) LSG 38, [2001] NPC 83, CA��182
R (Buckinghamshire CC) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014]
UKSC 3, [2014] 1 WLR 324, [2014] 2 All ER 109, [2014] PTSR 182, SC��315
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin),
[2010] 2 WLR 1012, [2010] 1 All ER 908, [2010] PTSR 824,
[2010] STC 493, [2010] 2 FCR 309, [2010] MHLR 35, [2010]
ACD 36, [2009] STI 3167, DC��31, 36
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663,
[2011] 3 WLR 107, [2011] 4 All ER 127, [2011] PTSR 1053,
[2011] STC.1659, [2012] 1 FLR 997, [2011] Imm AR 704, [2011]
MHLR 196, [2012] Fam Law 398, [2011] STI 1943, (2011) 161
NLJ 916, (2011) 155(25) SJLB 35, SC��42, 43, 104, 105, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110, 121,
126, 138, 141, 151,
152, 153, 154, 155,
162, 245, 360, 364
R (Champion) v North Norfolk DC [2015] UKSC 52, [2015] 1 WLR
3710, [2015] 4 All ER 169, [2016] Env LR 5, [2015] BLGR 593, SC��78, 314
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439,
[2011] 1 WLR 1436, [2011] HRLR 10, [2011] UKHRR 53, [2010]
2 Prison LR 40, [2011] ACD 30, (2011) 108(1) LSG 15, CA��293, 321, 322
R (Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions [2012] EWHC 2579 (Admin), [2012] ACD 109, QBD��83
R (Condron) v National Assembly for Wales [2006] EWCA Civ 1573,
[2007] BLGR 87, [2007] 2 P & CR 4, [2007] JPL 938, [2006] 49
EG 94 (CS), [2006] NPC 127, [2007] Env LR D7, CA��33
R (Core Issues Trust) v Transport for London [2014] EWCA Civ 34,
[2014] PTSR 785, [2014] Eq LR 164, (2014) 158(5) SJLB 37, CA��314
R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
[2005] EWCA Civ 192, [2005] 1 WLR 2600, [2005] 4 All ER 1,
[2005] CP Rep 28, [2005] 3 Costs LR 455, [2005] ACD 100, (2005)
102(17) LSG 31, (2005) 149 SJLB 297, CA��314

xl Table of Cases
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26,
[2001] 2 AC 532, [2001] 2 WLR 1622, [2001] 3 All ER 433, [2001]
HRLR 49, [2001] UKHRR 887, [2001] Prison LR 322, [2001] ACD 79,
(2001) 98(26) LSG 43, (2001) 145 SJLB 156, HL��121, 202, 320
R (Davis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC
2092 (Admin), [2015] HRLR 14, DC��318
R (Domb) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 941,
[2009] BLGR 843, [2010] ACD 20, (2009) 153(34) SJLB 30, CA��258
R (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No 2) [2008] UKHL 22, [2008]
1 WLR 1587, [2009] 1 All ER 57, [2008] Env LR 34, [2008] JPL 1278,
[2008] 16 EG 153 (CS), (2008) 152(16) SJLB 29, [2008] NPC 44, HL��77, 82, 83
R (English Speaking Board (International) Ltd) v Secretary of State for
the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1788 (Admin), QBD��83
R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, [2015] 2 WLR 813,
[2015] 4 All ER 395, [2015] 2 CMLR 43, [2015] Env LR 34,
[2015] FSR 26, SC��132, 308
R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice. See R (Sturnham) v Parole
Board for England and Wales
R (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 1731, [2005]
1 WLR 1445, [2005] 2 All ER 165, [2005] Imm AR 106, [2005]
INLR 329, (2005) 102(6) LSG 32, (2005) 149 SJLB 59, CA��40
R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]
UKHL 14, [2005] 1 WLR 673, [2005] 2 All ER 240, [2005] HRLR 13,
[2005] UKHRR 323, 18 BHRC 252, [2005] 2 Prison LR 129,
(2005) 102(16) LSG 30, (2005) 155 NLJ.298, HL��71, 72, 73, 74
R (Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
[2007] EWHC 311 (Admin), [2007] Env LR 29, [2007] JPL 1314,
[2007] NPC 21, QBD��305
R (Griffin) v Newham LBC [2011] EWHC 53 (Admin), DC��344
R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012]
EWHC 3070 (Admin), [2013] CP Rep 6, [2013] ACD 27, QBD��332
R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for Education and Skills
[2007] EWHC 514 (Admin), QBD��336
R (Hurley) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
[2012] EWHC 201 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 13, [2012] Eq LR 447,
[2012] ELR 297, [2012] ACD 50, DC��83, 109
R (J) v Caerphilly CBC [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin), [2005] 2 FLR 860,
[2005] 2 FCR 153, (2005) 8 CCL Rep 255, [2005] ACD 80, [2005]
Fam Law 611, [2005] Fam Law 528, QBD��336, 337
R (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber); sub nom
Jones v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2013] UKSC 19,
[2013] 2 AC 48, [2013] 2 WLR 1012, [2013] 2 All ER 625, [2013]
RTR 28, [2013] PIQR P18, SC��37, 116, 156, 157,
158, 264, 265
R (L) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 47,
[2014] 1 WLR 3103, (2014) 137 BMLR 76, [2014] ACD 79, (2014)
158(6) SJLB 37, CA��33, 168,
169, 170
R (Lewis) v Persimmon Homes [2008] LGR 781, [2009] EWCA Civ 3, [2009]
1 WLR 1461, [2009] 4 All ER 1232, [2009] BLGR 649, [2009] 1 EGLR 79,
[2009] 15 EG 100, [2009] JPL 1192, [2009] 3 EG 103 (CS), [2009] NPC 8, CA��32

Table of Cases xli
R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]
UKHL 66, [2006] 1 AC 396, [2005] 3 WLR 1014, [2007] 1 All
ER 951, [2006] HRLR 4, [2006] HLR 10, (2006) 9 CCL Rep 30,
(2005) 102(46) LSG 25, (2005) 149 SJLB 1354, HL��309, 310
R (Limerick Corporation) v Local Government Board [1922]
2 IR 76, CA��102
R (Litvinenko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2014] EWHC 194 (Admin), [2014] HRLR 6, [2014] ACD 67, DC��249
R (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2014] UKSC 60, [2015] AC 945, [2014] 3 WLR 1404,
[2015] 2 All ER 453, [2015] HRLR 1, 38 BHRC 193, SC��136, 137, 140
R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 AC 245, [2011] 2 WLR 671,
[2011] 4 All ER 1, [2011] UKHRR 437, (2011) 108(14) LSG 20,
(2011) 155(12) SJLB 30, SC��126, 182
R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56, [2014] 1 WLR 3947,
[2015] 1 All ER 495, [2014] PTSR 1317, [2014] BLGR 823,
[2015] RVR 93, SC��171, 191
R (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department;
R (Abdi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]
EWCA Civ 1363, CA��114, 126, 166,
178, 182, 233
R (Niazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department;
R (Bhatt Murphy (A Firm)) v Independent Assessor [2008]
EWCA Civ 755, (2008) 152(29) SJLB 29, CA��224
R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, [2015]
AC 657, [2014] 3 WLR 200, [2014] 3 All ER 843, [2014] 3 FCR 1,
[2014] HRLR 17, 36 BHRC 465, (2014) 139 BMLR 1, SC��272, 284, 288
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] AC 1115, [2013]
3 WLR 1020, [2014] 1 All ER 369, [2014] NI 154, [2014] HRLR 1,
(2013) 157(39) SJLB 37, SC��255
R (Patel) v General Medical Council [2013] EWCA Civ 327, [2013]
1 WLR 2801, (2013) 133 BMLR 14, CA��179
R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014]
EWHC 1662 (QB), [2015] 3 All ER 261, [2015] BLGR 172, DC��314
R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC [2003] UKHL 23, [2004] 1 AC 185,
[2003] 2 WLR 1403, [2003] 2 All ER 977, [2003] EMLR 23,
[2003] HRLR 26, [2003] UKHRR 758, [2003] ACD 65, (2003)
100(26) LSG 35, (2003) 153 NLJ 823, (2003) 147 SJLB 595, HL��137, 359
R (Public Law Project) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014]
EWHC 2365 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 251, [2015] 2 All ER 689,
[2014] HRLR 24, [2014] ELR 372, DC��308
R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)
[2004] UKHL 27, [2004] 2 AC 368, [2004] 3 WLR 58, [2004]
3 All ER 821, [2004] HRLR 32, [2004] Imm AR 381, [2004]
INLR 349, [2004] MHLR 218, [2004] ACD 83, (2004) 101(28)
LSG.33,(2004) 154 NLJ 986, (2004) 148 SJLB 761, HL��323
R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2012]
EWHC 2292 (Admin), (2012) 156(32) SJLB 31, QBD��324

xlii Table of Cases
R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013]
EWCA Civ 66, [2013] 1 WLR 2239, [2013] 3 All ER 67, (2013)
163 NLJ 236, CA��324
R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013]
UKSC 68, [2014] AC 453, [2013] 3 WLR 1276, [2014] 1 All ER 505, SC��325
R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014]
EWHC 2182 (Admin), [2015] QB 573, [2015] 2 WLR 309, QBD��325
R (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex CC [2002] UKHL 8, [2003]
1 WLR 348, [2002] 4 All ER 58, [2003] 1 P & CR 5, [2002] 2 PLR 60,
[2002] JPL 821, [2002] 10 EG 158 (CS), [2002] NPC 32, HL��166, 183
R (Robinson) v Governor of Whatton Prison [2014] UKSC 66, [2015]
AC 1344, [2015] 2 WLR 76, [2015] 2 All ER 822, 38 BHRC 313, SC��320
R (Rotherham MBC) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation
and Skills [2014] EWHC 232 (Admin), [2014] BLGR 389, [2014]
ACD.75, QBD��258
R (Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs [2014] UKSC 44, [2014] 1 WLR 2697, [2014] 4 All ER
843, [2014] HRLR 21, SC��121
R (Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWCA
Civ 1738, [2003] 1 WLR 475, [2003] 2 All ER 160, [2003] CP Rep 27,
(2003) 100(3) LSG 34, CA��106, 154
R (Sturnham) v Parole Board for England and Wales [2013] UKSC 47,
[2013] 2 AC 254, [2013] 3 WLR 281, [2013] 4 All ER 177, SC��71, 74
R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015]
UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820, [2015] ELR 455, SC��148
R (Trail Riders’ Fellowship) v Dorset CC [2015] UKSC 18, [2015]
1 WLR 1406, [2015] 3 All ER 946, [2015] PTSR 411, SC��124
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, [2004] 2 AC 323,
[2004] 3 WLR 23, [2004] 3 All ER 785, [2004] HRLR 33, [2004]
UKHRR 995, [2004] Imm AR 419, [2004] INLR 381, (2004) 101(28)
LSG 33, (2004) 154 NLJ 985, (2004) 148 SJLB 762, HL��320
R (Wiles) v Social Security Commissioners [2010] EWCA Civ 258, CA��107
R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital [2001] EWCA Civ 1545,
[2002] 1 WLR 419, [2002] UKHRR 390, (2002) 5 CCL Rep 121,
[2002] Lloyd’s Rep Med 41, (2002) 65 BMLR 15, [2001] MHLR 224,
[2002] ACD 47, (2001) 98(44) LSG 36, (2001) 145 SJLB 247, CA��75
R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment
[2005] UKHL 15, [2005] 2 AC 246, [2005] 2 WLR 590, [2005]
2 All ER 1, [2005] 2 FLR 374, [2005] 1 FCR 498, [2005] HRLR 14,
[2005] UKHRR 339, 19 BHRC 99, [2005] ELR 291, [2005] Fam Law 456,
(2005) 102(16) LSG 27, (2005) 155 NLJ 324, (2005) 149 SJLB 266, HL��75
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2,
[2012] 2 AC 72, [2012] 2 WLR 381, [2012] 2 All ER 381, [2012]
PTSR 497, [2012] HRLR 10, 33 BHRC 208, (2012) 15 CCL Rep 13,
[2012] Med LR 221, (2012) 124 BMLR 148, [2012] MHLR 66, (2012)
162 NLJ 261, (2012) 156(6) SJLB 31, SC��75
Racal Communications Ltd, Re [1981] AC 374, [1980] 3 WLR 181,
[1980] 2 All ER 634, HL��105, 151, 152, 155
Ramshay, ex p 118 ER 65, (1852) 18 QB 173, Ct of KB��167
Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 2 AC 512��250

Table of Cases xliii
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, [1963] 2 WLR 935, [1963]
2 All ER 66, (1963) 127 JP 295, (1963) 127 JP 251, 61
LGR 369, 37 ALJ 140, 234 LT 423, 113 LJ 716, (1963)
107 SJ 313, HL��34, 50, 51, 150, 151,
153, 167, 177, 255
Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, HL��259
Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family
Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 AC 624, [1992] 2 WLR 239,
[1992] 1 All ER 705, [1992] IRLR 233, (1992) 4 Admin LR 649,
[1992] 3 Med LR 177, (1992) 142 NLJ 240, (1992) 136 SJLB 63, HL��41, 42, 55
Ruddy v Chief Constable of Strathclyde [2012] UKSC 57, 2013 SC
(UKSC) 126, 2013 SLT 119, 2013 SCLR 110, [2013] HRLR 10, 2013
Rep LR 67, 2012 GWD 40-779, SC��75
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, HL��25
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC
[1977] AC 1014, [1976] 3 WLR 641, [1976] 3 All ER 665,
(1976) 120 SJ 735, HL��37, 65, 261, 266
Secretary of State for Employment v Associated Society of Locomotive
Engineers and Firemen (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 455, [1972] 2 WLR 1370,
[1972] 2 All ER 949, [1972] ICR 19, 13 KIR 1, (1972) 116 SJ 467, CA��266
Secretary of State for the Home Department v F [2009] UKHL 28,
[2010] 2 AC 269, [2009] 3 WLR 74, [2009] 3 All ER 643,
[2009] HRLR 26, [2009] UKHRR 1177, 26 BHRC 738, (2009)
106(25) LSG 14, HL��170, 174, 176,
177, 345
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Lord Alton of
Liverpool [2008] EWCA Civ 443, [2008] 1 WLR 2341, [2008]
2 Cr App R 31, (2008) 152(21) SJLB 30, CA��318
Selvarajan v Race Relations Board. See R v Race Relations Board,
ex p Selvarajan
Serco Ltd v Lawson. See Lawson v Serco Ltd
Sharp v Wakefield [1891] AC 173, HL��128
Slattery v Naylor (1888) 13 App Cas 446, PC (Aus)��203, 204
Smith v Scott [2007] CSIH 9, 2007 SC 345, 2007 SLT 137,
2007 SCLR 268, [2008] Prison LR 177, 2007 GWD 3-46, RAC��292, 321
South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn Bhd v Non Metallic Mineral Products
Manufacturing Employees Union [1981] AC 363, [1980] 3 WLR 318,
[1980] 2 All ER 689, (1980) 124 SJ 496, PC (Mal)��105, 152
Southend on Sea Corp v Hodgson (Wickford) [1962] 1 QB 416,
[1961] 2 WLR 806, [1961] 2 All ER 46, (1961) 125 JP 348,
59 LGR 193, (1961) 12 P & CR 165, (1961) 105 SJ 181, DC��184, 186
Swain v Law Society [1983] 1 AC 598, [1982] 3 WLR 261, [1982]
2 All ER 827, (1982) 79 LSG 887, (1982) 126 SJ 464, HL��52
Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35, [2012] 1 AC 452, [2011]
3 WLR 322, [2012] 1 All ER 58, [2012] 1 CMLR 2, [2011]
ICR 938, [2011] IRLR 843, [2011] HRLR 37, [2011] UKHRR 1060, SC��131
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin),
[2003] QB 151, [2002] 3 WLR 247, [2002] 4 All ER 156, (2002)
166 JP 257, [2002] 1 CMLR 50, [2002] Eu LR 253, [2002]
LLR 548, (2002) 99(15) LSG 35, (2002) 152 NLJ 312, (2002)
146 SJLB 69, DC��315

xliv Table of Cases
Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53,
[2007] 1 AC 650, [2007] 2 WLR 1, [2007] 2 All ER 273, [2007]
NI 66, [2007] HRLR 11, [2007] UKHRR 456, 22 BHRC 92,
(2007) 151 SJLB 24, HL��75
Unions NSW v New South Wales [2013] HCA 58, (2013) 88 ALJR 227��202
Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, [2013] PTSR 51, 2013
SC (UKSC) 67, 2012 SLT 1211, [2013] 1 CMLR 28, [2013] Env
LR 16, [2013] JPL 323, 2012 GWD 34-689, SC��58, 76, 77, 78,
82, 83, 137, 358
Wandsworth LBC v Winder (No 1) [1985] AC 461, [1984] 3 WLR
1254, [1984] 3 All ER 976, (1985) 17 HLR 196, 83 LGR 143,
(1985) 82 LSG 201, (1985) 135 NLJ 381, (1984) 128 SJ 838, HL��41
Willis v Gipps, 13 ER 536, (1846) 5 Moo PC 379, PC (Aus)��167
Wilson v Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Co [1922] 1 AC 202, PC (Can)��36
Wood v Woad (1873–74) LR 9 Ex 190, (1873) 43 LJ Ex 153, Ct of Exchequer��167
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v IRC [1993] AC 70, [1992]
3 WLR 366, [1992] 3 All ER 737, [1992] STC 657, (1993) 5 Admin
LR 265, 65 TC 265, (1992) 142 NLJ 1196, (1992) 136 SJLB 230, HL��316
United States of America
Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 535 US 234 (2002)��274
Atkins v Virginia, 536 US 304 (2002)��363
Auto Parts and Accessories Association v Boyd, 407 F2d 330 (DC Cir 1968)��15
Bi-Metallic Investment Co v State Board of Equalization, 239 US 441 (1915)��36
Bowen v City of New York, 476 US 467 (1986)��181
Burson v Freeman, 112 S Ct 1846 (2012)��274
Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council, 467
US 837 (1984)��37, 137, 253, 357
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc v Volpe, 401 US 402 (1971)��14, 18
City of Chicago v Morales, 119 S Ct 1849 (1999)��274
District of Columbia v Heller, 128 S Ct 2783 (2008)��274
Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)��273
Federal Communications Commission v Schreiber, 381 US 279 (1965)��35
Federal Trade Commission v Ruberoid Co, 343 US 470 (1952)��30
Goldberg v Kelley, 397 US 254 (1970)��14, 34
Hannah v Larche, 363 US 420 (1959)��34
Heckler v Cheney, 470 US 821 (1985)��17
Kennedy v Louisiana, 128 S Ct 2641 (2008)��274
Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558 (2003)��363
Londoner v Denver, 210 US 373 (1908)��36
Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319 (1976)��181
Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319 (1976)��34
McKart v United States, 395 US 185 (1969)��40
Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471(1972)��33
National Endowment for the Arts v Finley, 524 US 569 (1998)��274
National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc v Brinegar,
491 F2d 31 (DC Cir 1974)��18
Portland Cement Association v Ruckleshaus, 486 F2d 375 (DC Cir 1973)��18
Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005)��274, 363

Table of Cases xlv
Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency, 132 S Ct 1367 (2012)��41
Securities and Exchange Commission v Chenery Corp, 332 US 194 (1947)��15
Thompson v Western States Medical Center, 535 US 357 (2002)��274
United States v Nova Scotia Food Products Corp, 568 F2d 240 (2d Cir 1977)��18
United States v Playboy Entertainment Group Inc, 529 US 803 (2000)��274
United States v Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987)��273
Universal Camera Corporation v National Labor Relations Board,
340 US 474 (1951)��247
West Coast Parish Hotel Co v Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937)��273
Yazoo and Mississippi Valley RR v Jackson Vinegar, 226 US 217 (1912)��273

xlvi

Table of Legislation
Australia
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)��251
s 2A��170
s 28(1)��131
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)��117, 128, 138,
139, 251, 257
s 5��247
s 13(1)��131
Australian Constitution
s 75(v)��182, 265
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)��121
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)��121
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)
Pt VI��194
Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth)��189, 195, 196, 210
s 17, 19��194
s 26��194
s 26(1A)(d), (e)��194
Legislative Instruments Bill 1994 (Cth)
Pt 3��195
Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 (Cth)
Pt 3��195
Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Q)��189
s 17, 19, 26��194
Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth)��133, 134
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)��248, 265
s 353��170
s 357A��129
s 357A(3)��129
s 51A��134
s 97A��134
s 118A��134
s 127A��134
s 133A, 133C��135
s 134A��135
ss 198AB, 198AD, 198AE��135
s 306AG��134
s 357A��134
s 414��135
s 420��135, 170
s 422B��134, 135
s 424A��135

xlviii Table of Legislation
s 425��135
s 500A��135
s 501, 501A, 50ABA��135
Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 (SA)
Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 (NSW)
s 5(2)��194
s 6, 9��194
Subordinate Legislation Act 1992 (Tas)
s 5, 6, 10��194
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic)
s 6, 11, 12C��194
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (SI 2005/418) (NSW)
r 59.9��141
Canada
Charter of Rights and Freedoms��234, 235, 236, 276, 279
s 24(1)��280, 298
s 33��281, 304
Constitution Act 1982
Pt I��234
s 35��226, 227
s 35(1)��227
s 52��280
s 52(1)��276, 277, 280, 298
s 75(v)��244
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46��287
Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7
s 18.1(4)��139
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act SC 2014 c 25��282
Summary Proceedings Act 1822��100
European Union
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000
At 7, 8��318
Art 47��82
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms 1950��166, 303
Art 5��320
Art 6��286
Art 6(1)��316, 320, 325
Art 8��318, 319, 320, 322, 323
Art 10��75
Art 13��316
Art 41��73
Art 46��319
Protocol 1
Art 3��321
Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community 1957
Art 4(3)��82

Table of Legislation xlix
Art 174��80
Art 253��16, 17
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2007
Art 10��82
Art 191��80
Art 260��315
Code of Good Administrative Behaviour 2001
art 18��16
Decision 2008/583 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific
restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating
terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC [2008] OJ L188/21��319
Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1992]
OJ L206/7
art 6(3)��82
Directive 2001/42 on Strategic Environment Assessment [2001]
OJ L197/30��77, 79, 80, 81
art 1��81
art 3��81
art 8��81
art 9��81
Directive 2006/24 the Data Retention Directive [2006] OJ L105/54��317
Regulation 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain
persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the
Taliban [2002] OJ L139/9��161
International Instruments
Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998��313
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966��292
Refugees Convention 1951
art 1F��265
UN Security Council Resolution 1904/ 2009��161
New Zealand
Bill of Rights 1990��284, 285
Legislation Act 2012
s 51��190
Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claim Act 2005
ss 3, 14��294
South Africa
South African Constitution 1996
art 172��270
art 172(1)(b)��276
United Kingdom
Access to Justice Act 1999
s 55��107

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

A high-grade modern rifle can be fired twenty-five times per
minute. This gun will pierce 60 pine boards each one inch thick. It
will kill a man at a distance of four miles. A bullet with sufficient
force to pierce a one-inch pine board will kill a man or a horse.
Actual tests show that the best modern rifles will force a bullet
through a target made of the following combination:—fifteen folds of
cow-hide, sixteen one-inch pine boards, and one and four-fifths
inches of hard beech wood. Bullets fired from rifles used in the
American Civil War would do little damage after passing into or
through the bodies of soldiers in the front ranks. Men in the second
and third ranks felt much protected by the bodies of men in front of
them. All is different now. The best modern rifles will force a
bullet through five horses at 27 yards; four horses at 220 yards; two
horses at 1,100 yards. Even as recently as the war of 1870–71 and the
war of 1877–78, bullets from rifles then used in the German army
would not pierce a human skull at a distance of 1,760 yards, one
mile; but with the best modern rifles bullets can be fired through the
thick bones of an ox at a range of 3,850 yards, about two and one-
fifth miles. Experiments demonstrate that the best modern rifles will
force a bullet through three human bodies at a range of 3,900 feet;
and through five human bodies at 1,200 feet. In the American Civil
War bullets for long range work had to be fired high, describing a
long high arch, thus missing all objects on the battlefield between the
gun and the object aimed at. A bullet from a modern rifle will fly
straight across the field for hundreds of yards with no elevation, even
half a mile and more with but little elevation, sweeping the whole
width of the field between the gun and the target.
[71]
The deadliness of the modern rifle can be made clear in another
way. Says Bloch:
“According to the data of the Prussian general Rohne one hundred sharp-
shooters will put a battery out of action, firing at a distance of 88 yards in the
course of two and two-fifths minutes, 1,100 yards in the course of four minutes,
1,320 yards in the course of seven and a half minutes, 1,650 yards in the course of
twenty-two minutes.”
“The new Springfield rifle,” says Fitzmorris,
[72] “has a range of five miles, the
bullet having a velocity of 2,300 feet per second leaving the weapon, or sufficient to
drive it through four and a half feet of white pine.”

The “attractiveness” of war increases, of course, with the
likelihood that the improving marksmanship of the enemy will
increase one’s chances for meeting an “attraction.” The accuracy of
fire is being rapidly improved by tireless target practice in all the
great armies of the world. Says Mr. Wright, Ex-Secretary of War:
[73]
“The results from target practice for the year 1907 and 1908 show that the
average battery-hitting capacity has been rapidly increased.... About sixteen times
as many hits were made in 1906 from the same gun in a given time at the same
range as were made in 1900.”
Under no circumstances should the delicate flesh of a big
business man be exposed to well-aimed bullets fired from a modern
rifle. His flesh is, of course, specially sensitive and precious.
Moreover, it is wholly unnecessary, because he can buy the flesh of a
common working class man for bullet stopper purposes very, very
cheap, as a substitute. That is a much better arrangement, the big
business man thinks, and, of course, the working men agree with the
business men on this matter just as they do on nearly everything else.
The Danish “Rexer” rifle is another instrument ready for use in
war and in pacifying hungry people on strike. The “Rexer” weighs
only eighteen pounds, uses high-power, small-calibre ammunition, is
easily and accurately operated from a handy, portable “rest,” can be
conveniently carried on horseback, rushed up front for short
distances by infantry, can be fired slowly or, if desired, by simply
holding the trigger, 300 times per minute. Equipped with this rifle
one full regiment of soldiers or militiamen, each firing only 75 shots
per minute, could fire into the ranks of wildly hungry strikers or
unemployed one million five hundred thousand prosperity slugs in
twenty minutes. With this gun ten militiamen could “quiet” five
thousand strikers with twenty-five thousand shots in ten minutes.
[74]
With the improved murdering machine called the Maxim gun
700 bullets per minute can be fired, bullets that will kill a man at a
range of one and a half miles, bullets that will pacify a striker at a
range of two miles. The Gatling gun equipped with an electric motor
will discharge 1,800 death-dealing bullets per minute.
[75]
“The Gatling gun,” says Morris,
[76] “... is now, in its perfected form, in use all
over the world. This consists of a cluster of rifle-barrels arranged around a central
shaft and rotated by a crank. The magazine contains a supply of cartridges, which

drop down and are rammed home one after another as the barrels rotate. This, in
the later improved forms, is done with such rapidity that the gun can discharge its
balls at the rate of 3,000 per minute.... Machine guns were designed for service
against bodies of men.”
One modern gatling gun will tear a board fence to pieces a
mile away in four minutes, and at a range of one mile it will
gnaw off a foot-thick pine post in seven minutes.
Don’t enlist till next week.
No wonder the politicians and big business men are “too busy”
to get in line on the firing-line—patriotically. And, of course, they do
not want their sons and sons-in-law to get up close in front of a
belching Gatling gun,—in front of a modern murdering machine—
patriotically.
If a battery of modern gatling guns, concealed, using
smokeless powder, located out of hearing a mile away or
nearer and equipped with a maxim noiseless attachment ,—
should be trained upon a regiment of men, each gun pouring
one thousand bullets per minute into an exposed regiment , the
only observable result would be this: the regiment would
melt, stricken by an unseen, unheard breath of death.
General William P. Duval, of the United States Military Staff and
War College, estimates that the Maxim noiseless attachment for fire-
arms “would produce just as much of a revolution in the art of war as
did the smokeless powder. Psychologically, this new gun would
double the terror inspired by the enemy possessing it.... The fear of
the enemy would ... at least be doubled.”
Ordering the working class to go to war with the present fire-
arms is like ordering a working man to make a gun, load it, dig his
own grave, crawl down into it, and there scream “Hurrah for
death!” and then shoot himself.
Perhaps the best way, at least the safest way, to get an accurate
idea of the effectiveness of the slaughtering machinery of our day is
to read what these guns accomplish in actual operation on the
battlefield, pouring showers, streams, storms of lead and steel into
the ranks of men. The propaganda of peace is powerfully served by
books giving distinct impressions of war as it may be seen (and felt)
on the field where modern arms are used. Some specially excellent

books for such use are: Human Bullets, by T. Sakurai, a Japanese
soldier;
[77]
Port Arthur, A Monster Heroism, by Richard Barry;
[78]
The Red Laugh, by Leonid Andreief;
[79]
The Downfall, by Emile Zola;
[80]
The Future of War, by Jean Bloch.
[81]
Here following are some paragraphs from a vigorous book of
this type, Human Bullets, just noted, passim, which treats of the
Russian-Japanese War:
“The dismal horror of it [battle] can best be observed when the actual struggle
is over. The shadow of impartial Death visits friend and foe alike. When a shocking
massacre is over, countless corpses covered with blood lie flat in the grass and
between the stones. What a deep philosophy their cold faces tell! When we saw the
dead at Nanshan, we could not help covering our eyes in horror and disgust....
Some were crushed in head and face. Their brains mixed with dust and earth. The
intestines were torn out and blood was trickling from them.... Some had
photographs of their wives and children in their bosoms, and these pictures were
spattered with blood.... After this battle we captured some damaged machine-guns.
This fire-arm was most dreaded by us.... It can be made to sprinkle its shots as
roads are watered with a hose. It can cover a larger or smaller space, or fire to
greater or less distance as the gunner wills.... If one becomes the target for this
terrible engine of destruction, three or four shots may go through the same place
making a wound very large.... And the sound it makes ... is like a power-loom. It is
a sickening horrible sound! The Russians regarded this machine as their best
friend. And it certainly did very much as a means of defense. They were
wonderfully clever in the use of this machine. They would wait till our men came
very near them, four or five ken only, and just as we were ready to shout a
triumphant ‘Banzai!’ this dreadful machine would begin to sweep over us the
besom of destruction, the result being hills and mounds of dead. After this battle
we discovered one soldier ... who had no less than forty-seven shots in his body....
Another soldier of a neighboring regiment received more than seventy shots. These
instances prove how destructive is the machine-gun. The surgeons could not locate
so many wounds in one body, and they invented a new name [meaning] ‘whole-
body-honey-combed-with-gun-wounds.’ ... It was invariably this machine-gun that
made us suffer most severely.... The bodies of the brave dead built hill upon hill,
their blood made streams in the valley. Shattered bones, torn flesh, flowing blood,
were mingled with broken swords and split rifles. What could be more shocking
than this scene! We jumped over or stepped on the heaped up corpses and went on
holding our noses. What a grief it was to have to tread on the bodies of our heroic
dead!... What a horrible sight! Their bodies were piled up two or three or even four
deep.... A sad groaning came from the wounded who were buried under the dead.
When this gallant assaulting column had pressed upon the enemy’s forts, stepping
over their dead comrades’ bodies, the terrible and skilful fire of the machine-guns
had killed them all, close by the forts, piling the dead upon the wounded.... After a
while the shells ... began to burst briskly above our heads. Percussion balls fell

around us and hurled up smoke and blood together. Legs, hands and necks were
cut into black fragments and scattered about. I shut my eyes....”
In what unqualified contempt do the masters of the world hold
the toilers whom they send into such blood-wasting hells.
Shakespeare has expressed the masters’ scorn for the common
soldier’s flesh and blood thus:
“Tut, tut; good enough to toss; food for powder; food for powder; they’ll fill a
pit as well as better.”
Here is a glimpse of the battle of Sedan:
[82]
“Let your readers fancy masses of colored rags glued together with blood and
brains, pinned into strange shapes by fragments of bones. Let them conceive men’s
bodies without legs, and legs without bodies, heaps of human entrails attached to
red and blue cloth, and disembowelled corpses in uniform, bodies lying about in all
attitudes with skulls shattered, faces blown off, hips smashed, bones, flesh and gay
clothing all pounded together as if brayed in a mortar, extending for miles, not very
thick in any one place, but recurring perpetually for weary hours, and then they
can not with the most vivid imagination come up to the sickening reality of that
butchery [the battle of Sedan, 1870].”
It is reliably estimated that modern artillery is capable of
doing one hundred and sixteen times more damage than the
artillery used by the German army in 1870. Even the simple
instrument known as the range-finder adds much to effectiveness,—
it enables soldiers to find the range in three minutes and pour death-
dealing missiles into the human targets promptly. This instrument
weighs about sixty pounds and is being rapidly improved.
[83]
A single
battery of modern artillery can hurl 1,450 rounds upon ten regiments
of men while they march one mile and a half. These 1,450 shells
arranged with time fuses to burst at the target would sweep these ten
thousand men with 275,000 bullets and ragged iron scraps. Bloch
says:
[84]
“In 1870 an ordinary shell when it burst broke into from 19 to 30 pieces.
Today it bursts into 240 pieces. Shrapnel in 1870 scattered only 37 death-dealing
missiles. Now it scatters 340. A bomb weighing about 70 pounds, thirty years ago,
would have burst into 42 fragments. Today, when it is charged with peroxilene, it
breaks into 1,200 pieces, each of which is hurled with much greater velocity than
the larger lumps which were scattered by a gunpowder explosion. It is estimated
that such a bomb would destroy all life within a range of 200 metres [about 200

yards] of the point of the explosion.... With the increase in the number of bullets
and fragments, and in the forces which disperse them, increases also the area
which they affect. Splinters and bullets bring death and destruction, not only as in
1870, to those in the vicinity of the explosion, but at a distance of 220 yards away,
and this tho’ fired from a distance of 3,300 yards [about two miles].... In a time
when rifle and artillery fire were beyond comparison weaker than they are now,
those who were left unhelped on the battlefield might hope for safety. But now,
when the whole field of battle is covered with an uninterrupted hail of bullets and
fragments of shells [at night too, with a searchlight equipment], there is little place
for such hope.”
Surely you can easily see that a business man’s soft, fat flesh
won’t do for a bullet-stopper. Here is where the cheap, meek, weak
wage-slaves come in handy—the very stuff for bullet-stoppers.
In connection with this subject, remember that a bullet fired
from a modern rifle or a Gatling gun rotates over 3,800 times per
second. This rotary motion produces the effect of an explosion when
the bullet strikes the stomach, bladder, or heart—where there are
liquids. The effect is horrible; with terrible violence “the liquids are
cast on all sides with the destructive effect of an explosion.”—(Bloch.)
Of course, the business man knows that his flesh should never
be torn with such a horrible thing. He has nothing to fear, however.
He will not go to war. He will send a cheap man, a wage-slave
substitute. He knows it doesn’t make any difference in the case of a
cheap wage-earner who is only a working-class slave.
Ah, my working-class reader, it will make a difference when the
working class become proud enough and shrewd enough to defiantly
declare that it shall be different. The business man is too proud and
shrewd to stand up before these modern flesh-tearing machines.
Don’t be in a hurry to enlist, brother. Wait a few more days. Two
weeks after next will do. The “very best people” in your town are not
hurrying to enlist. Can’t you see the point? Before you enlist, or
before you consent to have your son or younger brother enlist, be
sure to read some books describing real war with improved
murdering machinery. A brilliant war correspondent, Mr. Richard
Barry, thus describes a modern war-storm in his book, descriptive of
the Japanese-Russian War, Port Arthur, A Monster Heroism,
passim:
[85]

“Toward three o’clock a second advance is ordered ... nearly 15,000 men close
in ... now they are through [the wire fence] ... half naked, savage, yelling, even
Japanese stoicism gone. Up to the very muzzles of the first entrenchments they
surge, waver and break like the dash of angry waves against a rock-bound coast....
Officers are picked off by sharp-shooters, as flies are flecked from a molasses
jug.... So up they go, for the tenth time.... Spottsylvania Court House was no more
savage.... Thus hand to hand they grapple, sweat, bleed, shout, expire. The veneer
of culture sloughed as a snake his cast-off skin; they spit and chew, claw and grip
as their forefathers beyond the memory of man.... The cost! The fleeing ones left
five hundred corpses in four trenches. The others paid seven times that price—
killed and wounded—to turn across the page of the world’s warfare that word
Nanshan.... A hospital ship left every day for Japan carrying from 200 to 1,000.... I
lay in the broiling sun watching the soldiers huddle against the barbed-wire, under
the machine guns ... only to melt away like chaff before a wind.... The ‘pioneers’
met with the death-sprinkle of the Maxim [guns] ... a machine rattled and the shale
beyond spattered. I was carried back [in memory] to a boiler factory and an
automatic riveter. Of all war sounds that of the machine gun is least poetic, is most
deadly.... The regiment under fire of the machine guns retreated precipitately,
leaving one-half its number on the slope.... Overwhelmed on all sides, tricked,
defeated, two-thirds of its men killed or wounded ... for out of that [another]
brigade of 6,000 men there are ... uninjured but 640.... Moreover in throwing up
their trenches ... corpses had to be used to improvise the walls.... The dead were
being used to more quickly fill the embankments.... Soon dawn came and with it
hell. The battle was on again. Within his sight were more than a hundred dead and
twice as many wounded. Groans welled up like bubbles from a pot. Arms tossed
feverishly. Backs writhed in despair.... Almost crazed by thirst and hunger, he [a
wounded soldier unattended for days on the battlefield] at length severed the
arteries of one of his comrades newly dead, and lived on [that is, sucked blood
from a comrade’s corpse?]. He found worms crawling in the wounds of his legs. He
tore up the shirt of a corpse and bound them.... How like a living thing a shell
snarls—as some wild beast, in ferocious glee thrusting its cruel fangs in earth and
rock, rending livid flesh with its savage claws, and its fetid breath of poison powder
scorching in the autumn winds.... All the way up the base of the hill ... they were
almost unmolested.... This made them confident. But the Russian general ... had
ordered his men to reserve their fire till we got within close range, and then to give
it to us with machine guns.... The aim was so sure and firing so heavy that nearly
two-thirds of the command was mowed down at once.... Then came the thud of a
bullet. It was a different thud from any we had heard up to that time, and though I
had never before heard bullet strike flesh, I could not mistake the sound. It goes
into the earth wholesome and angry, into flesh ripping and sick with a splash like a
hoof-beat of mud in the face.... The parapets of four forts were alive with bursting
shrapnel. A hundred a minute were exploding on each (at fifteen gold dollars
apiece). The air above them was black with glycerine gases of the motor shells, and
the wind blowing ... held huge quantities of dust.... ‘No, the truth about war can not
be told. It is too horrible. The public will not listen. A white bandage about the

forehead with a strawberry mark in the center—is the picture they want of the
wounded. They won’t let you tell them the truth and show bowels ripped out,
brains spilled, eyes gouged away, faces blanched with horror.... Archibald Forbes
predicted twenty years ago that the time would come when armies would no longer
be able to take their wounded from the field of battle. That day has come. We are
living in it. Wounded have existed—how, God knows—on that field out there
without help for twelve days, while shells and bullets rained about them, and if a
comrade had dared to come to their assistance, his would have been a useless
suicide. The searchlight, enginery of scientific trenches, machine-guns, rifles point
blank at 200 yards with a range of over 2,000—these things have helped to make
war more terrible than ever before in history. Red Cross societies and scientific
text-books—they sell well and look pretty, but as for “humane warfare”—was there
ever put into words a mightier sarcasm!’”
Read all of Mr. Barry’s thrilling book and thus learn why the
haughty “very best people,” who despise the workingmen, socially,
don’t go themselves, up close, to the foul and bloody hell called war.
In the Russian-Japanese war 275 officers and 1,349 men were
treated in a single hospital for insanity. Says Dr. Awtokratow:
“As might be anticipated, in the acute insanities, particularly in neurasthenic
and confusional cases, the influence of the war gave a characteristic color to the
mental symptoms, phases of panic terror, with hallucinations of bursting shells,
pursuing enemies, putrefying corpses, and so forth, being especially frequent.”
[86]
A special despatch in the New York Times of December 11, 1909,
reads:
“A carload of insane soldiers from the Philippines passed through Pittsburgh
[Pennsylvania] today in charge of Major J. M. Kennedy, who was taking them to
Washington from the Pacific Coast.”
[87]
The soldiers of the American Civil War did not use—had not
even heard of—the terrible explosives of our day. Melinite, dynamite,
cordite, indurite, motorite, ecrasite, peroxilene and other explosive
compounds vastly increase the effectiveness of modern arms and in
other ways also multiply the dangers of the modern battlefield.
Mr. Charles Morris describes a dynamite gun as follows:
[88]
“The dynamite gun, compressed air usually being employed, while forty feet
long, has a barrel of three-eighth inch iron, with one-eighth inch brass tubing. The
projectile is of brass, forty inches long, rotation being given it by spiral vanes fixed
to its base. It has a conical cast-iron point, twelve inches long. At a trial in 1895

shells were thrown as far as two thousand five hundred yards, and one containing
one hundred pounds of dynamite was thrown a distance of two miles. Great
accuracy of aim was attained. This dangerous weapon is an object of dread by naval
officers.”
Writing of modern explosives, M. Bloch says, in substance: Such
enormous energy is developed in firing cannon using some of these
explosives that gun, gunners and horses have been dragged a
considerable distance. In the case of a shell exploding by slight
accident due to excitement the body of the gun was broken into
twenty pieces, the carriage and wheels were reduced to a pile of
shapeless steel and wooden splinters; single fragments of the
destroyed gun “weighed 363 pounds and were hurled 99 yards
forward and backward from the place where the gun was fired, and
nearly 108 yards on either side.” He calls special attention to the
dangers due to having such explosives on the field of battle. He says:
[89]
“Notwithstanding the distance between guns, a single explosion might
embrace several guns and all their ammunition.
“Not far from the battery ammunition cases will be placed. If these be not
exploded by the concussion of the atmosphere they may very easily be exploded by
some of the heavy fragments which fall upon them.”
Let us look for a moment at a new kind of storm—a possible
dynamite storm.
A rifle bullet fired into a stick of dynamite will explode the
dynamite. A bullet accidentally fired from a high-power rifle into a
dynamite factory even a mile distant might easily destroy the entire
factory and destroy at the same time all life in and within hundreds
of yards of the factory, because of the highly explosive nature of the
dynamite. The same is true of factories in which other terrible
explosives are being prepared for use on the battlefield. Such
explosive materials in chests on the field of battle create, of course,
enormous danger that thousands may be destroyed with their own
ammunition. One steel bullet, or one shell, fired from a modern
high-power gun into a chest of shells or bombs, loaded as they are
with highly explosive material,—one such bullet or shell thus fired,
might set off a chest of shells and carry death to all around, these
shells, exploding other chests of shells, and these still others,

creating a sort of hell in all directions. The possibilities thus created
by modern highly explosive ammunition materials are terrible,
horrible to contemplate. Suppose ten thousand men on the
battlefield, and suppose an explosion due to a single shell crashing
into a chest of shells. A series of explosions might follow. The first
explosion, caused by one shot, might be communicated from the first
bursting shell to the next, and so on in succession with startling
rapidity. The thundering explosions would cause a cyclone of flying
splinters of wood and steel, scrap-iron, cannon barrels, wagon
wheels, the torn carcasses, the mingled flesh, blood and bones of
dismembered horses and men,—a storm of hopeless and hideous
confusion, a harvest of death utterly indescribable. Thousands of
brave young fellows from the farm, factories, mines and other
industries would thus be practically annihilated with their own
ammunition.
What a place this would be (up close) for “prominent citizens”—
bankers, priests, preachers, bishops, senators, lawyers and “captains
of industry”! A storm of blood and steel! No, brother, oh, no. No
dynamite cyclone for these pulmonary patriots. Hardly. There is
plenty of “common” flesh and “common” blood of the “plain people”
which can be bought cheap, dirt cheap.
Reflect for a moment on the horrible possibilities of the airship
carrying a light machine gun with a good supply of ammunition, or
carrying 1,000 or 1,500 pounds of dynamite aloft over an army, a
city, or a fleet. The airship, though still very new, is already
sufficiently developed to make it practicable to work wholesale ruin
in this way. In March, 1909, Count Zeppelin’s dirigible airship, 445
feet long, 50 feet in diameter, carrying three motors, a searchlight,
and twenty-five people, fifteen of them soldiers, made a hundred-
and-fifty-mile trip at the rate of almost forty miles an hour. Hudson
Maxim, the inventor and expert in high explosives, torpedo boat-
destroyers, noiseless gun attachments, and the like, speaks thus of
the airship as a fighting machine:
[90]
“The great field for operations with high explosives carried in airships will be
the raiders’ outfit. Aerial raiders would be able to do wide destruction on
unprotected inland cities and towns, destroying railroads, blowing up bridges,
arsenals, public stores, powder magazines and powder mills, and in levying
ransom on moneyed institutions.... In future wars, the fronts of battle will be

skyline and opposing skyline, and over the stupendous arena missiles of death will
shriek and roar, while sharp-shooters with silent rifles will make ambush in copse
and every hedge and highway.”
Now let us look for a moment at the greater cannon.
“A day will come,” said Victor Hugo,
[91] “when a cannon will be exhibited in
the public museums, just as an instrument of torture is now, and people will be
astonished how such thing could have been.”
The new 14–inch gun fires a 1,600–pound projectile. Used at its
maximum capacity it puts itself out of commission in six and one-
half hours because of the frightful wear of the gun’s heavy charges
upon itself.
[92]
The 16–inch seacoast gun exhibited at the World’s Fair
in 1904 is officially described as having a “muzzle energy of
projectile ... 76,904 foot tons.”
“The Masonic Temple in Chicago, until recently the largest office building in
the world, weighs 30,000 tons. In firing a 14–inch gun, sufficient energy is
developed to lift the Masonic Temple two feet in one second. The force behind a
single eight-gun broadside from 14–inch guns would raise that building sixteen
feet in a single second.”
[93]
The United States Government has a 16–inch cannon; it can
throw a shot weighing 2,000 pounds to an extreme range of twenty-
one miles, and has an effective range of twelve miles. It has been
fired four times.
And now think of a murdering machine 50 feet long, weighing
260,000 pounds, consuming 612 pounds of smokeless powder per
charge, firing a projectile weighing 2,400 pounds through 23½
inches of Krupp steel armor, and having a range of almost nine miles
—a monster butchering machine. The United States Government
exhibited such a gun at the World’s Fair, at St. Louis, in 1904,—
exhibited this hell’s masterpiece with pride, true, Christian, savage
pride.
This huge gun was exhibited—shrewdly.
What for?
Many youths from Christian homes looked upon this mechanical
monster and themselves became monsters—in their hearts—eager to
butcher, “not only willing, but anxious to fight.”

Human slaughter has become a science. The machines are
perfect and ready, all ready, for the working class to use—on the
working class.

Section two: The silent destroyer—
disease.
The barking rifle, the snarling Gatling gun, and the booming
cannon—these have also on the battlefield a foul and powerful
confederate, Disease. Disease joins in to poison the blood the guns
do not spill. On this important matter the reader will appreciate the
expert testimony here offered.
“In every great campaign,” says L. L. Seaman,
[94] “an army faces two enemies:
First, the armed force of the opposing foe with his various machines for human
destruction, met at intervals in open battles; and, second, the hidden foe, always
lurking in every camp, the spectre that gathers its victims while the soldier
slumbers in the barracks or bivouacs, the greater silent foe—disease. Of these
enemies, the history of warfare for centuries shows that in extended campaigns,
the first or open enemy kills twenty per cent. of the total mortality; while the
second, or silent, enemy kills eighty per cent. In other words, out of every hundred
men who fall in war, twenty die from casualties of battle, while eighty perish from
disease.... It is in these conditions that we find the true hell of war.... Health alone,
however, is no guarantee against the insidious attacks of the silent foe that lingers
in every camp and bivouac. It is this foe, as the records of war for the past two
hundred years have proved, that is responsible for four times as many deaths as
the guns of the enemy, to say nothing of the vast number temporarily invalided or
discharged as unfit for duty.... In the Russo-Turkish war, the deaths from the battle
casualties were 20,000, while those from disease were 80,000. In our great Civil
conflict ... 400,000 were sacrificed to disease to 100,000 from battle casualties. In
a recent campaign of the French in Madagascar 14,000 were sent to the front, of
whom 29 were killed in action, and over 7,000 perished from preventable diseases.
In the Boer War in South Africa the English losses were ten times greater from
disease than from the bullets of the enemy. In our recent war with Spain fourteen
lives were needlessly sacrificed to ignorance and incompetency for every man who
died on the firing line or from results of wounds.
“In our Spanish Army we had:
170,000 men,
156,000 hospital admissions in three months,
3,976 dead.
“The remainder were mustered out, most of them, in shrunken and shriveled
condition which the reader probably remembers. Our Army of Invasion numbered

20,000; in 1908 there were 24,000 pensioners; of these 24,000, over 19,000 are
invalids and survivors of the war; and there are over 18,000 claims pending.”
Here is Theodore Roosevelt’s testimony:
[95]
“Our army [in Cuba] included the great majority of the regulars, and was,
therefore, the flower of the American force.... Every officer other than myself
except one was down with sickness at one time or another.... Very few of the men
indeed retained their strength and energy ... there were less than fifty per cent. who
were fit for any kind of work.”
Disease as a destroyer appears in the data furnished by C. Goltz,
a few lines of which interesting facts run thus:
[96]
“It is horrible to see trains packed full with sick soldiers sent away from the
army.... The loss from sickness is almost incredible, and one example is sufficient
to prove that these losses may put all success at stake. The sanitary conditions of
the German army in France in 1870 was very favorable; there were no dangerous
infectious diseases. Nevertheless, 400,000 men were entered at the hospitals
during the campaign, in addition to those dangerously wounded.”
Anitchkow thus testifies:
[97]
“In such a rich country as France, and in such a splendid climate, the army
lost four times more from disease than from battles. [Franco-Prussian War, 1870–
71.] It is evident that the force of modern arms ... presents less danger than
infectious diseases and other sicknesses inseparable from the rough life of large
camps.”
[98]
An anonymous author, quoted on a preceding page, calls
attention
[99]
to a matter of great importance in this connection,
namely, the decreasing opportunity to carry the wounded off the
battlefield and the consequent increasing terrors for the men who lie
torn, feverish and unattended on the field lighted at night with
searchlights and raked with machine guns, not only during the day,
but also at night, making prompt rescue and surgical attention
impossible. He writes:
“One of the most cruel features in future battles will be the contrast between
the great improvement in medical service, and the increasing difficulty, despite the
Red Cross, of giving aid to the wounded.... His conclusion [the conclusions of Dr.
Bardeleben, who was Surgeon-General of the Prussian Army during the Franco-
Prussian War] was that the whole system of carrying away the wounded on litters

during the battle must be abandoned as altogether impracticable. This I believe has
proved to be generally true. And now battles last a week or ten days! Something, of
course, can be done under cover of the night—though the custom of fighting at
night prevails more and more.... It is probable that, in spite of all improvements in
medicine and ambulance, the sufferings of the wounded in the great battles in
Manchuria and at the siege of Port Arthur have been as great as, if not greater
than, those of any war of recent times.”
Here it is to be emphasized by the young man who is thinking
of joining the army that in spite of the loud outcry against the poor
fellows of our army in the Cuban war in the way of criminally
inefficient medical service, our great and extremely patriotic
statesmen who love the common soldiers so dearly have in the
twelve years since the war made no adequate preparation to
prevent another such outrage. Let the following stand as evidence of
this statement:
[100]
“Under the existing organization it would be impossible to prevent a
breakdown of the Medical Department in case of a war involving the mobilization
of the volunteer forces, nor would it be possible to spare the necessary Regular
medical officers to apply in those voluntary forces the modern sanitary measures
so vital to the health and efficiency of the troops, without which unnecessary
suffering is produced and disaster is invited.”
Thus also the New York Times:
[101]
“The admission rate into the hospitals for the American Army is [now in the
time of peace] 1,250 per 1,000 each year. The British Annual notes that this
enormous rate is well above that for the French, German and Austrian armies,
while the hospital lists for the British Army show a rate of but 324 per thousand.”
However, all this, so far as personal danger is concerned, is of
small importance to the leading citizens, because they—these
leaders—will never lead or be led to war. They have nothing to fear
from hissing bullet, burning fever, and the death-grip of devouring
diseases in war. The plain, cheap wage-slave, the industrial draft-
horses, the common men forced to keep books for a poor little salary,
the fifteen-dollar-a-week clerks, the blistered miners, the tanned
railroad men, the grease-stained machinists, the soil-stained farm
toilers, these, all these and many others must learn one thing
distinctly, and that thing is this: Modern human butchering
machinery has been so highly developed, and disease in war is so

hideous, that “our best citizens,” “our very best people,” “our most
successful men,” politely (and intelligently) decline all “glorious
opportunities” to have their smooth fat bodies exposed to the steel-
belching machines, or have their health ruined on the battlefield and
in the “dead-house” called a military hospital. The common earth
must not drink up their rich aristocratic blood; no rough army
surgeon shall carve and slice and saw the “leading citizens” and
carelessly toss their severed arms and legs into a bloody heap of flesh
as a butcher tosses scraps and trimmings from steaks and chops
from his cutting block. Why, certainly not. It should be remembered
that such people as bankers, big manufacturers, mine-owners,
Senators, Congressmen, great editors and the like, do not have much
physical exercise and at the same time they eat daintier food. They
are not strong in muscle, except for golf, horseback riding,
swimming, hunting trips, mountain climbing. They are softer in flesh
than the wage-earner. They belong to the “very best families,” and
hence their flesh is finer, their “blue” blood is richer and more sacred
than the wage-earner’s cheap red ooze. They are the social
thoroughbreds, and the thoroughbreds believe that the
thoroughbreds should be kept well out of danger, while just the
common social draft-horses are rushed to the front where the
modern butchering machinery is ready to mow down men by the
thousands and befouling disease is ready to rot the unspilt blood.
My working class brothers, mark it well: In the gilded, palatial
homes of the industrial masters, in their club houses, in their elegant
business offices, in the legislative halls where “statesmen” meet,—
there the so-called best people, the still-fed, stall-fed snobs and
Caesars of society never for one moment consider the matter of going
themselves to the front, never for an instant plan to go themselves
into the cyclones of lead and steel or into the death-grasp of disease
in war.
Never!
To them the idea is so—well, so unkind—also ridiculous.
Their minds are made up.
They will not go.
But you, you brothers of the working class, you who toil on and
on for cheap clothing, cheap shelter and cheap food—you whose very

lives are bought and sold on the installment plan, for wages day by
day—you who are forced to become the socially despised human
oxen—you—you will be forced to the front, blinded with flattery and
confused with gay-colored flags and booming drums—you will
virtually be forced to cut your own throats—forced to blow out your
own brains and blood with these modern steel destroyers, and forced
to expose your lives to the grim curse, Disease. You will groan and
scream and slowly rot and die in a dingy hospital tent or shed far
from those you love—laughed at (secretly) by the prominent people
who have already made up their minds not to go to war.
How long, O brothers of the working class, how long can you be
seduced to slay yourselves?
Leading citizens will bring about and brag about the wars.
But you, my brothers, will fight the wars.
Grim Disease waits ready to give you her slimy embrace.
The cold steel machines are ready—ready for heated men.
Keep cool.
Beware of the “war fever.”
Notice carefully:—Your wealthy employers are not enlisting
for the firing line. They are immune from the fool’s fever.
Wait a little before you enlist. Think it over—till week after next.
You are safe—(just think of it)—absolutely safe from
death in the next war—if you can keep off the firing line till
the “prominent gentlemen” of your community have been on
the firing-line for thirty days.
Once again, brother, admit this thought to your brain:—The
working class must be the protectors of their own class—always.
[102]

Section three: Peaceful slaughter—in
industry.
Surely it is bad enough to have the workingmen slaughtered
while on the battlefield where each is armed and has his heart full of
stupid hate for his fellow workingman of some other country. But it
is outrageous that men, women, and little children should be killed
and wounded by the hundreds of thousands every year in our own
country while they are engaged in the useful, peaceful pursuits of
industry. Let us briefly consider this matter.
The owner of a chattel-slave worker is careful to PROTECT the
chattel-slave from accident, from sickness and from death. The slave-
owner buys the slave, buys his whole life, at one purchase; and he is
interested, therefore, in having the slave alive and well and sound as
long as possible in order to get out of the slave as much labor-power
as possible.
But the capitalist employer of the WAGE-slave worker does not
buy the wage-earner for life; he buys the wage-earner, the wage-
slave, IN SECTIONS; that is, for a month, or a week or a day at a time—
eight or ten hours’ labor-power per day. Thus there is no risk for the
capitalist if the wage-earner falls sick and dies; he is not responsible
for the wage-earner’s health. If the grinding toil ages or sickens the
wage-earner it is nothing to the employer of the wage-slaves. There
are plenty more wage-slaves eager to sell their labor-power if some
get sick or wounded, or die.
Of course it costs the employer, it is expensive to him, it reduces
the precious surplus,—it cuts down the profits on the labor-power he
buys for wages—to ventilate his factory perfectly, to keep it clean of
dust, foul odors and poisonous gases, to arrange safeguards about
dangerous machinery in order to protect the wage-earners against
accident and sickness. Railway companies, for example, are very slow
to provide all possible safeguards to protect employees—simply
because it is expensive, cuts down profits, reduces the surplus value.
Human life, however, is very cheap under the wage-system. Of
course a safety device, a ventilator, might save a human arm or a

human life—of a wage-earner; but the life-saving arrangement costs
quite a bit of money. A new human arm, another human life
(another worker) can easily be found to take the place of the lost arm
or the destroyed life—and without extra expense to the capitalist
employer. There are plenty of wage-slaves waiting ’round anxious to
be hired, and thus a WAGE-slave limb or life can be replaced as easily
as a wooden plug or a broken wheel in a machine, and with no such
loss as there would be if his workers were CHATTEL-slaves. Thus the
wage-slave plan is cheaper—more profitable—and surely more
convenient.
You can see that—can’t you?
Of course “it is cruel”—there is no sentiment in such a
procedure. But that does not matter, under capitalism: “Business is
business”—and “there is no sentiment in business,” we are assured of
that by leading Christian business men.
Hence everywhere there is vicious neglect by the capitalist
employers in the matter of protecting the health, limb and life of the
WAGE-workers, the WAGE-slaves. The wage-system is in this respect
far more cruel and murderous than the chattel-slave system. Of
course it seems impossible that capitalism is more inhumanly
scornful of human life than was chattel slavery. But here following is
some evidence to show how the greed for profits under the wage-
system results in the slaughter of men, women and children—far
worse than under the chattel-slave system, even far heavier slaughter
than in actual war, real war in which even wholesale butchery with
sword, rifle and cannon means magnificent success.
“It is the common consensus of opinion,” says The New York Independent,
[103]
“among investigators that industrial casualties in this nation number more than
500,000 yearly. Dr. Josiah Strong estimates the number at 564,000. As there are
525,600 minutes in a year, it may readily be seen that every minute (day and
night) our industrial system sends to the grave-yard or to the hospital a human
being, the victim of some accident inseparable from his toil. We cry out against the
horrors of war.... But the ravages ... of Industrial warfare are far greater than those
of armed conflict. The number of killed or mortally wounded (including deaths
from accidents, suicides and murders, but excluding deaths from disease) in the
Philippine War from February 4, 1899, to April 30, 1902, was 1,573. These fatal
casualties were spread over a period of three years and three months. But one coal
mine alone in one year furnished a mortality more than 38 per cent. in excess of
this.

“The Japanese war is commonly looked upon as the bloodiest of modern wars.
According to the official statement of the Japanese Government, 46,180 Japanese
were killed, and 10,970 died of wounds. Our industrial war shows a greater
mortality year by year.
“But we are all of us more familiar with the Civil War, and we know what
frightful devastation it caused in households North and South. It was, however, but
a tame conflict compared with that which rages today, and which we call ‘peace.’
The slaughter of its greatest battles are thrown in the shade by the slaughter which
particular industries inflict today. Ask any schoolboy to name three of the bloodiest
battles of that war, and he will probably name Gettysburg, Chancellorsville and
Chickamauga. The loss on both sides was:
Killed.Wounded.
“Gettysburg 5,662 27,203
Chancellorsville 3,271 18,843
Chickamauga 3,924 23,362

Total 12,857 69,408
“But our railroads, state and interstate, and our trolleys in one year equal this
record in the number of killings and double it in the number of woundings....
“But whose interest is it that the lives of the workers shall be ... guarded? The
employer class has no material interest in the matter. The worker is ‘free,’ legally,
to refuse to work under dangerous conditions. If, economically, he must accept
work under these conditions [or starve], that is another matter.”
Another witness
[104]
sets forth the murderous carelessness of the
lives of the workers in modern industry thus:
“In Allegheny County, Pa., including Pittsburgh, 17,700 persons were killed or
injured last year in the mills and on the railroads or in some of the workshops of
that interesting Inferno. This number has been recorded and reported, and there
were, of course, others whose deaths or injuries were not reported.... Life and limb
are needlessly sacrificed—hundreds of thousands of lives every decade. This is one
of the penalties that we pay for quick industrial success.”
“Quick industrial success” is good, a fine phrase indeed—in the
mining industry, for example, in which in the United States from
1889 to 1909 over 30,000 men were killed.
[105]
If a war were on in the
Philippines and 1500 of our men were being slaughtered every year
the generals and captains in charge of our forces would be regarded
as failures. Yet the captains of industry, in the capitalist
administration of the mining industry alone, in the United States

sacrifice more than 1500 brave men of the great industrial army
every year.
That the modern industry, inspired by insane lust for profits for
part of the people rather than by welfare for all the people—that this
modern industry is far more deadly than real war on a large scale—
this seems impossible. Yet it is not at all an impossibility; it is reality;
it is experience; it is fact; it is the savagery of capitalist civilization.
All the profit-mongers’ proud and stupid boasting of the
noble triumphs of capitalist “philanthropy” can not hush the
loud-shouting fact that the sickle of death cuts down the
toilers far more rapidly while peacefully on duty in the
industries than it slashes down in time of war on the firing-
line and in the military hospital—far more than the rifle,
sword, bayonet , and disease combined.
This is true, horrible and important. And because it is true,
horrible and important, all doubt concerning the matter should, as
far as possible, be dispelled. And, therefore, still more evidence is
here offered to make the matter clear.
The eminent publicist, Dr. Josiah Strong, testifies:
[106]
“We might carry on a half dozen Philippine wars for three-
quarters of a century with no larger number of total casualties than
take place yearly in our peaceful industries.
“Taking the lowest of our three estimates of industrial
accidents, the total number of casualties suffered by our
industrial army in one year is equal to the average annual
casualties of our Civil War, plus those of the Philippine War,
plus those of the Russian-Japanese War.
“Think of carrying on three such wars at the same time, world
without end.”
Losses from sickness in war and from sickness contracted in
industry are, it should be remembered, not included in Dr. Strong’s
calculations.
President Roosevelt in his Annual Message of 1907 bluntly
stated the facts as follows:
“Industry in the United States now exacts ... a far heavier
toll of death than all of our wars put together.... The number
of deaths in battle in all the foreign wars put together for

the last century and a quarter, aggregate considerably less
than one year ’s death record for our industries.”
It is inevitable that this slaughter of the toilers both in industry
and in war will work rapidly and disastrously against the general
blood-vigor of society. Serious and conservative students of the
blood-letting and blood-weakening tendencies of capitalistic society
are beginning to sound the alarm. The startlingly visible results in
British society serve as excellent illustrative material. For more than
two hundred years vast numbers of the soundest, strongest British
workingmen have been slaughtered or weakened in war; and for
more than a hundred years (the era of intense machine production)
the British workingmen, women, and children have been cruelly
overworked, underfed and ill-clad in the struggle for existence—in
the industrial civil war called capitalism. And here are some of the
results:
“In Manchester,” says Thomas Burke,
[107] “out of 12,000 would-be recruits
[for the South African War], 8,000 were rejected as virtually invalids, and only
1,200 could be regarded as fit in all respects.... General Sir Frederick Maurice
declared that, according to the best evidence he could obtain, it was the fact that
for many years out of every five recruits only two were found to be physically fit
after two years’ service.... It was, indeed, a startling fact that 60 per cent. of the
men offering themselves for active service were physically unfit.”
Thus the well-known preacher and lecturer, Dr. Newell Dwight
Hillis, of Brooklyn, New York:
[108]
“Many forms of public charity, from a scientific viewpoint, seem a curse, while
wars and many industries seem the enemies of the blood of the nation.... The
national physique has suffered an incalculable loss. In one factory town [in
England] the military commission, examining young men for the South African
War, rejected nineteen out of twenty, because of some defect in the eyes or lungs or
legs.”
It is to be remembered that many thousands of men who report
for examination as candidates for military service are so evidently
defective that no formal examination is necessary for their prompt
rejection. It is also important to consider the fact that there are many
thousands of men who would gladly join the army, but make no
application, knowing well, in advance, that they would be rejected as
unfit. Thus the statistics showing that a large per cent. of those

reporting to the military department as candidates for the service are
“rejected on examination,” even these statistics do not fully reveal
the unfortunate condition of affairs. In ten of the largest cities of
England and Scotland in the year ending September 30, 1907, there
were 34,808 applicants for admission to the army. Forty-seven per
cent. of these applicants were rejected as physically unfit.
[109]
Of
course, the percentage of rejections would have been far heavier if all
had applied who would have been glad to join the army.
The next generation of English working-class people will
probably be far more physically defective than the present
generation.
In Westham public school (London) it was recently found:
“... That 87 per cent. of the infants and 70 per cent. of the older children were
below the normal physique. These were all children of the dockers.
“Neglecting the kindly and assuageable problem of rural poverty, we seem
driven to the conclusion that some seven and a half millions of people are at the
present moment in England living below the poverty line—a problem which if only
definitely realized in its squalid immensity is surely enough to stagger
humanity.”
[110]
In England, because of the physical decline of the working class,
the Government has so much difficulty in finding a sufficient number
of sound men to fill the ranks that it has been necessary, since the
Battle of Waterloo, to repeatedly lower the physical requirements for
enlistment.
Thus do our brothers and sisters of the working class decay—
driven to death—in the mills and mines and other industries. And in
many parts of the world the fleshless skulls of the toilers slaughtered
on the battlefield stare and grin at the present generation of workers
decaying, dying in the capitalist industrial warfare. The president of
Stanford University, Dr. David Starr Jordan, writes:
[111]
“It is claimed on authority ... that the French soldier of today is nearly two
inches shorter than the soldier of a century ago.... There [in Novara, Italy] the
farmers have ploughed up skulls of men till they have piled up a pyramid ten to
twelve feet high.... These were the skulls of the young men of Savoy, Sardinia, and
Austria,—men of eighteen to thirty-five, without physical blemish so far as may
be.... You know the color that we call magenta, the hue of the blood that flowed out
over the olive trees.... Go over Italy as you will, there is scarcely a spot not
crimsoned with the blood of France, scarcely a railway station without its pile of

French skulls. You can trace them across to Egypt, to the foot of the Pyramids. You
will find them in Germany, at Jena and Leipzig, at Lützen and Bautzen and
Austerlitz. You will find them in Russia, at Moskow; in Belgium, at Waterloo. ‘A
boy can stop a bullet as well as a man,’ said Napoleon; and with the rest are the
skulls of boys ... ‘born to be food for powder,’ was the grim epigram of the day.”
This vast crime, this phase of hell for the working class, is well
stated by J. H. Rose:
[112]
“Amidst the ever deepening misery they [Napoleon’s army]
struggled on, until of the 600,000 who had proudly crossed the
Niemen for the conquest of Russia, only 20,000 famished, frost-
bitten, unarmed spectres staggered [back] across the bridge of Lorno
in the middle of December.... Despite the loss of the most splendid
army ever marshalled by man, Napoleon ... strained every effort to
call the youth of the empire to arms.... The mighty swirl of the
Moskow campaign sucked in 150,000 lads under twenty YEARS
OF AGE INTO THE VORTEX.... The peasants gave up their sons as
food for cannon.... In less than half a year after the loss of half a
million men a new army nearly as large was marshalled.... But the
majority were young.... Soldiers were wanting, youths were dragged
forth.”
President Jordan, quoting Mr. Otto Seek, said:
[113]
“Napoleon in a series of years seized all the youth of high stature and left them
scattered over many battlefields, so that the French people who followed them are
mostly men of smaller stature. More than once in France since Napoleon’s time
has the [physical] limit been lowered.”
The ancient Romans, a large robust people, spilt so much of the
best blood of the best men in their “glorious” wars that their modern
descendants, the Italians, are conspicuously inferior, physically, to
their ancient ancestors; comparatively they are stunted. The
“glorious” victories of Caesar alone cost more than a million picked
men on the battlefield.
[114]
These vast, incalculable wrongs thrust into the lives of the
working class—will they ever be righted?
Day dawns even now.
The lust for blood and profits will yet be cheated of its victories
and victims—in the hastening future.

Our working class brothers in Europe are already rousing and
shaking off the cruel spell of the gilt-braided butchers and silk-hatted
capitalist statesmen and industrial Neros; the toilers in Europe are
learning to seize the powers of government in self-defense,—quietly
and legally, of course, but—DEFIANTLY.
[115]
We—driven, robbed and despised in the factory; betrayed,
buncoed and slaughtered on the battlefield; voiceless in the control
of industry, voiceless in the capitalist political party conventions,
voiceless in the judiciary, voiceless in state and national legislatures,
voiceless in the state and national executive councils, ridiculed by
“high society,” scorned everywhere—we also must learn to defend
ourselves. We must seize the powers of government and defend our
class—everywhere.
Brothers, my American brothers, brothers of all the world,—if
you have minds exercise them—for your own class; if you have pride,
show it—for your class; if you have loyalty, prove it—for your class; if
you have power, use it—use it in self-defense—for your class; if you
can climb, why, climb, united with your class altogether—climb out
of hell, the hell of capitalism.
Divided, your masters despise you.
United, your masters dread you.
Get together, brothers, and get up off your knees.
Refuse to go to hell—the hell of war.
Refuse to stay in hell—the hell of capitalist industry.
Unite! For peace and freedom—unite!
Form, toilers, form!
Organize!
A solid front on the battlefield—of industry.
A solid front on the battlefield—of politics.
A suggestion: Let each one of a hundred thousand men and
women patiently and repeatedly bear light to the brain of one new
man or woman each month for two years, and teach each new man
to become a teacher of other men and women. Get some good book,
a book that burns, a book that kindles a passion for freedom and
justice; and lend that book to a new person each month till the book
is worn out.
[116]

Light a lamp in your neighbor’s brain.
Strike a fire in your neighbor’s heart.
Revolutionize him.
Dare.
Today.
Society is, and always will be—as free as the majority have sense
enough and pride enough to make it; or as tyrannical as the majority
are meek enough to permit it to be.
Conditions always express the will or lack of will of the majority.

CHAPTER SIX.
Tricked to the Trenches—Then Snubbed.
“On the whole, the patriotism of the average citizen rises and falls inversely
with the Income Tax; ...”
[117]
Imagine J. P. Morgan, rifle in hand, doing picket duty on a dark,
sleet-drizzling night. Imagine J. Ogden Armour, George Gould and
Thomas F. Ryan with heavy shovels digging trenches, stopping at
noon to eat some salt pork, embalmed beef and stale crackers.
Imagine Reggie Vanderbilt as a freighter hurrying rations to the front
and taking care of six mud-covered horses at night. Imagine the
strong younger John D. Rockefeller on the firing line with his breast
exposed to the hellish rain of lead from a Gatling gun. Yes, indeed,—
just imagine a whole regiment of big bankers and manufacturers
dressed in khaki, breakfasting on beans and bacon, then rushing
sword in hand to storm a cannon-bristled fort belching fire and lead
and steel into their smooth, smug faces—for fifty cents a day.
Brother, when you are ordered to the front just glance around
and notice the noisily patriotic gentlemen who keep to the rear—at
home where it is safe and delightfully quiet. These patriots in the
rear will sweetly say, “See you later!” If you ever get back from the
war, they will see you when they flatteringly give you a “welcome
home.” Mark you: When war breaks out these “best people” do not
say, “Come on, boys, come on—follow us.” Hardly. It is “Go on, boys,
go ahead, go right on. We will be with you.” That is, they will be with
you as far as the railway station, and after that these “prominent
people” will give the “brave boys” absent treatment.
The man in the factory and in the mine is the “hand,” the “hired
hand,” of capitalist society; and when he shoulders a rifle for military
service he becomes the steel-toothed jaw of capitalist society.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Public Law Adjudication In Common Law Systems Process And Substance Process And Substance John Bell Mark Elliott Jason Ne Varuhas Philip Murray Editors

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Public Law Adjudication In Common Law Systems Process And Substance Process And Substance John Bell Mark Elliott Jason Ne Varuhas Philip Murray Editors

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79