| 词条 | M v Home Office |
| 释义 |
| name = M v Home Office | court = House of Lords | image = File:Official portrait of Lord Baker of Dorking crop 1.jpg | caption = Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary at the time. | date decided = | full name = | citations = [1993] UKHL 5, [1994] 1 AC 377 | judges = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Rule of law }} M v Home Office [1993] UKHL 5 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law. FactsAn action for judicial review of the Home Secretary was brought by M, a deported teacher from Zaire. The Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, had been told by the High Court to return a Zaire teacher to the United Kingdom on refugee status, after being deported. JudgmentCourt of AppealNolan LJ held that the teacher had to be returned, and said the following.[1] {{quote|The proper constitutional relationship of the executive with the courts is that the courts will respect all acts of the executive within its lawful province, and that the executive will respect all decisions of the courts as to what its lawful province is.}}House of LordsThe House of Lords held that the Home Secretary acted in contempt of court, and had to return the teacher. Lord Templeman said the following. {{quote|For the purpose of enforcing the law against all persons and institutions ... the courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of court ...... My Lords, the argument that there is no power to enforce the law by injunction or contempt proceedings against a minister in his official capacity would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf and on principle, I am satisfied that injunctions and contempt proceedings may be brought against the minister in his official capacity and that in the present case the Home Office for which the Secretary of State was responsible was in contempt. I am also satisfied that Mr. Baker was throughout acting in his official capacity, on advice which he was entitled to accept and under a mistaken view as to the law. In these circumstances I do not consider that Mr. Baker personally was guilty of contempt. I would therefore dismiss this appeal substituting the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as being the person against whom the finding of contempt was made.}} See also{{Clist rule of law}}
Notes{{refs|2}}ReferencesExternal links 1 : United Kingdom constitutional case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。