Find and read this case, Shamima Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission, Secretary of State for the Home Department v The UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, The National Council for Civil Liberties (”Liberty”) [2020] EWCA Civ 918, 2020 WL 04004293.
Now follow these instructions:
i. Summarise the case. In doing so, identify the two live issues being considered by the Court of Appeal. So far as is possible, use your own words rather than quotations. Make sure that you use the full judgment as the basis of your summary, not a newspaper report or headnote.
ii. Focussing on the issue that was discussed at greatest length in the case, explain the interpretive approach of the Court. You may refer to the traditional ‘canons’ of interpretation and the new purposive approach. It would also be helpful to refer to Adams and Brownsword’s typology of judicial approaches. Remember to give evidence from the case to support your judgment.
iii. Identify briefly what you consider to be the fundamental moral issue(s) in the case. Which decision ought the Court to have made regarding these issues, and why? Support your answer with reference to the moral theories and concepts of justice studied on the course.
In your answer, remember to support your discussion/evaluation/analysis with reference to the material you have learned in the first and second section of the course, on the Concept of Law and Moral and Legal Theory respectively.
We recommend that you treat all parts of the question as deserving of roughly equal attention. In particular, do not use so many words on part i) that you have insufficient space to address the other elements of the question in sufficient depth.
