R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport
This article aims to address the issue of R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, which has gained special relevance in recent times due to its impact on different areas of society. Since R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, debates and controversies have arisen that have captured the attention of experts and the general public, generating an increasing interest in understanding their implications and consequences. Likewise, R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport has been the subject of numerous studies and investigations that seek to elucidate its multiple facets and delve into its influence in various areas. In this sense, essential aspects related to R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport will be addressed, with the purpose of offering a comprehensive and updated vision on this topic.
| R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport | |
|---|---|
_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport&sq=R_(HS2_Action_Alliance_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport&lang=en&file=File:StroodCTRL2.JPG) | |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Citation(s) | UKSC 3 |
| Keywords | |
| Constitution, parliamentary sovereignty | |
R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport UKSC 3 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
Facts
The HS2 Action Alliance, Buckinghamshire County Council, Hillingdon London Borough Council, and Heathrow Hub Ltd claimed that the Secretary of State should have done a strategic environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42 before the government's 'Next Steps' Command Paper on HS2. This proposed a hybrid bill procedure in Parliament for constructing the High Speed 2 railway from London to Birmingham (phase 1), and then on to Manchester as well as Sheffield and Leeds (phase 2). The plaintiffs argued the Directive should be interpreted in line with the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 (the Aarhus Convention 2001) art 7. They also argued that a hybrid bill procedure did not comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU because the party whipped the vote, and limited opportunity to examine the information in Parliament. This was argued to fail the test for proper public participation under EIAD 2011 article 6(4).
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the UK has constitutional instruments that the courts would not interpret to be abrogated without close scrutiny.
207. The United Kingdom has no written constitution, but we have a number of constitutional instruments. They include Magna Carta, the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights and (in Scotland) the Claim of Rights Act 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union 1707. The European Communities Act 1972, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 may now be added to this list. The common law itself also recognises certain principles as fundamental to the rule of law. It is, putting the point at its lowest, certainly arguable (and it is for United Kingdom law and courts to determine) that there may be fundamental principles, whether contained in other constitutional instruments or recognised at common law, of which Parliament when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 did not either contemplate or authorise the abrogation.
See also
References
- ^ Topham, Gwyn (22 January 2014). "HS2: supreme court rejects appeal by opponents of high–speed rail link". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
Judges unanimously dismissed claims that the government was failing to comply with the strategic environmental assessment directive, and that the hybrid bill before parliament would breach the environmental impact assessment.
- ^ HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor UKSC 3 at para. 207, 2 All ER 109, WLR 324, PTSR 182, 1 WLR 324, WLR(D) 28, UKSC 3 (2014), Supreme Court (UK)