1.Easy
The Salisbury convention in the UK means that the House of Lords:
- ADoes not block government bills carrying out manifesto commitments
- BMay permanently veto bills that alter the constitution of the United Kingdom
- CMust approve all money bills within one week
- DElects the Speaker of the House of Commons
2.Easy
Which right is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
- ARight to marry
- BFreedom of expression
- CRight to life
- DProhibition of torture
3.Easy
In the UK, the royal prerogative is:
- AA set of powers conferred on the Prime Minister by the Constitutional Reform Act
- BA set of powers of the Crown recognised by common law, not created by statute
- CThe right of judges to overrule Parliament
- DThe monarch's personal right to veto any Act
4.Medium
In Lingens v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held that politicians:
- AMust tolerate wider criticism than private individuals
- BAre fully protected from any criticism
- CCannot sue for defamation at all
- DHave no rights under Article 10
5.Medium
Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) imposes on states a positive obligation to:
- AGuarantee that no citizen ever dies
- BAbolish all police forces
- CGuarantee free housing and healthcare to everyone within their territory
- DTake appropriate steps to safeguard lives within their jurisdiction
6.Medium
A chief constable is dismissed without being told the charges or given a chance to respond. In Ridge v Baldwin, the House of Lords held:
- AOnly Parliament could review the decision
- BThe dismissal was valid, because the police had no contract
- CThe dismissal was valid, as it was an administrative decision
- DThe dismissal was void for breach of natural justice
7.Hard
After a court makes a declaration of incompatibility, section 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 allows a minister to:
- ARefer the case directly to Strasbourg
- BOverrule the court's declaration
- CSuspend the Convention right in question
- DAmend the incompatible legislation by a remedial order
8.Hard
A statute says a commission's "determination ... shall not be called in question in any court of law". In Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, the House of Lords held:
- AThe clause did not protect a decision based on an error of law, because that was a nullity
- BThe clause excluded all judicial review
- CThe decision was immune from review because the ouster clause applied to all its determinations
- DThe clause was invalid as unconstitutional
Answer key
- 1. A · Does not block government bills carrying out manifesto commitments
- 2. B · Freedom of expression
- 3. B · A set of powers of the Crown recognised by common law, not created by statute
- 4. A · Must tolerate wider criticism than private individuals
- 5. D · Take appropriate steps to safeguard lives within their jurisdiction
- 6. D · The dismissal was void for breach of natural justice
- 7. D · Amend the incompatible legislation by a remedial order
- 8. A · The clause did not protect a decision based on an error of law, because that was a nullity
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.