R v Home Secretary, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, [2000] 2 AC 115

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Simms, a life sentence prisoner, challenged a Home Secretary-imposed ban preventing prisoners from giving interviews to journalists, arguing it infringed on his common law right to free speech. The ban was imposed under Rule 33 of the Prison Rules 1964.

Issue: Can fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, be overridden by general or ambiguous statutory language?

Held: The House of Lords held that the blanket ban violated the prisoners' right to free speech. Fundamental rights could only be overridden by express, not implied, statutory language.

Key Judicial Statement : Lord Hoffmann emphasized the "principle of legality," which requires Parliament to expressly state when overriding fundamental rights. In the absence of clear statutory language, fundamental rights are presumed to remain intact.

💡 Leveluplaw: Fundamental rights cannot be impliedly overridden by legislation. Parliament must be explicit in its intent to limit such rights.