Supreme Court Upholds Burden of Proof in Fundamental Rights Arrest Case

The High Court recently ruled in D1914 and AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department that ministerial statements in Parliament cannot be used to establish legitimate expectations when their clarity or ambiguity is in dispute, emphasizing the protection of parliamentary privilege under Article IX of the Bill of Rights. This decision departs from earlier case law and highlights the court's caution in balancing executive accountability with parliamentary freedom. Meanwhile, the Nigerian Supreme Court's ruling in Melrose General Services v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission reaffirmed the principle that the test for reasonable belief in fundamental rights cases is objective, focusing on facts known at the time of arrest rather than subjective considerations of law enforcement officers. The Court of Appeal upheld this approach, emphasizing the protection of citizens' fundamental rights against arbitrary treatment by law enforcement. These cases collectively underscore evolving judicial perspectives on rights enforcement and government accountability in both the UK and Nigeria. No other articles reviewed were directly relevant to these legal developments.