Because a court cannot order a public inquiry to take place

Because the Government had provided the Finucane family with all the information about Patrick Finucane’s killing

Because the family’s legitimate expectations were not absolute, but could be defeated by other considerations

Because there is a human right to an inquiry after an unlawful killing

Because it would be fair to the Finucane family to hold an inquiry

Because the UK government gave an unequivocal undertaking that a public inquiry should take place

There was no detrimental reliance on a clear and unambiguous promise made by the UK government to the Chagos Islanders

There was no clear and unambiguous promise made by the UK government to the Chagos Islanders

The Chagos Islanders legitimate expectation was defeated by the foreign policy interests of the UK government

In exchange for removing the Chagos Islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory, the US government would invest $150 million in the UK

In exchange for removing the Chagos Islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory, the US government would pay the UK government $150 million

 In exchange for removing the Chagos Islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory, the US government would sell nuclear weapons to the UK government at a discount

The UK Government could only remove the Chagos Islanders if the UK Parliament approved of the decision

The UK Government could not remove the Chagos Islanders under any circumstances

 The UK Government could remove the Chagos Islanders if it was in the interests of the UK to do so

That there exists no prerogative power to manage a British Overseas Territory

That there exists no prerogative power for conducting foreign affairs

That there exists no prerogative power to exile a population

An Act of Parliament

The common law

The Royal Prerogative

The test was a backward development where it suggests judicial intervention depends upon an extreme degree of unreasonableness

The test is useful to the court so it can invalidate capricious or absurd decisions

It is a test that is valuable because it limits judicial intervention

The two tests are very different and there is no overlap

There is overlap between irrationality and proportionality but proportionality is more sophisticated and precise

Essentially the two tests are the same but the different terminology simply reflects different legal traditions

The Security Manual goes further than necessary to achieve the objective of security within prison

Because legal correspondence is always privileged so cannot be read by prison officers

Correspondence with lawyers did not pose a threat to prison security and so examining them was pointless and therefore not justified in law