R (on the application of Black) v. Secretary of State for Justice

A prisoner claimed that smoking should be prohibited inside a state-run prison. The lower court ruled that the national law prohibiting smoking in workplaces also applied to prisons, including state prisons. The Secretary of State for Justice appealed the decision. The appeals court found that the state is not bound by the national law prohibiting smoking in the workplace.  Therefore, the prison was not required to implement the smoking ban. The prisoner then appealed the decision.  The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that Parliament must have intended that the Crown not be bound by the smoking ban, since it would otherwise have made express provision for it in the 2006 Health Act.

R (on the application of Black) v. Secretary of State for Justice, UKSC 81, Supreme Court (2017).

  • United Kingdom
  • Dec 19, 2017
  • Supreme Court

Parties

Plaintiff R (on the application of Black)

Defendant Secretary of State for Justice

Legislation Cited

Health Act 2006

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"It might well be thought desirable, especially by and for civil servants and others working in or visiting government departments, if the smoking ban did bind the Crown. But the legislation is quite workable without doing so. It cannot be suggested, in the way that it could be suggested in the Liverpool Coroner’s case, that a major plank of the Act’s purpose would remain unfulfilled if the Act did not bind the Crown. The Crown can do a good deal by voluntary action to fill the gap. The Commissioners were not able to fill the gap unless their obligations under the Act overrode their duty of confidentiality...Thus, not without considerable reluctance, I am driven to the conclusion that this appeal must fail. There is a presumption that Acts of Parliament only bind the Crown by express words or necessary implication. Necessary implication entails that Parliament must have meant to bind the Crown. The fact that where Parliament did mean to do so in this Act, it said so, and made tailored provision accordingly, is to my mind conclusive of the question."