Thoburn v Sunderland City Council facts for kids

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council is a very important court case from the United Kingdom. It's also known as the "Metric Martyrs case." This case helped explain how EU law (laws from the European Union) worked together with laws made by the UK Parliament. It was a big step in understanding that EU law could be more powerful than some UK laws, especially if the UK had agreed to follow those EU rules. The judge, Lord Justice Laws, even suggested there are special "constitutional statutes" that are very important and hard for Parliament to change without saying so clearly.

What Happened? The Story of the Metric Martyrs

The Weights and Measures Act 1985 was a UK law that said both the pound and the kilogram were legal for measuring things. In 1994, new rules were made to follow an EU rule called Directive 80/181/EEC. This rule wanted all countries in the European Community to use the same measurements.

New Rules for Measurements

The new rules said that after January 1, 2000, using the pound as the main way to show measurements for trade would be against the law. It would be a crime. However, shops could still show imperial measures (like pounds) until the end of 1999. But they had to show the metric equivalent (like kilograms) right next to it, and it had to be just as easy to see.

These new rules were made using powers from the European Communities Act 1972. This Act allowed UK Ministers to create new laws (called secondary legislation) to make sure the UK followed its EU duties. This type of power is sometimes called a "Henry VIII clause" because it gives a lot of power to the government to change laws.

The People Involved in the Case

In March 2001, Steve Thoburn, a greengrocer in Sunderland, was found guilty. He had used weighing scales that didn't follow the 1985 Act. He had been warned twice before.

Colin Hunt, who sold fruit and vegetables in Hackney, showed his prices using only imperial measures. He was also found guilty in June 2001.

Julian Harman, another greengrocer, and John Dove, a fishmonger, sold their goods using only imperial measures at a market in Camelford in Cornwall. They were both found guilty in August 2001.

Peter Collins, who sold fruit and vegetables in Sutton, was different. He wasn't found guilty of a crime. Instead, he was arguing against the rules of his market stall licence, which said he had to use metric measures.

These five people became known in the news as the "Metric Martyrs." They all challenged the decisions made against them in a higher court.

The Court's Decision

What the Magistrates' Court Said

In the Sunderland Magistrates' Court, Judge Bruce Morgan explained:

• "As long as this country is part of the European Union, its laws must follow the rule of EU law being more important."
• "When the European Communities Act 1972 was passed, European laws became part of our laws."
• "This country joined the European club and agreed to follow its rules."

All five "Metric Martyrs" took their cases to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division.

The High Court's Ruling

The people appealing (the appellants) made several arguments.

Argument 1: Implied Repeal

First, they argued that the 1985 Act, which said both pounds and kilograms were legal, had secretly cancelled part of the European Communities Act 1972. This idea is called "implied repeal." It means that if a newer law clashes with an older law, the newer law automatically cancels the part of the older law that it disagrees with.

They said that by making metric and imperial measures equally legal, Parliament wanted to take away the power given to Ministers in the 1972 Act to make new rules about weights and measures to follow EU law. If this was true, then the new rules made in 1994 (about metrication) would not be valid.

Argument 2: Henry VIII Clause Limits

Their second argument was about the "Henry VIII clause" in the European Communities Act 1972. They said that the power to change laws should only apply to laws that already existed when the clause was made, not to future laws.

Argument 3: International Law and Treaties

The third set of arguments was about public international law. They argued that when the UK joined the European Economic Community, other countries should have known that one UK Parliament couldn't force future Parliaments to follow its rules forever. They also said that if the Treaty of Rome (which set up the European Community) meant that EU law was always supreme, then parts of it should be invalid because they went against basic international rules about countries being equal and free from outside interference.

The Government's Response

The government (the respondents) argued that as long as the UK was part of the European Union, the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty (where Parliament can make or unmake any law) had to be set aside for EU matters. They said that the principle of EU law being supreme (as decided in earlier EU court cases) should take priority.

Lord Justice Laws' Decision

Lord Justice John Laws gave the judgment. He agreed with the appellants that the 1985 Act allowed both imperial and metric systems to be used together. He also agreed that "implied repeal" could apply to parts of laws. He stated that the relationship between EU law and UK law must be decided by UK law.

However, Laws LJ said there was no "implied repeal" in this case. He explained that there was no conflict between the European Communities Act and the Weights and Measures Act. He also said that limiting "Henry VIII clauses" to only existing laws would go against the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Constitutional Statutes: A New Idea

Laws LJ then introduced an important idea: that some laws are more important than others. He said that the common law (judge-made law) now recognizes certain rights as "constitutional" or "fundamental." From this, he suggested a "hierarchy of Acts of Parliament." This means there are "ordinary" laws and "constitutional statutes."

He explained that a "constitutional statute" is one that:

• Sets the general rules for how citizens and the government relate to each other.
• Increases or decreases important basic rights.

He listed examples of "constitutional statutes" like the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the European Communities Act 1972. He said these special laws cannot be cancelled by "implied repeal." They can only be changed or cancelled if Parliament clearly states it wants to do so.

Four Key Points on EU and UK Law

Laws LJ then outlined four main points about how EU law and English law work together:

• EU rights and duties become part of UK law because of the European Communities Act. They are more important than national law. If a UK law conflicts with an EU law, the UK law must be changed or removed.
• The European Communities Act is a "constitutional statute" and cannot be cancelled by "implied repeal."
• The idea of "constitutional statutes" comes from English law, not EU law.
• The UK's relationship with the EU is based on UK laws, not just EU laws. If an EU rule went against a very basic right in English law, there would be a question about whether the European Communities Act could even bring that EU rule into UK law.

Attempts to Appeal Further

The "Metric Martyrs" tried to appeal their case to the House of Lords (the highest court at the time). The Divisional Court agreed that the case was important. However, the House of Lords refused permission to appeal. They said the appeal would not raise "points capable of reasonable argument."

After this, the appellants tried to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. They argued that the House of Lords' decision meant they didn't get a fair trial. But in February 2004, a committee of three judges from that court decided that their application could not be accepted. They found no sign that their human rights had been violated.

Aftermath of the Case

Even after this case, later changes in EU and UK laws meant that traders could still use imperial measures. They were allowed to show them as "supplementary indications" alongside the required "primary" metric measures, even after the end of 2009.

See also

• EU law
• Implied repeal
• Metric Martyrs
• R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport
• UK administrative law