Click the case name for better results:

Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council: CA 17 Dec 2010

The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on sentencing Judges: Lord Neuberger MR, Laws LJ, Carnwath LJ Citations: [2010] EWCA Civ 1439, [2011] … Continue reading Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council: CA 17 Dec 2010

Smith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer: SCS 24 Jan 2007

The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement. Held: It was not possible to read down the provision of the 1983 Act, and a declaration of … Continue reading Smith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer: SCS 24 Jan 2007

Pearson and Another v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another: CA 18 Jun 2001

The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their complaint that as serving prisoners they were unable to vote. Judges: Simon Brown LJ VP Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 927 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 3, Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Human Rights, Prisons, Constitutional, Elections … Continue reading Pearson and Another v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another: CA 18 Jun 2001

Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate: SC 17 Dec 2014

The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses. Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC dissenting) The ban did not infringe the prisoners’ human rights. The referendum was not an election to … Continue reading Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate: SC 17 Dec 2014

Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011

The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a … Continue reading Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was established in three prison officers. In one case the officer opened the letter in front … Continue reading Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy: CA 12 Dec 2002

The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants argued that the Civil Procedure Rules took sway over the Election Rules, and that the … Continue reading Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy: CA 12 Dec 2002

Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002