Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004
The court was asked: ‘If a criminal who previously had leave to remain in this country is liable to deportation because of his offences, but cannot actually be deported because to remove him would infringe his rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, with the result that the … Continue reading George, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 14 Mar 2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision. Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular circumstances. Neuberger L formulated a broader principle that where a person is lawfully sentenced to … Continue reading Whiston, Regina (on The Application of): SC 2 Jul 2014
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Appeal against a decision that the SS’s refusal of a student loan was a breach of the claimant’s human rights.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal against the judge’s decision on the settlement criterion was allowed and the appellant’s . .
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining the offence charged belong, according to the legal system of the respondent State, to criminal law, disciplinary law … Continue reading Engel And Others v The Netherlands (1): ECHR 8 Jun 1976
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of … Continue reading Ashingdane v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985
Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach of Article 5-1 of the Convention. Held: Public order containment for several hours did … Continue reading Austin and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Mar 2012
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009
The claimant had been sentenced to a term greater than allowed by law, and served more time than the maximum allowed. He now sought damages. McGowan J  EWHC 1477 (QB) Bailii Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 7(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)(a) England and Wales Prisons, Human Rights Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: … Continue reading Wright v Lord Chancellor: QBD 21 May 2015
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the decisions had probably been obtained by torture committed by foreign powers, and should not … Continue reading A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. Held: The decision itself was clearly not irrational. As to the involvement of the Home … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 Jun 2003
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. Held: Article 5(1)(a) is concerned with the question whether the detention is permissible. Its object and … Continue reading Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that he had, by virtue of the order, been made stateless. The Secretary of … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda: SC 9 Oct 2013
The Irish Government derogated from article 5 in July 1957 in order to permit detention without charge or trial and the applicant was detained between July and December 1957. He could have obtained his release by undertaking to observe the law and refrain from activities contrary to the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940, … Continue reading Lawless v Ireland (No 3): ECHR 1 Jul 1961
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had been given to him to show that he could be released. Held: ‘The legality … Continue reading Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James: CA 1 Feb 2008
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be granted, and also that her application for leave having been refused, there was no jurisdiction in … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another: HL 23 May 2002
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not been, and each had claimed there was no basis for his continued detention, … Continue reading Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: SC 1 May 2013
(Court of Protection) The court was asked whether, if P could be found to lack mental capacity where he should live, where there was an essential conflict between representatives of the State who owe statutory duties to P on the one hand, and the view of his carer of 18-plus years standing on the other, … Continue reading A Primary Care Trust v P and Others: Misc 21 Dec 2009
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. Recommendations for release had not been acted upon. When the applicant was … Continue reading Weeks v The United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Oct 1988
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry. Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain whether giving evidence would give rise to a materially increased risk to life. Having found that it did not, it did … Continue reading In re Officer L: HL 31 Jul 2007
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence and, after a breach, recalled. Having served the full original sentence, he now complained that the … Continue reading Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another: SC 1 Nov 2017
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his release, but that had been overriden by the respondent. had not … Continue reading Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: HL 21 Jan 2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined. Held: The claimants’ appeals succeeded. The actual age of a party is an objective question of fact, and as such was for the … Continue reading A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon: SC 26 Nov 2009
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required. Held: The post tariff detention was not unlawful and therefore no action for damages lay. The clear failures of the respondent to implement … Continue reading Secretary of State for Justice v James: HL 6 May 2009
The claimants had been employed by a local authority and then transferred to the respondents. They had had the benefit that their terms of employment were subject to collective agreement. The respondent was not part of the negotiation of later . .
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate . .
An order providing that a child should stay in secure accommodation, was an order which restricted the child’s liberty. A justification for such a restriction had to be brought within the exceptions listed in article 5.
Held: Detention for . .
It was a breach of Article 5 where the judicial power was exercised by a District Attorney whose impartiality was ‘capable of appearing open to doubt’ by reason of his entitlement to intervene in the subsequent criminal proceedings as a . .
(Grand Chamber) When considering the appropriateness of a deportation order to a country with which the deporting country had a memorandum of understanding that the destination country would not torture the deportee, a court must look beyond the . .
The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and . .
ECHR Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Failure to provide the rehabilitative courses to prisoners which were necessary for their release: violation
Facts – By virtue of section 225 of the . .
(Grand Chamber) The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to detain him for a short period while his asylum claim was being subject to fast-track processing. The decision was made pursuant to a policy under which all asylum claimants . .
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
The applicant was registered on a German database as a person prepared to use violence in the context of sports events. He travelled with a group of others from Bremen to Frankfurt in order to attend a football match. They were kept under police . .
‘These two appeals arise out of actions for damages brought against the United Kingdom government by detainees, alleging unlawful detention and maltreatment by British forces. They are two of several hundred actions in which similar claims are made. . .
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
1. During the proceedings before the Community Courts internal Commission documents are not to be communicated to the applicants, unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional and the applicants make out a plausible case for the need to do . .
The claimant was a prisoner. He became entitled to be considered for release on parole, but was not released because the Parole Board had not made a decision.
Held: The system for consideration of the release of discretionary and life . .
The Court limited itself to article 5(1)(e), when it stated that: ‘the notion of ‘lawfulness’ in the context of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention might have a broader meaning than in national legislation. Lawfulness of detention necessarily presumes . .
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
A . .
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .
The applicant, a minor, complained about his committal to a child psychiatric ward of a state hospital at his mother’s request. The question was whether this was a deprivation of his liberty in violation of article 5. The applicant said that it was, . .
The applicants had been detained under Belgian vagrancy laws. An earlier decision had found that their rights had been infringed because of the lack of effective means for them to challenge their detention. The Belgian government said that the . .
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Life, liberty and security of the person – Fundamental justice – Terminally ill patient seeking assistance to commit suicide – Whether . .
ECHR Judgment (Just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
References:  7 WWR 641,  3 SCR 519, (1993) 24 CR (4th) 281, (1993) 82 BCLR (2d) 273, (1993) 85 CCC (3d) 15, (1993) 17 CRR (2d) 193,  2 LRC 136, (1993) 107 DLR (4th) 342 Links: Canlii Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Life, liberty and … Continue reading Rodriguez v Attorney General of Canada; 30 Sep 1993