Click the case name for better results:

O v Crown Court at Harrow: HL 26 Jul 2006

The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous conviction for another grave offence. Held: The appeal was dismissed. Insofar as the the word … Continue reading O v Crown Court at Harrow: HL 26 Jul 2006

Pavletic v Slovakia: ECHR 22 Jun 2004

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; No separate issue under Art. 13 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation … Continue reading Pavletic v Slovakia: ECHR 22 Jun 2004

SBC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 defendants provided for by section 25 violated article 5(3), insofar as it prohibited the grant of bail to defendants accused of … Continue reading SBC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001

Niedbala v Poland: ECHR 4 Jul 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses awardA warrant must be validated by an independent judicial authority. Citations: [2000] ECHR 359, 27915/95, [2000] ECHR 360, [2000] 33 EHRR 1137 Links: Worldlii, Bailii Statutes: European … Continue reading Niedbala v Poland: ECHR 4 Jul 2000

Contrada v Italy: ECHR 24 Aug 1998

Judgment – Article 5-1(c): alleged unlawfulness of detention – ground declared inadmissible by Commission. Article 3: conditions of detention (solitary confinement in military prisons): although applicant had complained from outset that he had been detained for an unreasonable period (Article 5-3), complaint under Article 3 concerned actual conditions of detention, not its length. Court had … Continue reading Contrada v Italy: ECHR 24 Aug 1998

In re Officer L: HL 31 Jul 2007

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

Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another: CA 3 May 2005

The claimant sought increased maternity pay. Before beginning her maternity leave she had been awarded a pay increase, but it was not backdated so as to affect the period upon which the calculation of her average pay was based. The court made a detailed comparison of the regimes for protection under the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another: CA 3 May 2005

Ekinci, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jun 2003

The appellant, a Turkish citizen entered illegally and claimed asylum. He falsely said he had not sought asylum in another EC country. He had lived in Germany for eight years, and had twice unsuccessfully claimed asylum. Shortly after arrangements were made for his removal to Germany, he married a woman whom he had known in … Continue reading Ekinci, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jun 2003

Dyer v Watson and Burrows: PC 29 Jan 2002

Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay. Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing rights, which could be broken notwithstanding absence of effect on the fairness of the trial. The threshold for delay was high, but once established … Continue reading Dyer v Watson and Burrows: PC 29 Jan 2002

Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation. Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, … Continue reading Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001): HL 11 Dec 2003

The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an abuse. Held: The defendants had a right to a … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001): HL 11 Dec 2003

Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 8 Oct 2003

The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. Held: The reasonable time guarantee afforded by Article 6.1 … Continue reading Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 8 Oct 2003

Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same: HL 3 Nov 2005

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 following their arrival. Held: The appeal by the Secretary of State … Continue reading Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same: HL 3 Nov 2005

Caballero v United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Feb 2000

Provisions were in place which said that a person charged with a very serious crime of violence having once been convicted previously of rape or murder he was to be refused bail automatically. Although the provision had later been altered, the provision did infringe his human rights, and the system also denied to him an … Continue reading Caballero v United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Feb 2000

Zenati v Police of The Metropolis and Another: CA 11 Feb 2015

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights. On his arrest for a different offence his passport was suspected to be counterfeit, and he was then held for an offence under the 2006 Act. The police secured expert evidence from the National Document Fraud … Continue reading Zenati v Police of The Metropolis and Another: CA 11 Feb 2015

Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate. Held: In such cases the court must undertake a two stage examination. First it should look at the … Continue reading Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note): CA 21 Mar 2002

O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013

The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and questioned whether they had has an impartial judge, he having also conducted … Continue reading O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013

McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B: SC 23 Nov 2011

The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial. Held: It was not incompatible with Article 6(1) and 6(3)(c) for the Lord Advocate to lead and rely upon … Continue reading McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B: SC 23 Nov 2011

Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Jul 2013

FTTTx STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – sale of property with subsequent Shari’a – compliant sub-sale and lease-back – no SDLT paid pursuant to sections 45(3) and 71A Finance Act 2003- application of section 75A Finance Act 2003- anti-avoidance provision – approach to interpretation of section 75A – identification of ‘V’ and ‘P’ within section 75A(1) … Continue reading Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Jul 2013