The applicant teacher was provided a flat by her school, which it in had leased from the Yugoslavian Army. That lease expired in 1990. She remained, paying rent to the school. Ultimately the Croatian State, which had assumed ownership of Yugoslavian Army property, obtained an order of possession from the Municipal Court. The basis was … Continue reading Cosic v Croatia: ECHR 15 Jan 2009
The defendant had been convicted of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Held: The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s challenge to this provision as incompatible with article 6(2). It created a rebuttable presumption which the defendant could disprove, and was not a … Continue reading X v United Kingdom: ECHR 1972
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the deceased for the purpose of investigating whether he had died as a result of an industrial disease. The Commissioner … Continue reading Revenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool: Admn 21 May 2014
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. Judges: Wildhaber P Citations: [2000] ECHR 91 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1 Citing: Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000 Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from … Continue reading Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Feb 2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. Judges: Wildhaber P Citations: 29777/96, [2000] ECHR 89, (2000) 30 EHRR 480, [2000] Po LR 10 Links: Bailii, Worldlii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: Conjoined Hearing – Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000 (Grand Chamber) … Continue reading Fitt v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Feb 2000
The court was asked as to the extent to which the State should retain personal information about citizens, and whether its policies or practices for doing so comply with the human rights of those citizens. It arose in the instant case in a heightened form because the information relates to the sensitive personal data of … Continue reading C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: Admn 18 Jul 2014
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion, abuse of right of petition); Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 9 or Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedingsthe Bulgarian authorities had deported the first … Continue reading Al-Nashif v Bulgaria: ECHR 20 Jun 2002
The court considered the propriety of an order for deportation of an offender after conviction for a serious offence. Law LJ said: ‘Clearly the Secretary of State has a particular responsibility to make judgments as to what Judge LJ called ‘broad issues of social cohesion and public confidence’ within the system of immigration control. The … Continue reading AC (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Mar 2009
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation. Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning of Article 8(2), notwithstanding the width of the discretion conferred by section 3(5)(a). The claimant should … Continue reading Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another: Admn 17 Dec 2003
Grand Chamber – Yugoslav citizens resident in Slovenia at the time of independence, failed to acquire Slovenian citizenship and their names were ‘erased’ from the register of permanent residents, thus making them stateless. It was not in dispute that the ‘erasure’ and its repercussions amounted to an interference with the ‘private or family life’ of … Continue reading Kuric And Others v Slovenia: ECHR 26 Jun 2012
(Commission/admissibility) The applicant’s lease was forfeited on her non-payment of a service charge and possession was ordered. Her primary claim was made (unsuccessfully) under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. But she also complained that her eviction from her home constituted an unjustified interference with the right to respect for her home … Continue reading Di Palma v United Kingdom: ECHR 1 Dec 1986
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion. Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not obligatory, but following it would generally ensure that a patient’s rights were not infringed. It recognised … Continue reading Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested;: CA 16 Jul 2003
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights Act. The service of the original notice to quit, engaged the Human Rights Act, but the action taken was lawful … Continue reading Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson: CA 25 Jan 2002
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials. Held: The right was breached insofar as the prosecution had themselves sought to make that assessment without judicial involvement. Disclosure at … Continue reading Jasper v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Feb 2000
The applicant was a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium in 1965 when he was aged under 2. In 1984, nineteen years later, after a career of juvenile crime, he was deported, but the deportation order was suspended in 1989 and he returned to Belgium. He complained that his deportation had violated his right to … Continue reading Moustaquim v Belgium: ECHR 18 Feb 1991
The adjudicator’s function is effectively to retake the Home Secretary’s decision. In doing so he will have regard to the Home Secretary’s policy in relation to the deportation of offenders as a material fact but not as a substitute for or a fetter on the adjudicator’s own judgment. The court substantially departed from the approach … Continue reading Huang v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1 Mar 2005
There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written application for warrants. Held: The court considered the statutory requirements applicable to such warrants, and the … Continue reading Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v Serious Fraud Office: Admn 2002
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant national legislation of adequate protection against arbitrary interference. Judges: Mrs E Palm P Citations: (2000) 30 … Continue reading Amann v Switzerland: ECHR 16 Feb 2000
(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action. Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they were wrong. ‘a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable … Continue reading KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005
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 commissioners obtained court orders directing the applicant bank to disclose confidential information in their possession. The bank resisted on the ground that the demand breached their rights to confidentiality and to privacy. Although the orders did infringe the Bank’s article 8 rights, the notices were valid because the interference was justified under article 8(2). … Continue reading Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale a Luxembourg Sa: Admn 23 Jun 2000
The commissioners obtained court orders directing the applicant bank to disclose confidential information in their possession. The bank resisted on the ground that the demand breached their rights to confidentiality and to privacy. Although the orders did infringe the Bank’s article 8 rights, the notices were valid because the interference was justified under article 8(2). … Continue reading Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale A Luxembourg Sa: QBD 27 Jul 2000
A single letter had not been sent on from a prisoner to the Scottish Minister of State. A violation of article 8 was found. The interference was not ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for any reason permitted by article 8(2). However, the annoyance and frustration from the failure to … Continue reading William Faulkner v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Mar 2011
The court heard an application for an injunction to restrain publication of material relating to the claimant’s private and sexual life. Held: An injunction restraining publication and identification, but not an order restraining publication of the order itself was made. Sharp J said: ‘[Counsel for the Claimant] submits that looking at the matter from the … Continue reading DFT v TFD: QBD 27 Sep 2010
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were restrictive. Held: ‘it is true that those applicants who were in custody may have experienced some annoyance and sense of frustration as … Continue reading Silver And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Mar 1983
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about twenty minutes or more before being allowed to continue. An authorisation had been granted by an … Continue reading Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: HL 8 Mar 2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006
(i) Failure on the part of the Secretary of State to identify in her decision any legitimate aim under Article 8(2) of the ECHR does not prevent a court or tribunal from seeking to do so on the basis of the materials before it. (ii) ‘Maintenance of effective immigration control’ whilst not as such a … Continue reading Shahzad (Art 8: Legitimate Aim) Pakistan: UTIAC 26 Feb 2014
The defendants had protested against the activities of a shop, by trespassing. They were said to have committed the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the 1994 Act. They objected in part that this infringed their article 10 right of free speech. Held: The postulated offences all were either not demonstrated to have … Continue reading Richardson and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions: SC 5 Feb 2014
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result would be disproportionate. The court was asked whether in order to found such … Continue reading Norris v Government of United States of America: SC 24 Feb 2010
Questions on Entry must be answered B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that Schedule. She appealed, saying that … Continue reading Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions: SC 22 Jul 2015
Commissioner’s Approach not in Breach In May 2010, a Mr Irvine made requests under the 2002 Act for information from South Lanarkshire Council. He wanted to know how many of their employees in a particular post were placed at 10 particular points on the Council’s pay scales. His underlying purpose was to find out whether … Continue reading South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner: SC 29 Jul 2013
The claimant suffered a debilitating terminal disease. She anticipated going to commit suicide at a clinic in Switzerland, and wanted first a clear policy so that her husband who might accompany her would know whether he might be prosecuted under the 1961 Act. Held: The court considered the Code for Crown prosecutors, and other Guidance … Continue reading Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others: CA 19 Feb 2009
halford_ukECHR1997 The interception of the telephone calls of an employee in a private exchange was a breach of her right of privacy. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police force’s surveillances of the applicant’s telephone (to obtain information regarding a sex discrimination claim she was pursuing in the employment tribunal) was a ‘serious … Continue reading Halford v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Jun 1997
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) if he accompanied her to Switzerland. She said that the failure to … Continue reading Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: QBD 29 Oct 2008
UTIAC A review of the jurisprudence discloses that there is no general proposition that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights can never be engaged when the family life it is sought to establish is between adult siblings living together. Rather than applying a blanket rule with regard to adult children, each case … Continue reading Ghising (Family Life – Adults – Gurkha Policy) Nepal: UTIAC 11 Apr 2012
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK. Held: The refusals of permission had not infringed the rights of the women and of their husbands to respect for … Continue reading Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985
Complaints had been made against certain dentists. Their patients object that they had not been asked about disclosure of their medical records to the tribunals hearing the fitness to practice cases. Held: The GDC was under no obligation to seek such consent. The obligations to keep medical records confidential was strong, but the intened disclosure … Continue reading General Dental Council v Savery and Others: Admn 16 Nov 2011
Toleration of Diverse Parenting Standards Hedley J considered the meaning of ‘significant harm’: ‘What about the court’s approach . . to the issue of significant harm? In order to understand this concept and the range of harm that it’s intended to encompass, it is right to begin with issues of policy. Basically it is the … Continue reading Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria): FD 2007
The claimant had been accused of offences, but the prosecution had been discontinued when the child victims had failed to identify him. The police had nevertheless notified potential employers and he had been unable to obtain work as a social . .
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
