Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on licence but then recalled to custody. The other appeals (Booth and Reilly) were indeterminate sentence prisoners … Continue reading Osborn v The Parole Board: SC 9 Oct 2013
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in the case of the 1988 Act, of crime. The Crown … Continue reading Regina v Montila and Others: HL 25 Nov 2004
The prisoner challenged his exclusion from a parole board hearing whilst evidence was taken. He was serving a long sentence for a violent attack, and had re-offended only shortly after his release. His ex-wife had been unwilling to confront him, and he had been excluded whilst she gave evidence. Held: The appeal failed: ‘The short … Continue reading Gardner, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board: CA 5 Sep 2006
The court considered whether a parole review board can exclude the prisoner from part of a hearing and if so on what grounds. Held: The parole board had the required power. Both Rule 19 (2) and 19 (3) gave the panel the power which they exercised. The Board had a responsibility to reconcile as far … Continue reading Gardner, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Parole Board: Admn 21 Dec 2005
The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation. Held: The court identified four issues (1) The Parole Board must assume the prisoner’s guilt of the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield: Admn 25 Mar 1997
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent. Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position should not generally be expected to pay the costs of an appeal against an order … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham: CA 27 Feb 2004
Lack of Patient Safeguards was Infringement The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further pending suitable arrangements being made for … Continue reading HL v United Kingdom: ECHR 2004
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him. Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The … Continue reading Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to children. Held: The appeal was allowed. The Board members were free not to consider … Continue reading McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another: CA 14 Mar 2013
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004
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
A Discretionary lifer is not entitled to a review by a court of his continued detention. His article five rights were not breached. Where a national court imposed a fixed sentence of imprisonment, the supervision required by article 5.4 was incorporated into that judgment. The court held that the mandatory life sentence belonged to a … Continue reading Wynne v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Jul 1994
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to him, but retained pending the appeal. Held: His appeal was allowed: ‘an anonymity order is … Continue reading Regina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jan 2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until 2 January 2013. The regulations were designed to give effect to the Citizens Directive … Continue reading Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 20 Apr 2016
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
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 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 were taken lawfully. Held: The segregation was not authorised by the applicable legislation: ‘rule 45 . . (1) enables the governor … Continue reading Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the legality of returning failed asylum applicants to Zimbabwe. Held: Despite allegations of … Continue reading SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 25 Jan 2008
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial. Held: Both proceedings had resulted in the extension of the respective prison sentences. The rules gave the governor discretion to allow … Continue reading Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jul 2002
The statement followed the report of the Sentencing Advisory Panel of March 15, 2002. The statement contained guidance, not firm rules. The phrase ‘minimum term’ should replace the term ‘tariff’. Offenders are normally not released on the expiry of the minimum term. The judge should say how the minimum term had been arrived at, and … Continue reading Practice Statement (Crime: Life sentences): LCJ 31 May 2002
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day the academic year begins. The claimant came as a child with her mother some … Continue reading Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: SC 29 Jul 2015
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and detentions had been unlawful since they had not been given sufficient information about … Continue reading Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others: Admn 21 Jul 2010
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
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’ The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where the common law rules were so uncertain … Continue reading The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Apr 1979
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
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
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
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence of prisoners. Particularly when examining documents subject to legal professional privilege, the rules did not allow … Continue reading Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 23 May 2001
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson: HL 24 Jul 1997
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank sought to have the direction given under section 7 of the 2008 Act. … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013
Legislation which disallowed claimants who asserted that they had been discriminated against, on the grounds of their religious background, from appealing through the courts system, was a clear breach of their human rights. A limitation will not be compatible with Article 6(1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not … Continue reading Tinnelly and Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Jul 1998
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right to a fair trial. The right not to give evidence … Continue reading Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown: PC 5 Dec 2000
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
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both open and closed statements to the tribunal. The open statement accepted that the organisation was … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm of solicitors representing the opposing party, … Continue reading Taylor v Lawrence: CA 4 Feb 2002
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those of the committee which determined the decision unanimously or by a majority. … Continue reading Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent): HL 1966
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, acknowledged that serving prisoners have a right to … Continue reading King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Mar 2012
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a seriously violent incident, and it was found that he continued to … Continue reading McClean, Re: HL 7 Jul 2005
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory authority, could order a closed material procedure for part or all of the trial of … Continue reading Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others: CA 4 May 2010
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The … Continue reading Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd: CA 17 Nov 1999
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had considered tha a reasonable and well informed observer would not think there was … Continue reading Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 26 Jan 2006
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s allowance payable to those under 25. Held: (Lord Carswell dissented in part.) The claims failed. The … Continue reading Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same: HL 26 May 2005
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the circumstances of the deaths had not … Continue reading Jordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar: ECHR 4 May 2001
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
The respondent resisted an order for specific performance of a contract, saying that the plaintiffs had reneged on an essential promise in a collateral contract.
Held: The defence failed. Lord Chelmsford said: ‘The exercise of the jurisdiction . .
