Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: HL 31 Oct 2007

The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of liberty as to be unlawful. Held: The appeal failed. When looking at the lawfulness of … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: HL 31 Oct 2007

Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN: Admn 31 Jul 2009

The court re-considered a control order made on the basis of material withheld from the defendant. The Secretary of State had now withdrawn his reliance on that material, rather than make further disclosures. The prosecution invited the court to undertake not the exercise required by section 3(10) of the 2005 Act – to determine whether … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN: Admn 31 Jul 2009

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v EB: Admn 29 Jul 2016

The claimant had been released on licence after conviction for an offence under the 2000 Act. He was subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure for a year, but now appealed against a rejection of his request for a variation of the conditions. Judges: Mitting J Citations: [2016] EWHC 1970 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: … Continue reading The Secretary of State for The Home Department v EB: Admn 29 Jul 2016

BX v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 May 2010

The applicant was subject to a non-derogating control order. The court was asked (1) whether a ‘controlled person’ to whom the Secretary of State has given notice of modification under section 7(2)(d) and (8)(c) 2005 Act, may seek to challenge or reverse its implementation in an interlocutory application for an injunction, either in the course … Continue reading BX v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 May 2010

BH v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Nov 2009

The claimant was subject to a non-derogating control order under the 2005 Act. A relaxation was sought to allow him to visit his solicitors. But was offered subject to conditions which included a requirement that he be subject to a personal search. The claimant said that the Act did not contain a power to require … Continue reading BH v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Nov 2009

Times Newspapers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department and AY: Admn 17 Oct 2008

The newspaper applied to challenge the protection of the identity of the defendant subject to a control order under the 2005 Act. It said that there was no basis for the making of the order without first considering the Human Rights need for open justice. Held: The general purpose of the control order related to … Continue reading Times Newspapers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department and AY: Admn 17 Oct 2008

Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP: SC 16 Jun 2010

The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day. Held: AP’s appeal was allowed. It was wrong to blame the … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP: SC 16 Jun 2010

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc: CA 17 Oct 2008

The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity. Held: Applying MB, ‘it is wrong to say that a hearing of the critical issue … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc: CA 17 Oct 2008

Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and Another: HL 31 Oct 2007

The applicant, who was subject to a control order, complained that the respondent had failed as required to keep under review the possibility of a prosecution, and had renewed the order without satisfying that requirement. Held: The appeal failed. Though the respondent had failed as described, that did not make the renewal of the control … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and Another: HL 31 Oct 2007

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF: HL 31 Oct 2007

Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square mile area, and had … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF: HL 31 Oct 2007

Gillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: CA 29 Jul 2004

The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate. Held: The Act was to be interpreted without deference to the respondent, and because of the powers … Continue reading Gillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another: CA 29 Jul 2004

Handyside v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Dec 1976

Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to teach school children about sex, … Continue reading Handyside v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Dec 1976

Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administracion Del Estado: ECJ 25 Apr 2013

ECJ Judgment – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing – Directive 2005/60/EC – Article 22(2) – Decision 2000/642/JHA – Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions – Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services – Identification of … Continue reading Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administracion Del Estado: ECJ 25 Apr 2013

O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 21 Nov 1996

Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest. Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded need not be based on the arresting officer’s … Continue reading O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 21 Nov 1996

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999