The claimants alleged murder and ill-treatment by the British Armed forces in Iraq. The defendant had failed repeatedly to comply with disclosure orders and an indemnity costs award had been made against him. The defendant had in particular apparently submitted a partly false certificate that redacted parts of documents related to issues of national security and issued a Public Interest Immunity Certificate. In fact much was already in the public domain. This had been realised, and that the PII certificates were no longer sustainable, but had done nothing.
Held: ‘The complete integrity of PII Certificates and the Schedules attached to them, signed by Ministers of the Crown, is absolutely essential in all cases in which they are put forward. The Courts must be able to have complete confidence in the credibility and reliability of such Certificates and Schedules. Nothing less is acceptable.’
Scott Baker LJ, Silber J, Sweeney J
[2009] EWHC 1687 (Admin), Times 03-Aug-2009
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Ex Parte Wiley; Other Similar HL 14-Jul-1994
Statements made to the police to support a complaint against the police, were not part of the class of statements which could attract public interest immunity, and were therefore liable to disclosure.
Lord Woolf said: ‘The recognition of a new . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Cited by:
See Also – Al-Sweady and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Defence Admn 10-Jul-2009
The court rejected an application by a further claimant to be added to the action. . .
See Also – Al-Sweady and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Defence Admn 2-Oct-2009
The claimant’s son had died whilst in the custody of the British Armed Forces in Iraq. His uncle now claimed that his human rights had been infringed. The case ‘raised a fundamental issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR because if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Torts – Other, Human Rights, Constitutional
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.347482
