Challenge to proposed scheme for management of extremism in Universities.
Ouseley J said: ‘I have referred to some only to explore, without questioning, whether they contained ‘evidence’ on a particular topic. I have read the contributions of the persons named by Mr Bowen to a debate in the House of Lords but consideration of them in this context seems to me to invite impermissible approbation, qualification, disagreement or comment on others whose contributions had been lauded by successive speakers. Any further use of the Parliamentary materials seems to me to fall foul of Article 9, and to create the risk that its use is unfair because it cannot be rebutted or criticised where it is against a party’s case. It may be that I have gone too far anyway, but its absence would not alter my decision.’
Judges:
Ouseley J
Citations:
[2017] EWHC 1930 (Admin), [2017] ACD 109, [2017] ELR 537, [2017] HRLR 12, [2017] 4 WLR 154, [2017] WLR(D) 543
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .
Appeal From – Butt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 8-Mar-2019
The claimant challenged rejection of his objection to the respondent’s ‘Prevent’ duty guidance which had prevented his speaking at universities. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Human Rights
Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.591226
