Category: Human Rights

Tabassum v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Jan 2012

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

2134/10, [2012] ECHR 223

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – Tabassum, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-Jul-2011
The claimant challenged his detention after completion of his sentence pending deportation to Pakistan. He said that he was in fact a British citizen, and Pakistan refused to accept that he was Pakistani. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450707

Syed and Another v Westminster Magistrates Court: Admn 25 May 2010

The defendants challenged sentences of imprisonment imposed for failure to pay confiscation orders, saying that the delay in enforcement meant that the proceedings should have been stayed.

Judges:

Elias LJ, Keith J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1617 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.420417

TB, Regina (on the Application of) v The Combined Court at Stafford: Admn 4 Jul 2006

The claimant was the child complainant in an allegation of sexual assault. The defendant requested her medical records, and she now complained that she had been unfairly pressured into releasing them.
Held: The confidentiality of a patient’s medical records belongs to the patient, and the duty of confidence owed by a medical professional to a competent young person is a high one which should not be overridden except for a very powerful reason. The Health Authority were not in a position to make the decision for the claimant. The claimant should have been given notice and opportunity to obtain advice and make representations.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1645 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council QBD 30-Apr-1999
The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – W v United Kingdom ECHR 1987
A local authority must, in reaching decisions on children in care, take account of the views and interests of the natural parents, which called for a degree of protection. In the context of care proceedings, public authorities may not be required to . .
Cited – G and others v Local Authority X; Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) FD 24-Mar-2003
‘procedural fairness is something mandated not merely by Article 6, but also by Article 8.’ . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.243047

Regina (Rose and Another) v Secretary of State for Health and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 26 Jul 2002

Applications were made, challenging the refusal of the Secretary of State for Health, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to institute a system where a child born by artificial insemination could make enquiries as to his or her parenthood.
Held: The knowledge of facts about one’s biological parenthood was part of the right to family or private life. Accordingly the decisions made did engage the children’s Human Rights, and the appropriate tests should be applied to that decision making process.

Judges:

Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

Times 22-Aug-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Administrative, Health

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.174720

Regina (Barber) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 17 Jul 2002

The claimant challenged the refusal of the respondent, under authority of the regulations, to divide payment of child benefit between himself and his former partner. The child stayed with both parents. Other benefits flowed from the allocation of the benefit to one parent. He alleged that this was discriminatory under the Convention.
Held: The challenge to the Regulations failed. The purpose of the Regulation was to ensure payment of the benefit to someone with care of the child. The regulation could not be construed so as to allow the benefit to be split. It was not discrimination, since the detriment, such as it was, was applied across the range of potential beneficiaries, and there was insufficient evidence for the court to consider a claim of indirect sex discrimination.

Judges:

Sir Richard Tucker

Citations:

[2002] 2 FLR 1181, Times 29-Aug-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1915 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 1968) 34, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 144

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2) CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker’s child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory.
Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this . .
Cited – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.174754

Regina v Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales ex parte Nawaz: Admn 25 Oct 1996

The privilege against self incrimination was lost by the act of voluntarily submitting to the rules of a professional institute. Leggatt LJ: ‘Waiver of privilege
We indicated to counsel that for the purposes of this appeal we were content to assume, without deciding, that the privilege from self-incrimination at least extends to investigations of a quasi-judicial character such as we are concerned with. We have also assumed that the privilege was sufficiently claimed by Mr Nawaz’s letter of 6th April 1994.
Mr Sears submitted in writing that the waiver of privilege against self-incrimination is analogous with the abrogation of privilege by statutory provision. Orally, he pressed the argument with less force. Perhaps he had concluded that abrogation and waiver are not analogous for abrogation consists in the deprivation by Parliament of a privilege which a person otherwise enjoys, whereas waiver occurs where a person voluntarily foregoes a privilege that is his. Abrogation deprives him of choice, waiver represents an exercise of choice. When a person enters a profession he accepts its duties and liabilities as well as its rights and powers. Similarly, he may acquire or surrender privileges and immunities. Nevertheless, the principle that privilege is not to be regarded as having been abrogated, except by express words or necessary implication, applies also to waiver.
In my judgment, acceptance of a duty to provide information demanded of an accountant constitutes a waiver by the member concerned of any privilege from disclosure. It is plainly in the public interest, as well as the interests of the profession, that the Institute should be enabled to obtain all such information in the possession of its members as is relevant to complaints of their professional misconduct.
Mr Sears sought to reinforce his argument by contending that it is wrong to suggest that by agreeing to be bound by the rules of the Institute Mr Nawaz impliedly waived his right to assert privilege. I do not see why. It is true that this court has declined to hold that when one person becomes the fiduciary servant or agent of another they are to be treated as having impliedly contracted, they will not invoke the privilege of self-incrimination against the other. In the case of membership of a profession, the member accepts its rules and agrees to abide by them and to fulfil their requirements. Upon becoming a chartered accountant, it shall be the duty of every member, in accordance with paragraph 8(a) in Schedule 2 of the Supplemental Charter, to provide such information as investigation may consider necessary to discharge its functions. Compliance with that duty necessarily and inevitably precludes the exercise of any privilege that would have excused the provision of the information.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, with whom Thorpe LJ, Mummery LJ

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Holder v The Law Society Admn 26-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged the independence of the respondent’s disciplinary tribunal.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the nature of the Tribunal is entirely adequately independent and impartial for the purposes for which it is constituted. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.136697