Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte John Witham: Admn 7 Mar 1997

If subordinate legislation cannot be construed in a way that makes it compatible with fundamental rights, it will be declared ultra vires. Rules which disallowed exemptions from court fees to a litigant in person on income support were invalid. They infringed the rule allowing access to justice. The common law had given special weight to the citizen’s right of access to the courts, a constitutional right. Access to justice at an affordable price was not just another government service.
Although the right of access to the courts has been described as a constitutional right, ‘the cases do not explain what that means.’ and ‘In the unwritten legal order of the British state, at a time when the common law continues to accord a legislative supremacy to Parliament, the notion of a constitutional right can in my judgment inhere only in this proposition, that the right in question cannot be abrogated by the state save by specific provision in an Act of Parliament, or by regulations whose vires in main legislation specifically confers the power to abrogate. General words will not suffice. And any such rights will be creatures of the common law, since their existence would not be the consequence of the democratic political process but would be logically prior to it.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 237, [1998] QB 575

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 130

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
CitedWatkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others CA 20-Jul-2004
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort . .
CitedWatkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
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 . .
CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137182

Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes: CA 18 Jul 2001

A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories which were known to create distress, could amount to harassment under the Act. The freedom of the press could be set aside where it was used in contravention of the Convention’s underlying values.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR: ‘The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct that is capable of constituting harassment. ‘Harassment’ is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable. The practice of stalking is a prime example of such conduct.’
May LJ: ‘Thus, in my view, although section 7(2) provides that harassing a person includes causing the person distress, the fact that a person suffers distress is not by itself enough to show that the cause of the distress was harassment. The conduct has also to be calculated, in an objective sense, to cause distress and has to be oppressive and unreasonable. It has to be conduct which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment, and conduct which a reasonable person would think amounted to harassment. What amounts to harassment is, as Lord Phillips said, generally understood. Such general understanding would not lead to a conclusion that all forms of conduct, however reasonable, would amount to harassment simply because they cause distress.’

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Jonathan Parker LJ, Mustill LJ, May LJ

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1233, [2002] EMLR 78

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUniversity of Oxford and others v Broughton and others QBD 10-Nov-2004
The claimants sought injunctions to protect themselves against the activities of animal rights protesters, including an order preventing them coming with a wide area around the village.
Held: The orders made were justified with the additional . .
CitedBanks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedKD v Chief Constable of Hampshire QBD 23-Nov-2005
The claimant’s daughter had made a complaint of rape. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the investigating police officer, and sought damages also from the defendant, his employer. The officer denied that anything improper or . .
CitedHelen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2006
The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, . .
CitedCheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
CitedIqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
CitedGoodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .
CitedAPW v WPA QBD 8-Nov-2012
The claimant sought orders restricting publication by or on behalf of the defendant of confidential matters concerning their relationship. The defendant had refused to offer undertakings, saying that he had had no iintention to make any such . .
CitedHayes v Willoughby SC 20-Mar-2013
The claimant and appellant had been employer and employee who had fallen out, with a settlement in 2005. The appellant then began an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against Mr Hayes, complaining to public bodies with allegations of tax . .
CitedCrawford v Jenkins CA 24-Jul-2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136167

Preiss v General Dental Council: PC 17 Jul 2001

(Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC) The procedures of the General Dental Council were in breach of the right to a fair trial, insofar as the same person might both carry out the preliminary stages of an investigation, and later be involved in the hearing of the complaint itself. In this case the chairman had also made the decision to present the complaint. The board of the Privy Council had the power to hear appeals against findings of misconduct, as well as suspensions, and could substitute a an admonition for a suspension. The existence of this power was necessary in order to correct the weaknesses in the current disciplinary system, and the power included where necessary the power to deal with issues of fact as well as law and discretion. Serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Gross professional negligence can fall within it. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence.

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill L, Cooke of Thorndon L, Millett L

Citations:

Times 14-Aug-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1926, [2001] UKPC 36, No 63 of 2000

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedGupta v The General Medical Council PC 18-Dec-2001
(The Health Committee of the GMC) A doctor had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council. She appealed on the basis that they had not given reasons for the factual basis . .
CitedDr Thomas Amadeus Keiran Norton v The General Medical Council PC 11-Feb-2002
The appellant doctor had practised in plastic and related surgery, particularly liposuction. The complaints against him related to a failure to supervise his staff, wrongful delegation, and lack of care. His name had been erased from the register, . .
CitedDarby v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The solicitor appealed findings of misconduct. He had acted for a builder who complained about breaches of confidentiality and a failure to provide written information on costs.
Held: The appeal was by way of a rehearing (Preiss), but should . .
AppliedRegina (on the Application of Jennifer Campbell) v The General Medical Council CA 11-Mar-2005
The Council complained that when assessing disciplinary charges against the doctor, they had taken into account when looking at his guilt, his professional reputation.
Held: A doctor’s reputation was relevant only when considering any . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Human Rights, Constitutional, Health Professions

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136179

Seddon v Oldham MBC (Adoption : Human Rights): FD 14 Sep 2015

The court was asked: ‘(1) Do rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR) survive the making of an adoption order?
(2) Did the coming into force in April 2014 of s. 51A Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002), which allows the court to make a post-adoption contact order, create or maintain an Art. 8 right as between a birth parent and an adopted child?
(3) Is s. 51A(4) ACA 2002, which requires a former parent to obtain the permission of the court before applying for contact with an adopted child, incompatible with the ECHR?
(4) Does a post-adoption letterbox service run by a public body give rise to Art. 8 rights as between a birth parent and an adopted child?’

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2609 (Fam), [2015] WLR(D) 388

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.552784

Gilham v Ministry of Justice: SC 16 Oct 2019

The Court was asked whether a district judge qualifies as a ‘worker’ for the purpose of the protection given to whistle-blowers under Part IVA of the 1996 Act, and if not then was the absence of protection an infringement of her human rights.
Held: As an office holder, she was neither employee nor worker, and therefore could not have the advantage of protection as a whistleblower: ‘the definition of ‘worker’ which is in issue in the present case is far from unusual. It is also clear that Parliament has used a number of different formulae in order to define the scope of protection of different pieces of employment legislation. It may well be that the line which it has drawn is open to criticism from those who are dissatisfied with the lack of apparent protection for them. For example, they may qualify as ‘workers’ but may be excluded from the definition of ’employees’ for the purpose of the law of unfair dismissal. Nevertheless, that is the policy choice which the democratically elected Parliament of the United Kingdom has made.
In the present context, it seems to us that what is criticised . . is the policy choice which Parliament has made to give protection under the ‘whistleblowing’ provisions of the 1996 Act to a category of persons which has the effect of excluding office-holders and, in particular, judges. However, Parliament has not left those people totally without protection in the present context. ‘

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lady Arden, Sir Declan Morgan

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 44, [2020] 1 All ER 1, [2020] HRLR 147, [2019] ICR 1655, [2019] 1 WLR 5905, UKSC 2018/0014

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Jun 05 am Video, SC 2019 Jun 05 pm Video, SC 2019 Jun 06 am Video, SC 2019 Jun 06 pm Video

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3)(b), European Convention on Human Right, Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPerceval-Price, and others v Department of Economic Development etc CANI 12-Apr-2000
A full-time a full-time chairman of industrial tribunals, a full time chairman of social security appeal tribunals, and a social security commissioner are workers within the meaning of the European legislation, even though, by domestic legislation . .
CitedO’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
At EATGilham v Ministry of Justice EAT 31-Oct-2016
Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – The Employment Judge made no error of law in concluding that District Judges are office-holders and do not also work under a contract of employment or for services. . .
Appeal from (CA)Gilham v Ministry of Justice CA 21-Dec-2017
Appeal by employment judge against dismissal of whistleblower’s claim.
Held: Dismissed. An employment judge is an office-holder, and neither office holder nor worker. . .
CitedMcMillan v Guest HL 1942
The House considered whether the taxpayer held a public office.
Held: Lord Wright: The word ‘office’ as applied in an employment law context is of indefinite content. Lord Atkin said: ‘Without adopting the sentence as a complete definition one . .
CitedMethodist Conference v Preston SC 15-May-2013
Minister was not an employee
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal. The Conference said that as an ordained minister she was not an employee, and was outwith the jurisdiction of such a claim.
Held: The Conference’s appeal succeeded (Baroness Hale dissenting). The essence . .
CitedPercy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
CitedMiles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council HL 1987
The claimant was a superintendent registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. His union instructed him not to conduct weddings on Saturdays. He had been told that if he failed to perform his full range of duties on a Saturday (including marriages), he . .
CitedRidge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed without being given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his behaviour. He . .

Cited by:

CitedMiller and Others v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Dec-2019
The issue in this appeal is when time starts to run for a claim by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive (Directive 97/81) (‘PTWD’), as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Human Rights

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.642826

Regina v Davis, Rowe, Johnson: CACD 17 Jul 2000

The court made a distinction between convictions found on appeal to be unfair, and those found to be unsafe. The prosecution had not disclosed to the defendants that the source of their information was a police informer. The European Court of Human Rights had found the procedure unfair. The national court must therefore discharge the defendants, but could not say they felt the defendants’ innocence had been established. The system of public interest immunity certificates had not itself been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, and the system stood valid. Assessing the claim for a certificate in chambers would not deprive the applicant of his remedy. ‘The court is concerned with the safety of the conviction. A conviction can never be safe if there is a doubt about guilt. However, the converse is not true. A conviction may be unsafe even where there is no doubt about guilt but the trial process has been ‘vitiated by serious unfairness or significant legal misdirection’ as in Smith (Patrick and Others) and in Weir. Usually it will be sufficient for the court to apply the test in Stirland.’ and ‘Assuming the wrong decision on law or the irregularity had not occurred and the trial had been free from legal error, would the only reasonable and proper verdict have been one of guilty?’

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Blofeld, Rafferty JJ

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2000, Times 24-Apr-2000, [2001] 1 Cr App Rep 8, [2000] Crim LR 1012, [2000] UKHRR 683, [2000] HRLR 527, [2000] EWCA Crim 109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStirland v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1944
The House considered what was the appropriate test for allowing a conviction to stand despite the finding of an irregularity in the trial.
Held: The House must be satisfied that there was ‘a situation a reasonable jury, after being properly . .
See AlsoRegina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA 10-Mar-1993
Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .

Cited by:

CitedKelleher, Regina v CACD 20-Nov-2003
The defendant, out of strong conviction, entered an art gallery and knocked the head from a statue of Margaret Thatcher.
Held: The court examined the breadth of the defence of ‘lawful excuse’ to a charge of criminal damage, and whether a court . .
CitedGough, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2001
Appeal against conviction for burglary: ‘The appeal is concerned only with the directions given to the jury as to the inferences which they might draw after the appellant absconded during the course of his trial.’
Held: The direction was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Evidence, Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135722

Regina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K: Admn 9 Jun 2000

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 353

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed toRegina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 21-Feb-2001
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 21-Feb-2001
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135741

Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another: ChD 11 Jan 2001

The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The established test was whether the claimant had a real prospect of succeeding at trial in restraining publication, but the new test was whether he was likely to do so. Nevertheless the difference was so small as to make any calculation fruitless.
The court was asked to restrain the publication of confidential documents, and the effect of the section. The defendants argued that the requirement of likelihood imposed a higher standard than that formulated in American Cyanamid, but the claimant said that his case satisfied whatever the standard was applied. Theoretically and as a matter of language likelihood is slightly higher in the scale of probability than a real prospect of success. But the difference between the two is small. The court could not imagine many (if any) cases which would have succeeded under the American Cyanamid test but will now fail because of the terms of section 12(3). The court applied the test of likelihood without any further consideration of how much more probable that now has to be.
Sir Andrew Morritt set out the approach to be taken: ‘Of course, the defendants’ right to freedom of expression is an element in their democratic right to campaign for the abolition of all animal xenotransplantation or other experimentation. But they may continue to do that whether the injunction sought by Imutran is granted or not. The issue is whether they should be free to do so with Imutran’s confidential and secret documents. Many of those documents are of a specialist and technical nature suitable for consideration by specialists in the field but not by the public generally. Given the provisos to the injunction sought there would be no restriction on the ability of the defendants to communicate the information to those specialists connected with the regulatory bodies denoted by Parliament as having special responsibility in the field.’

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 31, [2001] 2 All ER 385, [2002] FSR 2, [2001] HRLR 31, [2001] EMLR 21, [2001] CP Rep 28, [2001] ECDR 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .

Cited by:

ApprovedA v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) CA 11-Mar-2002
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife.
Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Guardian News Media Ltd QBD 19-Mar-2009
The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The . .
CitedTheakston v MGN Ltd QBD 14-Feb-2002
The claimant, a celebrity sought to restrain publication by the defendant of information about his sex life, consisting of pictures of him in a brothel. The court considered the test for the grant of an injunction to restrain publication under the . .
CitedCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
CitedBains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135620

Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 21 Feb 2001

The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in hospital of a patient because of the absence of such proper provision was not an infringement of his human rights. Section117 does not impose on health authorities an absolute obligation to implement the conditions for a patient’s discharge from hospital required by a tribunal; the authorities’ duty is, in general, to use reasonable endeavours to secure compliance with those conditions.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR: ‘Putting on one side the question of compliance with article 5 of the Convention, I can see no justification for interpreting section 117 so as to impose on health authorities an absolute obligation to satisfy any conditions that a tribunal may specify as prerequisites to the discharge of a patient. The section does not expressly impose any such requirement, nor is it reasonable to imply such a requirement. The applicant’s suggested interpretation would place upon health authorities a duty which, on occasion, would be impossible to perform. The applicant’s skeleton argument suggested that there was more that the health authority could have done to persuade a forensic psychiatrist to provide the aftercare required by the tribunal. The decision of the judge was to the contrary, and there is no basis upon which that decision can be challenged. An interpretation of section 117 which imposed on health authorities absolute duties which they would not necessarily be able to perform would be manifestly unreasonable.’

Judges:

Master of the Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Buxton And Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

Gazette 20-Apr-2001, Times 15-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 240, [2002] QB 198

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 5, Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 117(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K Admn 9-Jun-2000
. .
CitedJohnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
CitedRegina v Ealing District Health Authority, ex parte Fox 1993
A patient’s conditional discharge had been ordered by a tribunal. One of the conditions imposed by the tribunal was the appointment by the health authority of a responsible medical officer to provide psychiatric supervision of the patient in the . .
CitedRegina v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Torfaen County Borough Council and Gwent Health Authority ex parte Hall Admn 23-Apr-1999
The tribunal had ordered the conditional discharge of the patient, subject to conditions to be satisfied by the local health authority. The authority had failed to make the arrangements which would have satisfied the relevant conditions, and as a . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K Admn 9-Jun-2000
. .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another ex parte IH HL 13-Nov-2003
The appellant had been found unfit to plead after assaulting his son, and he had been detained under the 1964 Act. He alleged his detention was in breach of his right to a fair trial. His release had been authorised subject to the appointment of a . .
CitedRegina (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment. The mental health tribunal had ordered his release, but the respondent had delayed that release.
Held: False imprisonment is established on proof of imprisonment without lawful authority. An . .
CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights, Local Government

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135560

Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina: CACD 9 Feb 2001

The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of the judge’s direction as to the the conclusions to be drawn by the jury from his silence.
Held: S34 must now be interpreted in the light of the 1998 Act. An appropriate balance has been drawn between the exercise by an accused of his right to silence and the fair drawing of an adverse inference. Where an appellant had received legal advice not to answer questions, it was the genuineness of the decision which is relevant and not its quality. The jury had to determine whether or not the real reason for the appellant’s silence was because of the legal advice that he or she had received or was in truth that they had no or no adequate explanation to give to the case against them.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Penry-Davey, And The Judge Advocate General

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 224, [2001] 2 Crim App R 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984 34, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Citing:

CitedCondron v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2000
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing . .
CitedRegina v Cowan and Another CACD 12-Oct-1995
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof . .
CitedRegina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
CitedRegina v Lester and Harvey CACD 13-Dec-1982
ThepProsecution relied entirely upon the evidence of an accomplice, Solomon. Lester and Harvey were convicted. A third man was acquitted. The Court referred to how the trial judge left the case to the jury and quoted from the summing up: ‘Members of . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v McCartney, Hamlett, Beddow and Hulme CACD 16-May-2003
The defendants appealed convictions and sentences for a long series of armed robberies. The evidence centred on the admissions of a participant, whose statement, the defendants alleged was self serving and unreliable, and in one case served a . .
CitedBenn and Benn v Regina CA 30-Jul-2004
The defendants appealed against convictions for importing drugs. The evidence was circumstantial, including evidence of contamination of paper money with cocaine. New evidnce suggested the original forensic techniques had returned many false . .
CitedRegina v Hoare and Pierce CACD 2-Apr-2004
The court considered the drawing of adverse inferences form an accused’s silence in the police station when this was under legal advice: ‘The question in the end, it is for the jury, is whether regardless of advice, genuinely given and genuinely . .
CitedBeckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135580

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another: CA 6 Feb 2001

Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus possidendi, an intention to assert an interest contrary to that of the owner. The original relationship had envisaged continued use until the land would receive planning permission. The claim for possession by the original owners succeeded.
Mummery LJ said that Article 1 did not impinge on the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1980, which did not deprive a person of his possessions or interfere with his peaceful enjoyment of them but only deprived a person of his right of access to the courts for the purpose of recovering property if he had delayed the institution of his legal proceedings for 12 years or more after being dispossessed by another. The extinction of the applicants’ title was not a deprivation of possessions nor a confiscatory measure for which payment of compensation would be appropriate, but a logical and pragmatic consequence of the barring of the right to bring an action after the expiration of the limitation period. Any deprivation was justified in the public interest, the conditions laid down in the 1980 Act being reasonably required to avoid the risk of injustice in the adjudication of stale claims and as ensuring certainty of title: those conditions were not disproportionate, the period of 12 years being reasonable and not imposing an excessively difficult burden on the landowner.
Lord Justice Keene started from the assumption that limitation periods were in principle not incompatible with the Convention and that the process whereby a person would be barred from enforcing rights by the passage of time was clearly acknowledged by the Convention. This position obtained, in his view, even though limitation periods both limited the right of access to the courts and in some circumstances had the effect of depriving persons of property rights, whether real or personal, or of damages: there was thus nothing inherently incompatible as between the 1980 Act and Article 1 of the Protocol.

Judges:

Mummery, Keene LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Gazette 22-Feb-2001, Times 13-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 117, [2001] Ch 804, [2001] 2 WLR 1293, (2001) 82 P and CR DG1, [2001] 18 EG 176, [2001] 2 EGLR 69, (2001) 82 P and CR 23, [2001] HRLR 27, [2001] 7 EGCS 161, [2001] NPC 29

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15 38 Sch 8 paras 1 and 8, European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJ A Pye and Another v Graham and Another ChD 14-Mar-2000
The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedMalekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Graham and Another CA 6-Feb-2001
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. . .
At Court of AppealJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
CitedMann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd v Longmint Aviation Ltd and Another ChD 19-Aug-2011
Administrators of the claimant company asserted that the company had held informal leases of two hangars owned by the defendant, and also complained of their transfer at an undervalue. The first defendant said that the occupations were under license . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135590

Regina v John Spear, Philip Hastie and David Morton Boyd: CMAC 15 Jan 2001

The fact that the President of a Court Martial was appointed within the same authority as was prosecuting, did not necessarily mean that the tribunal was not impartial. Such officers were typically appointed at the end of their careers, and they were appointed for a fixed term. There was no history of them being removed, and the circumstances were impartial. The test was not some neurotic distrust, but rather the absence of any appearance of bias on a reasonable view. The system met that standard.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 30-Jan-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1751

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others HL 18-Jul-2002
Corts Martial System Complant with Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others HL 18-Jul-2002
Corts Martial System Complant with Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Armed Forces

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135616

Roberts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others: CA 4 Feb 2014

The claimant asserted that the provisions of section 60 of the 1994 Act, which allowed personal searches by police officers where no suspicion of misbehaviour was present, infringed her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. There was no deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5, and nor was the use of the power discriminatory on the grounds of race. There had been an interference with the right to respect for Mrs Roberts’ private life in article 8, but that this remained ‘in accordance with the law’ and was not unlawful.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP CACD, Rafferty, Macur LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 69, [2014] 1 WLR 3299, [2014] WLR(D) 50, [2014] HRLR 5, [2014] 2 Cr App R 6

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 60, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRoberts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Admn 17-Jul-2012
The claimant challenged the legality of section 60 of the 1994 Act as an interference in her article 8 rights. She had been caught on a bus without her fare and gave a false name and address. A direction had been given authorising any person to be . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.521049

Mckeown v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jan 2011

The applicant alleged that his trial for terrorism related offences was unfair because of the way the courts in Northern Ireland had approached the question of non-disclosure of prosecution papers to the defence on grounds of public interest immunity.

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See AlsoMcKeown v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Apr-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.443850

Catt v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 30 May 2012

The claimant objected to the retention of data about him as to his attendance at assorted political protests. He had not engaged in criminality.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1471 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCatt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Others CA 14-Mar-2013
The appellant sought an order requiring the defendant to to remove entries against his name in police databases. He had been a frequent protester against what he saw to be unlawful activities of a defence contractor. Other members of his group had . .
At First InstanceCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459822

Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: Admn 12 Aug 2005

The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant argued that UN resolution 1546 requiring it to maintain order in Iraq displaced the claimants rights.
Held: Rights enforceable under the 1998 Act were not greater than those under the Convention. By clause 103 of the UN Treaty, the rights and duties created prevailed over other instruments. His rights under the Convention could be displaced by UN resolution, from which were derived a power of internment. There was no duty to repatriate the claimant.

Judges:

Moses J, Richards J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin), Times 12-Sep-2005, [2005] HRLR 1355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Human Rights Act 1998, UN Charter 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
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: . .
CitedAl Skeini and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another Admn 14-Dec-2004
Several dependants of persons killed in Iraq by British troops claimed damages.
Held: The court considered extensively the scope and applicability of Article 1 duties. In general an English court would have no jurisdiction over deaths abroad . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedRegina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedRegina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
CitedGillow v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there.
Held: The house in question was the applicants’ home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not . .
CitedQuark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant sought damages for having had its licence to catch Patagonian toothfish off South Georgia revoked, saying that it had infringed its property rights under the Convention.
Held: Though the Convention rights had been extended to . .
CitedIn Re H and others (Minors) HL 10-Apr-1997
Three young children had been brought to England from Israel by their mother but without the consent of the father, who now sought their return. The mother claimed that the father had subsequently acquiesced in the removal. Both parents were . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At first instanceAl-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At AdmnAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
See AlsoAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
See AlsoAl-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
See AlsoAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
See AlsoAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At Admn (1)Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At Admn (1)Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At Admn (1)Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At Admn (1)Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At Admn (1)Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See AlsoAl-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
See AlsoHilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.229747

Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 27 Sep 2005

The appellant had been convicted under section 4 of the 1986 Act. He had been accused of attending at Luton Guruwarda and intending to cause distress. He said that he had gone only peacefully to express his true religious beliefs. He had left a notice accusing the temple leader as a hypocrite and a liar. The district judge had found him to be untruthful.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The findings of the court were deficient, giving no reasoning as to what threats to publc order were found.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 4A(1), European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHandyside 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 . .
CitedThe Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .
CitedRedmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
CitedHammond v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Jan-2004
The defendant, who had since died, had been convicted of a public order offence in that standing in a street he had displayed a range of placards opposing homosexuality. He appealed saying that the finding was an unwarranted infringement of his . .

Cited by:

CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
CitedBauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass.
Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser . .
CitedJames v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Nov-2015
The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.231225

Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v Serious Fraud Office: Admn 2002

There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written application for warrants.
Held: The court considered the statutory requirements applicable to such warrants, and the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act. The starting point was said to be sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act. Lord Woolf CJ assumed without finally deciding that ‘all the requirements of sections 15 and 16 have to be complied with if a warrant is to protect a search and the seizure of goods within premises to which it relates’. As to section 2 of the 1987 Act: ‘The structure of section 2 is clear. It is intended that the powers that are given to the Director under subsection (3) should be used to obtain documents, if it is appropriate to do so, and it is only in cases that do not lend themselves to being dealt with under subsection (3) that the powers contained in subsections (4) and (5), which were those used here by the SFO, in entering the premises in question, can be used.’ The hard drive of a computer would be ‘a document’ and, which it is true that section 2(18) defined ‘document’ in broad terms.
The court accepted a submission that Article 8 of the European Convention had to be taken into account when considering sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act, and section 2 of the 1987 Act: ‘In what I have said so far I have had fully in mind the fact that on any showing there is an intrusion into the protection provided by Article 8(1) where searches of the sort that took place in this case, and the removal of material as happened here, occur. However, Article 8(1) does not stand by itself; it stands subject to Article 8(2). It is my view that in drawing the legislation contained in PACE in the terms that it has, parliament is endeavouring to give statutory effect to the same principles which Article 8 is designed to protect .. The need to consider Article 8 only arises if sections 15 and 16 do not provide sufficient protection in themselves. In my judgment they do. Article 8 in a case of this sort does not add anything to what has been the position hitherto.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA 3023

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16, Criminal Justice Act 1987 2, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEnergy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
CitedFaisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.230388