Category: Human Rights

MS (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 Feb 2007

At the time when her asylum application was heard, there was also outstanding an application for contact with her children. The applicant said that to decide to order her removal before that decision would violate her article 8 rights. The respondent argued that it had undertaken not to give any removal directions before that hearing.
Held: The tribunal should have decided on the facts as they were whether a removal would interfere with her rights. It did not have the power to accept an undertaking from the respondent. The tribunal could have granted discretionary leave to remain for a short period.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales Lord Justice Thomas Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 133, Times 27-Mar-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.249911

Regina (M) v Inner London Crown Court: Admn 10 Feb 2003

The applicant’s daughter had been convicted of a petty assault, and she had herself been made subject of a twelve month parenting order. She appealed.
Held: Parenting orders are proper within a democratic society, and do not infringe a parent’s right to respect for family life. Nevertheless, no responsible bench could have made such an order in this case.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Henriques J

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 301 (Admin), [2003] 1 FLR 994

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Durham Constabulary and Another HL 17-Mar-2005
The appellant, a boy aged 15, had been warned as to admitted indecent assaults on girls. He complained that it had not been explained to him that the result would be that his name would be placed on the sex offenders register. The Chief Constable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Education, Crime

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.179785

Regina (POW Trust and Al’s Bar and Restaurant Limited) v The Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies, The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 18 Dec 2002

The complainants were companies fined for late delivery of their accounts. They said that the automatic imposition of the fines infringed their rights.
Held: The procedure allowed a challenge in the County Court, and also the manner of the exercise of the registrar’s discretion allowed application for judicial review in appropriate circumstances. The procedure did not infringe the applicants’ rights. However the manual which contained the guidance as to how the registrar’s discretion was to be exercised should be made public.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, [2002] EWHC 2783 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 56, Companies Act 1985 242A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.178557

Regina (Purja) v Ministry of Defence; Regina (Lama) v Same: Admn 21 Feb 2003

The applicants served as Gurkha soldiers with the army. They claimed that the pensions they received, being substantially less than those paid to other servicemen were discriminatory.
Held: The positions of a retired serviceman in England and one in Nepal were so different as to make the attempted comparison invalid. A better comparison was with retired servicemen in India.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2003, [2003] EWHC 445 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Court of Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Purja and others v Ministry of Defence CA 9-Oct-2003
The applicants were Gurkha soldiers who complained at the differences in treatment of them as against other members of the forces as regards payment, pensions and otherwise, alleged infringement oftheir Article 14 rights, which prevented . .
See Also – Limbu and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 30-Sep-2008
The applicants who were retired Gurkha soldiers challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to impose a cut off of disallowing those who had retired from the armed forces before 1997.
Held: The rules applied to the Ghurkas were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Discrimination

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.180079

Fitt v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Feb 2000

(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.

Judges:

Wildhaber P

Citations:

29777/96, [2000] ECHR 89, (2000) 30 EHRR 480, [2000] Po LR 10

Links:

Bailii, Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Conjoined Hearing – Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
Conjoined Hearing – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant . .
Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.471750

Lindheim And Others v Norway: ECHR 12 Jun 2012

Citations:

13221/08, [2012] ECHR 985

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460661