Category: Human Rights

F-K, Regina (on The Application of) v Polish Judicial Authority: Admn 19 Jan 2012

The defendant sought to resist the European Arrest Warrant, saying that her extradition would breach her and her family’s human right to a family life. Since fleeing Poland, she had lived in the UK and now had young children attanding school.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 25 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 14, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

Appeal from – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460549

Solitaire Property Management Company and Another v Holden and Others: UTLC 10 Apr 2012

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – reserve funds – lease providing that reserve funds could be used to meet any temporary deficiencies in monies available for general expenditure – whether LVT should have embarked on any consideration of the question of whether monies from the reserve funds had been so spent and (if so) whether any legally sufficient reasons given for its conclusions on this point and related points (raised by LVT) under Article 1 of First Protocal of ECHR and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 – jurisdiction of LVT – whether LVT entitled to disagree with and to refuse to follow a High Court decision regarding application of s.20(B) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – reasonableness of service charges – costs

Judges:

Huskinson Judge

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 86 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Consumer

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460252

Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH,: ECJ 7 Jun 2012

ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Difference of treatment on grounds of age – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – General principles of European Union law – Collective agreement – Failure to take into account, for the grading on the salary scale of cabin crew members of an airline, professional experience acquired with another airline belonging to the same group of companies – Contract clause

Citations:

C-132/11, [2012] EUECJ C-132/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2000/78/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Discrimination, Human Rights, Employment

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460220

Scoppola v Italy (No 3): ECHR 22 May 2012

(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law.

Citations:

126/05, [2012] ECHR 868

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Scoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 18-Jan-2011
(referral to the grand chamber) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections, Prisons

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460181

Ferdinand Jozef Colon v The Netherlands: ECHR 15 May 2012

Acting under the Municipalities Act, with the authority of a byelaw passed by the local council, the Burgomaster of Amsterdam designated most of the old centre of Amsterdam as a security risk area for a period of six months and again for a further period of 12 months. Under the Arms and Ammunition Act, this enabled a public prosecutor to order that, for a randomly selected period of 12 hours, any person within the designated area might be searched for the presence of weapons. The prosecutor had to give reasons for the order by reference to recent reports. The applicant refused to submit to a search when stopped and was arrested and prosecuted for failing to obey a lawful order.
Held: The applicant’s complaint that this interference with his article 8 rights was not ‘in accordance with the law’ was limited to the ineffectiveness of the judicial remedies available, in particular that no prior judicial authorisation for the order was necessary. The court pointed out that the Burgomaster’s designation had to be based on a byelaw adopted by an elected representative body, which also had powers to investigate the Burgomaster’s use of the power. There was also an objection and appeal mechanism. The criminal courts could then examine the lawfulness of the use made of it. Hence the power was ‘in accordance with the law’. The court went on to find that the interference was ‘necessary in a democratic society’. The legal framework involved both the Burgomaster and the prosecutor, hence no single executive officer could alone order a preventive search operation. These preventive searches were having their intended effect of helping to reduce violent crime in Amsterdam. These reasons were sufficient to justify the unpleasantness and inconvenience to the applicant.

Citations:

49458/06, [2012] ECHR 946

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Cited – Roberts, 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.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460137

Dzankovic v Germany: ECHR 8 Dec 2009

The applicant complained that his request for his chosen representative to be designated official defence counsel had been refused.
Held: The interests of justice did not require that the applicant’s chosen counsel be appointed official defence counsel. The application was declared inadmissible. The applicant was still represented by the same counsel whom he wished to have designated as official defence counsel. The reason behind the request related to the payment of counsel’s fees from public resources. But that made no difference. What was important was, in the words of the judgment, that he had not put forward ‘any grounds making a different procedural approach necessary to ensure [that his] rights of . . defence’ were secured.

Citations:

6190/09, [2009] ECHR 2172

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 21-Mar-2018
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.392810

European Roma Rights Centre and 6 others v Tthe Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 8 Oct 2002

There is an ‘administrative, financial and indeed social burden borne as a result of failed asylum seekers’.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton The Honourable Justice Burton <

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin), [2003] ACD 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 1 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
At First Instance – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.177441

Regina on the Application of Smith v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 3 Apr 2003

The case asked what duty the respondent had, in respect of youths sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure before 30th November 2000, to review their continued detention at regular intervals. A statement said that once a tarriff had been set the Secretary would only consider matters relating to the crime or the defendant’s state of mind at that time. After V the courts were given the task of setting the tarriff. It was now said that the practice set down in Venables applied to the executive only and was no longer applicable.
Held: What matters is the nature of the sentence, ie to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. She therefore had the right to have her tariff or minimum period reviewed from time to time for all of the reasons spelt out by the majority in Venables. The situation in relation to those sentenced prior to 30th November 2000 is still governed by the decision of the House of Lords in Venables.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Mitchell

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 692 (Admin), Times 11-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2176

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 90(1), Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Browne v The Queen PC 6-May-1999
(St Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder whilst still a youth. He had accordingly been sentenced to be detained ‘during [the Governor-General’s] pleasure; and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Appeal from – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar CA 11-Feb-2004
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the . .
See Also – Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Jul-2003
. .
At First instance – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.180455

M, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 2 Dec 2010

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3541 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Cited – AM and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 17-Mar-2009
The claimants complained of their detention after the disorder at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre.
Held: The investigation of allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment related to those in the custody of the State, though it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459755

Otobo, Regina (on The Application of) v Slough Borough Council: Admn 12 Jan 2011

Renewed application by Mr Otobo for permission to apply for judicial review. He had been called in for a voluntary interview by the council investigating whether any offence might have been committed in his claiming of housing benefit. Though warned that it would be held under PACE, and that he would be allowed a solcitor, they refused his request for advance disclosure of materials showing why he had been called in for interview. He said that this refusal infringed his article 6 rights.
Held: Leave to bring review was refused. HHJ Anthony Thornton QC had correctly set out in detail the reasons why there was no right to disclosure at this stage. He had pointed out that the defendant council was undertaking an investigation as a prelude to deciding whether or not to prosecute the claimant. He noted that the defendant has no right to insist that the claimant attends for interview, and the defendant is not required in law to give prior notification of the basis of the suspicion. Equally, the defendant could proceed with this investigation and, if it considered it appropriate, prosecute the claimant, even if he has refused to be interviewed. The judge concluded that, if the defendant decides to prosecute the claim, the content of his interview may only be adduced in evidence if the interview is carried out under caution and subject to PACE. The judge further notes that Article 6 was not applicable as the interview was not at that stage part of any trial or legal proceedings, since no trial or legal proceedings had been begun. He considered that the proposed procedure was, in any event, fair and beyond reproach, and included an ability of the investigative officer to provide disclosure if he or she thought fit. The claimant could have a lawyer present during the interview.

Judges:

Clive Lewis QC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2154 (Admin), [2011] RVR 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459707

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 22 May 2012

The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such bar would operate to infringe its human rights.

Judges:

Mummery, Elias, David LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 689, [2012] CP Rep 38, [2012] STI 2593, [2012] STC 2036, [2012] WLR(D) 159, [2012] 1 WLR 2912

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .

Cited by:

See Also – Eastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See Also – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459681