Category: Human Rights

Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council v O’Sullivan and another: CA 25 Mar 2003

The council granted a tenancy to the husband many years ago. At various times the couple split up then came back together. The husband was rehoused, but at the time misled the council to say his wife was not living in the flat. When the council sought a possession order, she alleged the action was discriminatory, and breached her right to respect for private and family life.
Held: At the time, it was common practice to grant a tenancy in the name of one spouse (the husband). The parties lived separate lives, even if in the same house. If it had know of the misrepresentation the council would not have transferred the tenancy for the husband. The council acted on the basis of the facts known to it. The decision was reasonable and the possession order stood. The husband had not been treated differently than she would have been.

Judges:

Aldous, Waller, Arden LJJ

Citations:

Times 27-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 371

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.180102

QSA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: CA 10 Feb 2020

The claimants appealed from rejection of their challenge to rules as to the retention despite the passages of several years of records of their multiple convictions for minor prostitution related offences. The records were retained because there was more than one conviction, and the continued retention infringed their human rights, being discriminatory.
Held: The appeals failed.

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 130

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.648160

Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 23 May 2011

The claimant had obtained orders restricting publication by the defendant of stories of his relationship with a woman. The order had also restrained publication of their names. The names had since been revealed under parliamentary prvilege, and the defendant sought the discharge of the order.
Held: This had not been a ‘superinjunction’, and there had been no restriction on relevant publications to the FSA.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1309 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Mar-2011
The defendant resisted an order preventing disclosure of information said by the claimant to be private.
Held: At the start of the hearing before herself, she had been told that the application for an interim injunction was no longer opposed. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-May-2011
An associated claimant alleged contempt against another newspaper for publishing matters so as to defeat the purposes of a privacy injunction granted to her.
Held: Even though the principle claimant had been subsequenty identified with the . .
See Also – Goodwin 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.440086

O’Riordan v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 19 May 2005

An offender had absconded with a child and was to be prosecuted for sex offences against her. The police circulated all the journalists who had had contact to say that an identification of the defendant would also identify the girl. The defendant here, the editor of a magazine was not so informed. She published the name, and a photograph of the girl, and now appealed her conviction for offences under the 1992 Act.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. There existed strong grounds on which a suspicion that an allegation of sexual misconduct against this girl could properly be based. ‘It was, if there was any doubt about the matter, clearly open to the defendant to make enquiries of the police in order that she might be equipped with all that information, to which I have referred, which had been circulated to persons other than her by e-mail and otherwise.’

Judges:

Rose LJ, Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1240 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General v Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd QBD 4-Dec-2001
The defendant newspaper had published facts relating to the whereabouts of two youths protected by injunction against the publication of any information likely to lead to their location. The injunction was not ambiguous or unclear. ‘Likely’ did not . .
Cited – Brown v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Jul-2002
Article 6(2) of the Convention was not violated by a provision which enabled a newspaper proprietor or publisher to escape strict liability under section 4(5) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 only if he proved, on the balance of . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.227055

K v Denmark: ECHR 5 May 1993

A lawyer, Mr Reindel, was appointed by the High Court to act as defence counsel for the applicant. It was then discovered that Mr Reindel was to be called as a witness and his appointment was rescinded and another lawyer was appointed in his stead. At para 2 ECmHR said this in relation to article 6.3(c): ‘The Commission recalls that the right to legal representation of one’s own choosing ensured by this provision is not of an absolute nature (cf for example No 5923/72, Dec 30.5.75, DR 3, p 43) and it does not guarantee the right to choose an official defence counsel who is appointed by the court (cf No 6946/75, Dec 6.7.76, DR 6, p 114). In examining this question under article 6 para 3(c) (article 6-3-c) of the Convention the Commission must take account of the situation of the defence as a whole rather than the position of the accused taken in isolation, having regard in particular to the principle of equality of arms as included in the concept of a fair hearing. Thus article 6 para 3(c) (article 6-3-c) of the Convention guarantees that the proceedings against the accused shall not take place without adequate representation for the defence, but does not give the accused the right to decide himself in what manner his defence should be assured (cf for example No 8295/78, Dec 9.10.78, DR 15 p 242).’

Citations:

19524/92, [1993] ECHR 67, CE:ECHR:1993:0210DEC001818791

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

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.660782

Correia De Matos v Portugal: ECHR 15 Nov 2001

The applicant had been committed for trial in Portugal for insulting a judge. The judge investigating that charge assigned a lawyer to represent him. Mr de Matos objected. He wanted to represent himself. He relied on article 6.3(c) of the Convention. He appealed against the order of committal. His appeal was declared inadmissible because it had not been lodged by a lawyer and because he was forbidden to defend himself in person. An appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed for the same reason. The Strasbourg court observed that the European Commission on Human Rights (ECmHR) had ruled on a number of occasions that article 6.3(c) did not invest an accused person with the right to decide how the fair trial of the charge against him should be secured.
‘ . . in this area it is essential for applicants to be in a position to present their defence appropriately in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial. However, the decision to allow an accused to defend himself or herself in person or to assign him or her a lawyer does still fall within the margin of appreciation of the Contracting States, which are better placed than the Court to choose the appropriate means by which to enable their judicial system to guarantee the rights of the defence.
It should be stressed that the reasons relied on for requiring compulsory representation by a lawyer for certain stages of the proceedings are, in the Court’s view, sufficient and relevant. It is, in particular, a measure in the interests of the accused designed to ensure the proper defence of his interests. The domestic courts are therefore entitled to consider that the interests of justice require the compulsory appointment of a lawyer.’

Citations:

48188/99, [2001] ECHR 901

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – X v Norway ECHR 30-May-1975
Article 6, paragraph 3, fitt . c) of the Convention : First instance proceedings. This provision guarantees that proceedings against the accused will nor take place without adequate representation for the defence, but does not give the accused the . .

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 . .
Cited – Correia De Matos v Portugal ECHR 4-Apr-2018
ECHR Judgment : No Article 6+6-3-c – Right to a fair trial : Grand Chamber
The applicant alleged that the decisions of the domestic courts refusing him leave to conduct his own defence in the criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.660780

X v Norway: ECHR 30 May 1975

Article 6, paragraph 3, fitt . c) of the Convention : First instance proceedings. This provision guarantees that proceedings against the accused will nor take place without adequate representation for the defence, but does not give the accused the right to decide himself in what manner his defence should be assured. Reference to national legislation and rules of court.

Citations:

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1975:0530DEC000592372, [1975] ECHR 4, 5923/72

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.3

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Correia De Matos v Portugal ECHR 15-Nov-2001
The applicant had been committed for trial in Portugal for insulting a judge. The judge investigating that charge assigned a lawyer to represent him. Mr de Matos objected. He wanted to represent himself. He relied on article 6.3(c) of the . .
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: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.660779

M (Declaration of Death of Child): CA 14 Feb 2020

A Health Authority had applied for and obtained, against the parents’ wishes, for an order allowing withdrawal of ventilator life support for a child born with brain stem death. The parents now appealed.

Judges:

Sir Andrew McFarlane P

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 164

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health Professions, Human Rights

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.648245