Category: Human Rights

The London Reading College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Oct 2010

The claimant challenged the removal of its name from the ‘sponsor register’ for foreign students wanting to study here.
Held: Neil Garnham QC J said: ‘It has to be remembered that the primary duty about the response to breaches of a college’s duty is the Defendant’s, and the Court’s role is simply supervisory. It has also to be remembered that the underlying principle behind this scheme is that the UKBA entrusts to colleges the power to grant visa letters on the understanding, and with their agreement, that they will act in a manner that maintains proper immigration control. The capacity for damage to the national interest in the maintenance of proper immigration control is substantial if colleges are not assiduous in meeting their responsibilities. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Defendants are entitled to maintain a fairly high index of suspicion as they go about overseeing colleges and a light trigger in deciding when and with what level of firmness they should act.’

Judges:

Neil Garnham QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2561 (Admin), [2010] ELR 809, [2011] ACD 31

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Manchester College of Accountancy and Management, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 1-Mar-2013
The college appealed against the revocation of its Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence.
Held: The challenge failed: ‘the Defendant was entitled on the evidence to conclude that the Claimant was not properly monitoring its students’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Licensing, Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425333

Association Belge Des Consommateurs Test-Achats and Others (Social Policy): ECJ 30 Sep 2010

ECJ Fundamental rights – Combating of discrimination – Equal treatment for men and women – Access to and supply of goods and services – Insurance premiums and benefits – Actuarial factors – Sex as a factor in the assessment of insurance risks – Private life assurance contracts – Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113/EC.

Citations:

C-236/09, [2010] EUECJ C-236/09, [2010] EUECJ C-236/09, [2011] EUECJ C-236/09

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425260

Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council: UTLC 29 Jul 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION–whether the 3 year time limit provided by section 19(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for making a claim for compensation in respect of depreciation in value of interest in land caused by the use of a highway is incompatible with the claimants’ Convention rights under article 1 of the First Protocol and/or article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and if so whether the section can be interpreted under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to be compatible

Judges:

HH Judge Jarman QC

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 268 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973 19(3), European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council CA 26-Jul-2011
Carnwath LJ considered the effect of Bugajny and other cases after Sporrong: ‘ Later cases (see eg Bugajny v Poland (Application No 22531/05) (unreported) given 6 November 2007, para 56 and following) have given further guidance on the practical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425226

Tuquabo-Tekle and others v The Netherlands: ECHR 15 Sep 2010

A mother, father and their three sons were of Eritrean ethnicity but lived in the Netherlands and had acquired Dutch citizenship. When leaving Eritrea in 1989, the mother had left behind a daughter, then aged eight. When she was aged 15, an application was made for her to be allowed to enter the Netherlands in order to live with the family; but it was refused.
Held: By the refusal, the state had violated the rights under article 8 of all six of its members. The asserted obligation of the state was positive, and ‘the boundaries between the state’s positive and negative obligations under this provision do not lend themselves to precise definition’ and that ‘the applicable principles are, nonetheless, similar’.

Citations:

60665/00, [2010] ECHR 1454

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 1-Dec-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .

Cited by:

Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425072

Pichkur v Ukraine: ECHR 21 Sep 2010

Judges:

Peer Lorenzen, P

Citations:

10441/06, [2010] ECHR 1457

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Pichkur v Ukraine ECHR 7-Nov-2013
. .
See Also – Pichkur v Ukraine (Legal Summary) ECHR 7-Nov-2013
ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Termination of payment of retirement pension on the ground that beneficiary was permanently resident abroad: violation
Facts – In 1996 the applicant, who was then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425031

Abdurahman v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Sep 2010

The applicant was questioned by the police as a witness in connection with the attempt to detonate four bombs at separate points in the London public transport system two weeks after the bombings that took place on 7 July 2005. He had been approached by two police officers who took him to a police station. According to their evidence at the voir dire at the applicant’s trial, this was with a view to his assisting the police as a potential witness. They began interviewing him, but after about 45 minutes of questioning they considered that, as a result of the answers that he was giving, he was in danger of incriminating himself and should be cautioned. On instructions from a senior officer they continued nevertheless to interview him as if he were a witness. It was not until after he had completed and signed his witness statement, which contained statements that were incriminating and was made without access to legal assistance, that they were told to arrest him and he was then taken into custody.

Judges:

BM Zupancic, President

Citations:

40351/09, [2010] ECHR 1373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights ^(1) 6(3)(c)

Cited by:

Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424900

Iskandarov v Russia: ECHR 23 Sep 2010

Citations:

17185/05, [2010] ECHR 1336

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others Admn 3-Oct-2011
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424745

Polanco Torres And Movilla Polanco v Spain: ECHR 21 Sep 2010

(French Text) The Spanish Newspaper El Mundo published an article defamatory of the petitioners. It was based on computer disks of company accounts authenticated by an accountant dismissed by the company. The Spanish Constitutional Court had applied a relevant principle of Spanish law described as ‘due diligence’, namely that if such publication is to be protected the journalist responsible for it must have taken ‘effective steps’ to verify the published information.
Held: The Spanish Newspaper El Mundo had published an article defamatory of the petitioners that was largely founded on computer disks of company accounts that had been authenticated by an accountant who had been dismissed by the company. The Spanish Constitutional Court had applied a relevant principle of Spanish law described as ‘due diligence’, namely that if such publication is to be protected the journalist responsible for it must have taken ‘effective steps’ to verify the published information.
Held: The Spanish Newspaper El Mundo had published an article defamatory of the petitioners that was largely founded on computer disks of company accounts that had been authenticated by an accountant who had been dismissed by the company. The Spanish Constitutional Court had applied a relevant principle of Spanish law described as ‘due diligence’, namely that if such publication is to be protected the journalist responsible for it must have taken ‘effective steps’ to verify the published information. The finding of the Spanish Constitutional Court that the requirement of due diligence had been satisfied was uphleld.The Court identified as relevant matters when considering restrictions on freedom of expression under article 10 necessary to protect the reputation of others ‘the degree of defamation involved’ and ‘the question of knowing at what point the media might reasonably consider sources as credible for the allegations’. The latter had to be considered from the viewpoint of the journalists at the time and not with the benefit of hindsight.

Judges:

Josep Casadevall P

Citations:

34147/06, [2010] ECHR 1341

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012
The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now asked whether the paper had Reynolds type . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424751

YC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Jul 2010

Statement of facts

Citations:

4547/10, [2010] ECHR 1228

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

See Also – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court collated a number of different ways in which, in its previous judgments, it had sought to explain the requirements of necessity and proportionality in relation to adoption orders made against the wishes of the parents: ‘The Court . .
Statement of Facts – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court spelt out the stark effects of the proportionality requirement in its application to a determination that a child should be adopted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424052

Regan v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police Force: Admn 28 May 2010

The prisoner was to be released, but had been refused a home detention curfew. The respondent had informed the prison that his life would be at risk if he was released to return to the address intended.

Judges:

The Recorder of Birmingham

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2297 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Humajn Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424076

A Mother v A Father; A Local Authority v A: CA 14 Oct 2009

Care proceedings were under way. The mother objected to the disclosure of certain materials to the father, saying that they were extremely sensitive, and would threaten her relationship with him. She appealed against an order allowing it.
Held: The judge had erred, and had not taken proper account of expert evidence suggesting that there would be a real risk to the mother. The principles of non-disclosure might now have to be extended to other people whose Convention rights might be violated by disclosure.

Judges:

Wilson, Etherton, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1057, [2010] 2 FLR 1757, [2010] 3 FCR 202, [2010] Fam Law 1063

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Durham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
Cited – In re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.423787

Branch and others v Department for Constitutional Affairs: QBD 8 Apr 2005

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim and a consequential civil proceedings order had been made.
Held: ‘ the statement of case in this action disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing any of these claims. Accordingly it must be struck out in its entirety. ‘

Judges:

Tugendhat

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 550 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.224550

AH v West London MHT: UTAA 29 Jul 2010

Prisoner in secure hospital – application for public hearig of request for discharge – refused

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 264 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – AH v West London MHT (J) UTAA 17-Feb-2011
Order for public hearing of detention review under Mental Health Act – at request of AH. . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jan-2016
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.423213

CDS (PBS ‘Available’ Article 8) Brazil: UTIAC 25 Aug 2010

UTIAC Funds are ‘available’ to a claimant at the material time if they belong to a third party but that party is shown to be willing to deploy them to support the claimant for the purpose contemplated.
Article 8 does not give an Immigration Judge a free-standing liberty to depart from the Immigration Rules, and it is unlikely that a person will be able to show an article 8 right by coming to the UK for temporary purposes. But a person who is admitted to follow a course that has not yet ended may build up a private life that deserves respect, and the public interest in removal before the end of the course may be reduced where there are ample financial resources available.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 305 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422371

M v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Jul 2010

FTTTx National Insurance contributions – gender dysphoria – determination of pensionable age – whether possible to interpret ‘woman’ as including person with gender dysphoria living as a woman – whether directly effective right under Directive 79/7 to cease paying contributions otherwise than by satisfying conditions for recognition under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 – Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 ss. 6(3) and 122 and Pensions Act 1995 sched. 4 – Human Rights Act 1998, s. 3 – Directive 79/7 – Gender Recognition Act 2004

Judges:

Nicholas Paines TJ

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 356 (TC), [2010] SFTD 1141, [2010] STI 2863

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 693) 122, Gender Recognition Act 2004, Pensions Act 1995 Sch 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Timbrell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 22-Jun-2010
The claimant had undertaken male to female treatment including surgery and lived as a woman, though continuing to live with her wife. She sought payment of a pension at 60, but was refused. The regulations required a gender recognition certificate . .

Cited by:

Cited – Carpenter v The Secretary of State for Justice Admn 27-Feb-2015
The claimant, a post-operative male-to-female transsexual person, said that section 3(3) of the 2004 Act was incompatible with her Human rights after refusal of a gender recognition certificate.
Held: The application failed. The provision of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes – Other, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422318

Jussila v Finland: ECHR 23 Nov 2006

(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that he did not receive a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he was not given an oral hearing.

Judges:

J-P Costa P

Citations:

73053/01, [2006] ECHR 996, 9 ITL Rep 662, [2009] STC 29

Links:

Bailii, HUDOC

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Chichester v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Jun-2012
FTTTx Penalty; late payment; fairness; Jussila v Finland. ‘Reasonable excuse’. Honest and genuine belief amounts to ‘reasonable excuse’. Honest belief – test – purely subjective. Even an objectively unreasonable . .
Cited – Leachman (T/A Whiteley and Leachman) v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Apr-2011
VAT – PENALTIES – Reasonable excuse – mistake of fact as; Jusilla v Finland. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.246640

Reilly, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 10 May 2010

The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy.
Held: The appropriate remedy was the award of certiorari to quash the board’s decision. He declined to make an award of damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, noting that it was agreed that the appellant could not establish that he had been deprived of liberty as a result of the decision, and concluding that any frustration or distress which he might have suffered was not of such intensity as to justify an award of damages.

Judges:

Treacy J

Citations:

[2010] NIQB 56

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Apr-2010
The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
At first instance – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421865

NS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Jul 2010

The court referred the following questions to the ECJ: ‘(1) Does a decision made by a Member State under Article 3(2) of . . Regulation No 343/2003 whether to examine a claim for asylum which is not its responsibility under the criteria set out in Chapter III of the Regulation fall within the scope of EU law for the purposes of Article 6 [TEU] and/or Article 51 of the Charter . .?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
(2) Is the duty of a Member State to observe EU fundamental rights (including the rights set out in Articles 1, 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter) discharged where that State sends the asylum seeker to the Member State which Article 3(1) [of Regulation No 343/2003] designates as the responsible State in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of the regulation (‘the responsible State’), regardless of the situation in the responsible State?
(3) In particular, does the obligation to observe EU fundamental rights preclude the operation of a conclusive presumption that the responsible State will observe (i) the claimant’s fundamental rights under European Union law; and/ or (ii) the minimum standards imposed by Directives 2003/9 . . 2004/83 . . and 2005/85 . .?
(4) Alternatively, is a Member State obliged by European Union law, and, if so, in what circumstances, to exercise the power under Article 3(2) of the Regulation to examine and take responsibility for a claim, where transfer to the responsible State would expose the [asylum] claimant to a risk of violation of his fundamental rights, in particular the rights set out in Articles 1, 4, 18, 19(2) and/or 47 of the Charter, and/or to a risk that the minimum standards set out in Directives [2003/9, 2004/83 and 2005/85] will not be applied to him?
(5) Is the scope of the protection conferred upon a person to whom Regulation [No 343/2003] applies by the general principles of European Union law, and, in particular, the rights set out in Articles 1, 18 and 47 of the Charter wider than the protection conferred by Article 3 of the ECHR?
(6) Is it compatible with the rights set out in Article 47 of the Charter for a provision of national law to require a court, for the purpose of determining whether a person may lawfully be removed to another Member State pursuant to Regulation [No 343/2003], to treat that Member State as a State from which the person will not be sent to another State in contravention of his rights pursuant to the [ECHR] or his rights pursuant to the [Geneva Convention] and [the 1967 Protocol]?
(7) In so far as the preceding questions arise in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom, are the answers to [the second to sixth questions] qualified in any respect so as to take account of the Protocol (No 30)?’

Judges:

Neuberger MR LJ, Laws, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 990

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421586

LD (Article 8 Best Interests of Child) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC 1. Consistent application of the Immigration Rules to promote the economic and social policy of the UK is a relevant factor in carrying out the balancing exercise under Article 8(2) but the weight attached to it depends on the context of the case, whether there was ever any claim under the rules for indefinite leave to remain, and why such claim was not accepted.
2. In the particular circumstances of this case the weight to be attached to enforcement of immigration control was small in the light of the misdirection as to Paragraph 320 (7A), and the fact that the paragraph applies to all cases whether there is family life deserving respect or not.
3. The interests of minor children and their welfare are a primary consideration. A failure to treat them as such will violate Article 8(2).
4. Weighty reasons would be required to justify separating a parent from a lawfully settled minor child or child from a community in which he or she had grown up and lived for most of his or her life. The general situation in the relevant home country is also relevant, especially if it is known that the conditions there are dire (as they are, for example, in Zimbabwe at present).
5. In this particular case, no useful purpose would have been served if the appellant is required to depart the UK in order to make an entry clearance from abroad. All the issues are to be determined in this appeal rather than in the course of an investigation abroad where there would in any event be an interference.

Judges:

Blake J, P, Ward SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 278 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Europsan Convention on Human Rights 8(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421569

MB (Article 8 Near Miss) Pakistan: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC In an Article 8 case, when balancing the demands of fair and firm immigration control against the disruption of the family or private life of a person if removed for non-compliance with the Immigration Rules, the nature and degree of the non-compliance may well be significant.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 282 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421571

Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) and Others: CA 30 Jul 2010

The claimant had been a foster son and was now the administrator of the estate of the deceased tenant. He sought to occupy the property as a successor under the 1985 Act. He said that as a former foster child, he had become a member of the deceased’s family and the 1985 should be read to reflect that.
Held: The appeal failed. Ward LJ said: ‘the words ‘a person is a member of another’s family within the meaning of this Part if . . ‘ are to be construed to mean that he is only a member of the family if he can bring himself within its ambit. Thus ‘child’ must be limited to the closed categories stipulated in section 113(2), namely blood relationships, step children and illegitimate children. When Parliament wished to extend the meaning to cover de facto relationships, it did so expressly, for example, by defining ‘spouse or civil partner’ to include those who live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners. Absent such amplification there is in our judgment no room for extending the meaning of a ‘child’ to cover a foster child. This definition of the terms distinguishes the Housing Act cases from the Rent Act cases and the flexibility afforded by Fitzpatrick does not apply in this case.’ and ‘ the exclusion of foster children is objectively justified. It follows that the legislation is compatible with Mr Wall’s Convention rights and there is, in those circumstances, no need to extend the ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the statute.’

Judges:

Ward, Etherton, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 922, [2010] HLR 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 87, Human Rights Act 1998 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Carter v SU Carburetter Co CA 1942
A statutory tenancy is not an estate in land but a mere ‘personal right of occupation’ and is unassignable. . .
Cited – Brock v Wollams CA 1949
A child had been adopted in fact and lived with the tenant for many years, but had not been formally adopted under the Act claimed to inherit the tenancy on his death.
Held: He was to be considered to be a member of the former tenant’s family . .
Distinguished – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Approved – Regina (Gangera) v London Borough of Hounslow Admn 2003
The claimant challenged the Act as being an unlawful discrimination.
Held: The 1985 Act in allowing only one succession to a secure tenancy found a proper balance between the needs of the tenant’s family and the duty of a local housing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421208

W (Algeria) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 29 Jul 2010

A potential witness offered evidence but only if his identity and evidence could be kept permanently secret. He feared torture and retribution from the authorities in Algeria.
Held: Such a promise could not be made. It would leave the respondent in an impossible position where, for example, the information disclosed a threat of future terrorist activity.
Sir David Keene said: ‘Mr Tam QC, on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepts that SIAC could give directions under the Procedure Rules preventing the Secretary of State from disclosing such material to any other person, including the Algerian authorities. He acknowledges that SIAC’s power under rule 39 (1) to ‘give directions relating to the conduct of any proceedings’ is expressed in wide and unlimited terms and could be used in conjunction with the rule 43(2) power to conduct a hearing in private for any good reason so as to prevent disclosure to other persons, including the authorities of the appellant’s country of origin’, but concluded that: ‘[I]t is not open to SIAC to make an order giving the absolute and irrevocable guarantee which is sought by the appellants. This may create a difficulty for the appellants, because of the reluctance of their potential witnesses, but it is inescapable. The adverse effect on them can be mitigated by such steps as anonymity orders and hearings in private, but irrevocable orders preventing the Secretary of State from disclosing material to a foreign state in any circumstances cannot properly be made by SIAC in advance of the Secretary of State seeing that material. As counsel for the Secretary of State said at the SIAC hearing, such a proposal is unworkable and in my view falls outside the scope of SIAC’s powers to give directions, broad though those powers are.’

Judges:

Jacob,Sullivan LJJ, Sir David Keene

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – W (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 7-Mar-2012
Each of the three appellants, suspected of terrorist activity, objected to their proposed return to Algeria on deportation, saying that it was accepted that torture was routinely used against people in their position, and without redress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421119

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH: Admn 9 May 2008

The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even under less stringent terms.
Held: The restrictions imposed fell just within the boundary of a restriction on liberty without becoming equivalent to a deprivation on liberty and therefore article 5 was not engaged, and the Secretary of State’s decision to make, renew and continue the Order were not flawed.

Judges:

Mittling J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1018 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AN Admn 29-Feb-2008
The court considered a challenge to a non-derogating control order.
Held: Mitting J said: ‘the conclusion which I draw from the four speeches of the majority in MB is that unless, at a minimum, the Special Advocates are able to challenge the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF Admn 9-Apr-2008
There is no exception to the requirement that a person subject to a non-derogating control order has the right to a fair trial where the secret evidence shows that the subject of the order has no conceivable answer to the claim. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB CA 1-Aug-2006
The Secretary of State appealed a declaration that the restrictions imposed on the complainant under the 2005 Act were an infringement of his human rights, and a declaration of incompatibility as regards section 3.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .

Cited by:

See Also – HXA v The Home Office QBD 21-May-2010
The claimant challenged as unlawful his administrative detention for 10 months pending deportation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.267583

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AN: Admn 29 Feb 2008

The court considered a challenge to a non-derogating control order.
Held: Mitting J said: ‘the conclusion which I draw from the four speeches of the majority in MB is that unless, at a minimum, the Special Advocates are able to challenge the Secretary of State’s grounds for suspicion on the basis of instructions from the controlled person which directly address their essential features, the controlled person will not receive the fair hearing to which he is entitled except, perhaps, in those cases in which he has no conceivable answer to them’.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 372 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.266040