Maznev And Others v Russia: ECHR 22 Jun 2017

ECHR Judgment : Violation of Article 3 – Prohibition of torture Article 3 – Degrading treatment Substantive aspect Violation of Article 5
ECHR Judgment : Struck out of the list : Third Section Committee

Citations:

48826/08, [2017] ECHR 579, [2020] ECHR 263

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.607682

Cumhuriyetci Egitim Ve Kultur Merkezi Vakfi v Turkey: ECHR 20 Jun 2017

ECHR Judgment : Respondent State to take measures of a general character Article 46 – General measures Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
ECHR Judgment : Revision rejected : Second Section

Citations:

32093/10, [2017] ECHR 574, [2019] ECHR 162

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.607640

MB (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 20 Feb 2008

Questions as to the proper interpretation of para 317(i) of the Immigration Rules (‘the Rules’) and the application of articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) to that paragraph

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 102, [2008] Imm AR 490, [2008] INLR 590

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.264634

Napier v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 29 Apr 2004

The claimant, whilst a prisoner. had been found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, and sentenced to additional days. He was not allowed representation at the hearing. The respondent argued that, the penalty having later been quashed, the hearing had been reduced in status to an administrative hearing which did not require compliance with the Human Rights Act.
Held: The decisive factor in Ezeh was the addition of days to the sentence. Stripped of the sentence the finding did not amount to a finding of guilt, and could properly be characterised as administrative. The decision could be useful in the management of the claimant’s conditions in prison. ‘In my view a proper reading of the Ezeh and Connors case leads to the conclusion that, absent the imposition of added days, absent the requirement that the adjudication needs to be Article 6 compliant. In other words, without those added days, application of the Engel criteria would have led to a different conclusion. I say that for several reasons.’

Judges:

Goldring J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 936 (Admin), Times 27-May-2004, Gazette 03-Jun-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 3056, [2005] 3 All ER 76, [2004] ACD 61

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEzeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .

Cited by:

CitedTangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.196782

Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 18 Jun 2003

The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal succeeded. By 1995 discrimination as to pensions was no longer supportable. And those appellants pursuing that point succeeded. The Human Rights Act required the court to read statute to be compliant. A statute purporting to justify an infringement could not be relied upon as a defence. Those individuals who had taken their cases to the Human Rights Court had been paid on a friendly settlment. Such would not oblige the respondent to make arrangements for others. This was well recognised as a motive for such settlements. However the Secretary had power to make the payments, and in failing to pay he again infringed the claimants’ 6.1 rights, but it was not irrational not to make extra statutory payments for those who had not claimed. It was necessary to make a payment in damages to achieve just satisfaction, and damages were awarded.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Rix Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 813, Times 28-Jun-2003, Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2623, 14 BHRC 626, [2003] 2 FCR 504, [2003] UKHRR 1268, [2003] 3 All ER 673

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 36 37 38, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262(1), European Convention on Human Rights 14 First Prot Art1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
CitedCornwell v United Kingdom; Leary v United Kingdom ECHR 25-Apr-2000
Mr Cornwell’s wife had died on 24 October 1989, leaving a dependent child. On 7 February 1997 his representative had ‘contacted’ the Benefits Agency to enquire about widow’s benefits. On 14 February 1997 the Agency ‘answered’ to say that legislation . .
CitedAbdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
CitedMellacher and Others v Austria ECHR 19-Dec-1989
The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the . .
Appeal fromHooper and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 14-Feb-2002
The claimants alleged that the way they were treated as widowers under the benefits subjected them to discrimination.
Held: The continued payment of widow’s pension was objectively justified. . .

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: . .
Appeal fromHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.183704

Unabhangige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v Austria: ECHR 26 Feb 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

28525/95, [2002] ECHR 163

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.167678

Dichand And Others v Austria: ECHR 26 Feb 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The court pointed to the distinction in the context of political debate between a value judgment, where the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there is a factual basis for the impugned statement, and a gratuitous personal attack where there is insufficient factual basis, where interference may be justified.

Citations:

29271/95, [2002] ECHR 154

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedGaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.167677

Gaddafi v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 28 Oct 1998

The claimant, the son of the leader of Libya, sought damages for defamation from the defendant for an article alleging his involvement in criminal activities. The defendant appealed orders striking out certain parts of his defence, and the claimant appealed orders leaving other parts in place. Was there a qualified privilege for the articles because of the claimant’s involvement in politics? The newspaper claimed that, when claiming privilege, it was proper to hide the identity of the sources of information upon which the claim was based.
Held: A claim of qualified privilege required a social duty to publish, that those receiving the information had a proper interest in receiving it, and where the nature, status and source of the material, and the circumstances of the publication such as to justify a privilege. An order requiring disclosure of the sources would severely risk press freedom, and was not justified. Appeal and cross appeal s allowed in part.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Hirst And Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1626, [2000] EMLR 431

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedReynolds TD v Times Newspapers Ltd; Ruddock and Witherow CA 8-Jul-1998
The claimant, the former Taoiseach of Ireland sought damages after the defendant newspaper published an article falsely accusing him of duplicity. The paper said that his position meant that they should have the defence of quaified privilege . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145105

Halabi, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark: Admn 1 May 2020

Whether the imposition of a Notification Order (‘N/O’) under section 97 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (‘SOA 2003’) was disproportionate and breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Judges:

Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Mr Justice Holgate

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1053 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650733

Haase v Germany: ECHR 8 Apr 2004

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to taking into care ; No separate issue under Art. 6-1 ; Inadmissible under Art. 8 with regard to denial of access ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniay damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award

Citations:

11057/02

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195859

Sulak v Turkey: ECHR 1996

(Commission) A reasonable denial of the right to education does not violate the Convention.

Citations:

(1996) 84-A DR 98

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedAli v The Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School CA 29-Mar-2004
The student had been unlawfully excluded from school. The school had not complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the Act.
Held: Though the 1996 Act placed the responsibilty for exclusion upon the local authority, the head and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195704

Reyntjens v Belgium: ECHR 1992

(Commission) ‘. . The obligation to carry an identity card and to show it to the police when requested to do so does not as such constitute an interference in a person’s private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention’.

Citations:

(1992) 73 DR 136

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the application of S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Regina (Marper) v Same CA 12-Sep-2002
The applicants had been charged with offences, but later acquitted. On arrest they had had DNA samples and fingerprints taken, and the details added to the national DNA database. The police refused to remove the records after the acquittals.
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.197779

S v France: ECHR 1990

The Commission, dealing with admissibility, pointed out that noise nuisance could be so severe as to amount to a partial expropriation where it rendered a property unsaleable or unusable, severely affecting its value. Where substantial compensation was payable in a control of use case (involving substantial interference with the applicant’s enjoyment of her property) there was no infringement of Article 1P1.

Citations:

[1990] 65 DR 250

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Land

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193775

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004

Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirement of mens rea. But the substance and effect of any presumption adverse to a defendant must be examined, and must be reasonable.’
The justifiability and fairness of such defences have to be judged in the particular context of each case. The defendant being found drunk in charge a car, he appealed a finding which relied upon his failure to prove his own intention not to drive. The burden of proof provision in section 5(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a legal burden on an accused who is charged with an offence contrary to section 5(1)(b) of that Act. The second defendant faced charges under the Terrorism Act 2000, of being a member of a proscribed organisation. The A G appealed his acquittal in the Court of Appeal. ‘Section 11(1), considered on its own, is a provision of extraordinary breadth. It would cover a person who joined an organisation when it was not a terrorist organisation or when, if it was, he did not know that it was. It would cover a person who joined an organisation when it was not proscribed or, if it was, he did not know that it was. It would cover a person who joined such an organisation as an immature juvenile. It would cover someone who joined such an organisation abroad in a country where it was not prosribed and came to this country ignorant that it was proscribed here’ Section 11(2) should be read down to impose only an evidential burden on a defendant.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 43, Times 14-Oct-2004, [2005] 1 AC 264, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(2), Terrorism Act 2000 11(2), European Convention on Human Rights 6.2, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDaniel MNaghtens Case HL 1843
Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a mental disorder under which he believed that he was being persecuted by various bodies in authority, including the Tory Party. He sought to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, but shot and killed instead . .
CitedWoolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .
CitedRegina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
CitedMancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
CitedRegina v Edwards 1975
On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices’ licence, it is not for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had no licence but for the defendant to prove that he had. The burden of establishing a statutory exemption by way of a . .
CitedJayasena v The Queen PC 1-Dec-2006
J appealed from his conviction of murder. He admitted the act but said that it was in self defence. He said that the Judge had misdirected the jury as to the burden of evidence on the issue of self defence.
Held: Lord Devlin said: ‘Their . .
CitedNimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act.
Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the . .
CitedWarner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1968
The appellant had been convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the 1964 Act, of having been found in possession of drugs.
Held: (Reid dissenting) The prosecution had only to prove that the accused knew of the existence of the thing . .
CitedSweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
CitedX v United Kingdom ECHR 1972
The defendant had been convicted of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Held: The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s challenge to this provision . .
CitedRegina v K HL 25-Jul-2001
In a prosecution for an offence of indecent assault on a girl under 16 under the section, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a positive belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 16 or over. The legislation history . .
CitedB (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
CitedBernard v France ECHR 23-Apr-1998
The presumption of innocence is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial required by article 6(1). Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2 . .
CitedSalabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
CitedPham Hoang v France ECHR 25-Sep-1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; . .
CitedAttorney General v Malta 10-Dec-1991
The applcant challenged a provision which imposed criminal liability on a director of a body which had committed a criminal offence ‘unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to . .
CitedH v United Kingdom ECHR 1985
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1973 for committing a murder in the course of a robbery.
Held: The penalty for this offence at the time it was committed was life imprisonment and thus no issue under Art. 7 (art. 7) arises . .
CitedBarbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain ECHR 6-Dec-1988
ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The . .
CitedBrown 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 . .
CitedBates v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jan-1996
The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act.
Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his . .
CitedTelfner v Austria ECHR 20-Mar-2001
ECHR The victim of a motor accident was able to identify the offending car, or even whether the driver was male or female. The car was owned by the applicant’s mother, and he denied driving at the time. There was . .
CitedHeaney and McGuinness v Ireland ECHR 21-Dec-2000
Hudoc The claimants challenged anti-terrorist legislation introduced by the respondent. They complained that it violated the article 6(1) right of the applicants to remain silent and not incriminate themselves, . .
CitedPorras v Netherlands ECHR 18-Jan-2000
The applicant was convicted of intentionally importing cocaine and he complained that the burden of proof had been reversed by imposing on him an obligation, which he found impossible to discharge, to prove that he was not and could not have been . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedRegina v Lambert; Regina v Ali; Regina v Jordan CACD 14-Sep-2000
Each defendant was charged under a statute which provided a defence if they could prove a certain element. They complained that this was a breach of their human rights. The complaint was rejected. It would be wrong to impose a burden of proof on a . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedJanosevic v Sweden ECHR 23-Jul-2002
Complaint was made that tax surcharges were applied in a way which was incompatible with article 6(2) because ‘an almost insurmountable burden of proof’ was imposed on the taxpayer.
Held: There was no need for the Swedish authorities to prove . .
CitedSelvanayagam v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2002
Any presumption of law which had operated against the applicant had been within reasonable limits, had taken account of the importance of what was at stake and had maintained the rights of the defence. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
CitedBellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
CitedRegina v Edwards, Denton and Jackson Hendley Crowley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004) CACD 29-Apr-2004
The court considered references by the Attorney-General with regard to offences imposing a burden of proof upon the defendant. ‘An evidential burden will be discharged by a defendant by ensuring that there is some evidence before the court which . .
CitedRegina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
CitedRegina v Gleeson CACD 3-Oct-2001
The Court of Appeal should not tinker with sentences passed by lower courts in the absence of exceptional circumstances, or where they were wrong in principle, or were manifestly excessive. Here a sentence of 30 months for a professional and . .
Wrongly DecidedRegina v Clive Louden Carass CACD 19-Dec-2001
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
Appeal fromSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2003
The defendant challenged the application of the section, under which he was deemed to have intended to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, unless he could prove it was not his intent to drive, saying this infringed his right to a . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Watkins QBD 1989
The offence in section 5 does not require proof that a defendant is likely to drive when accused of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs: ‘In regard to that section two broad propositions are clear. First, the . .
Appeal fromAttorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 CACD 21-Mar-2003
The defendant had been tried for an offence under the Act of being a member of a proscribed organisation, and professing membership of Hamas. At trial the Crown accepted an evidential burden, that the offence had to be read down to comply with the . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Barker Admn 19-Oct-2004
Driving whilst disqualified – ban expired but no test taken – burden of evidence . .
CitedRegina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry.
Held: The jury should have been directed as to the . .
CitedRegina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
CitedRegina v G CACD 12-Apr-2006
The defendant pleaded guilty to the rape of a twelve year old girl on the agreed basis that he had believed her to be 15, but had been advised that given her age, his belief was immaterial. He now appealed saying that the presumption infringed his . .
CitedChargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wright; Regina (Scott) v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court Admn 4-Feb-2009
The court heard appeals from rulings under the 2004 Act.
Held: In section 1, the hunting of a wild mammal did not include the search for an animal with a view to flushing it from cover. As to the exemptions, the operation of the 1980 Act and . .
CitedWatkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
CitedWebster v Regina CACD 1-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1889 Act for making a corrupt gift to a local government officer. He said that the 1916 Act placed an unfair burden on him to prove that the gift was not corruptly given.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedTovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
CitedTovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
CitedGC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
CitedWaya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
CitedChild Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
CitedWood v Revenue and Customs UTTC 25-Jul-2016
UTTC INCOME TAX – discovery assessments made against taxpayer relying on extended time limits on grounds of deliberate conduct – death of taxpayer – whether assessments should be discharged on grounds personal . .
CitedShepherd v The Information Commissioner CACD 18-Jan-2019
The defendant had been part of an organisation subject to an investigation of child sex abuse. He was cleared of involvement, but had disseminated the confidential reports containing sensitive personal data to support his contention that the process . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.216465

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education: 18 Aug 2000

(Constitutional Court of South Africa) The court considered a ban on corporal punishment in schools in a religious context: ‘Though there might be special problems attendant on undertaking the limitations analysis in respect of religious practices, the standard to be applied is the nuanced and contextual one required by s36 and not the rigid one of strict scrutiny.’ and ‘The underlying problem in any open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in which conscientious and religious freedom has to be regarded with appropriate seriousness, is how far such democracy can and must go in allowing members of religious communities to define for themselves which laws they will obey and which not. Such a society can cohere only if all its participants accept that certain basic norms and standards are binding. Accordingly, believers cannot claim an automatic right to be exempted by their beliefs from the laws of the land. At the same time, the state should, wherever reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or else respectful of the law.’

Judges:

Sachs J

Citations:

(2000) 9 BHRC 53

Links:

Worldlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223032

MH, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health: CA 3 Dec 2004

The patient had been detained under the Act and was incapable of making an application for her freedom.
Held: There was a duty on the state to ensure that mechanisms were made available to a patient to apply to review her continued detention where she was herself incompetent to make such an application. Having been originally detained, the patient’s detention had been extended, and application made to remove her mother as ‘nearest relative’ The result was to leave her with no effective way of exercising her rights.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Mr Justice Lindsay Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1690, Times 08-Dec-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1609, [2005] RPC 14, [2005] 1 WLR 1209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 29(4), European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina (N) v Dr M and Others CA 6-Dec-2002
The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary.
Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.219919

Frette v France: ECHR 26 Feb 2002

A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article 14 in conjunction with article 8, on margin of appreciation grounds. The claimant succeeded on a separate complaint of a breach of article 6. There was the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of children at a time when child psychiatrists and psychologists were divided in their opinions of the effects of being adopted by homosexual parents. Article 14 ‘ . . complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms’ safeguarded by those provisions.’

Citations:

36515/97, [2002] ECHR 156, [2003] 2 FLR 9, (2002) 38 EHRR 438, [2002] ECHR 156

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See AlsoFrette v France ECHR 2002
There are certain grounds of factual difference which by common accord are not acceptable, without more, as a basis for different legal treatment, including sexual orientation: ‘. . the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing . .

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and Another FD 12-Apr-2006
The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
CitedGaughran v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to to the right of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain personal information and data lawfully obtained from the appellant following his arrest for the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption, Discrimination

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.212864

Frette v France: ECHR 2002

There are certain grounds of factual difference which by common accord are not acceptable, without more, as a basis for different legal treatment, including sexual orientation: ‘. . the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law. The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background; in this respect, one of the relevant factors may be the existence or non-existence of common ground between the laws of Contracting States.’

Citations:

(2003) 2 FLR 9, (2002) 38 EHRR 438

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See AlsoFrette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198489

Kutzner v Germany: ECHR 26 Feb 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, and the placement of children in foster homes or other accommodation which they do not share with their parents constitutes an interference with the right protected by article 8.

Citations:

46544/99, (2002) 35 EHRR 653, [2002] ECHR 160

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.167674

Chandran v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 14 May 2020

Refusal of discretionary leave to remain. The appellant had entered the UK clandestinely in 2007 as a child, but his mother’s asylum claim for herself and him was refused. Eventually his mother was granted discretionary leave to remain.

Judges:

Flaux, Popplewell, Dingemans LJJ

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 634

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650772

Belhadj and Others v Security Service and Others (Including Determination): IPT 29 Apr 2015

The court considered the methods used for collection of information by the security services, and gave the following guidance: ‘(i) Whether in fact there has been, prior to 18 November 2014, soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of the Claimants which have been obtained by the US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream in contravention of Articles 8 and/or 10 ECHR as declared to be unlawful by the Tribunal’s order of 6 February 2015.
(ii) Whether in fact the Claimants’ communications have been intercepted pursuant to s.8(1) or s.8(4) of RIPA, and intercepted, viewed, stored or transmitted so as to amount to unlawful conduct and/or in contravention of and, not justified by, Articles 8 and/or 10 ECHR. In this regard questions of proportionality arise, and the Tribunal has taken fully into account the submissions made by the Claimants and the Respondents.’

Citations:

[2015] UKIPTrib 13 – 132-H

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 68(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBelhadj and Others v The Security Service, SIS, GCHQ, Home Office and FCO IPT 7-Feb-2014
The Tribunal considered the Complainants’ application for interim relief in their case before it in the light of undertakings given by the Respondents. It also gave preliminary consideration to appropriate practice to be followed in the event a . .

Cited by:

CitedLiberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) and Others v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 22-Jun-2015
. .
CitedPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.549265

Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another: IPT 12 Feb 2016

‘hearing in respect of the claim by Privacy International, the well known NGO, and seven internet service providers, of which Greennet Limited carries on operations in this country and the other Claimants have customers in this country, though their main operations are based abroad. The hearing has been of preliminary issues of law, whose purpose is to establish whether, if the Second Respondent (‘GCHQ’) carries on the activity which is described as CNE (Computer Network Exploitation), which may have affected the Claimants, it has been lawful.’

Judges:

Burton P, Mitting VP JJ

Citations:

[2016] UKIPTrib 14 – 85-CH

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Intelligence Services Act 1994, Computer Misuse Act 1990 1 3 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedLiberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 5-Dec-2014
The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret . .
CitedRE v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.564196

Axon v Ministry of Defence: QBD 11 Apr 2016

Action for misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence.
Held: Information relating to the events leading to the removal of a Royal Navy warship commander from that role fell outside the ambit of his private or personal life.
This question of whether this was a private life issue was considered in the context of the a claim under article 8 and/or for breach of confidentiality in relation to investigations by the defendant into complaints about Commander Axon’s conduct as a naval officer. It was accepted that his was a public role, and that his removal from command of a vessel was a ‘public matter’. However, it was argued on his behalf that the reasons for his removal were matters in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Nicol J observed that the claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy are relevant to the present case. First, see, the case concerned: ‘the claimant’s role in a very public position. That does not mean that there is nothing about his performance in that role which would attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, but it sets an important context.’
Second, the misconduct in question was both serious and material to the stage 1 question.
Third, the serious and unusual event was bound to become a public fact,
Fourth, the security markings on the relevant personnel documents did not preclude the argument that the claimant did not in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that it contained.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 787 (QB), [2016] EMLR 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoAxon v Ministry of Defence QBD 19-Apr-2016
Order for costs following principal judgment. . .
CitedNT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
CitedZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.562789

JR38, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland): SC 1 Jul 2015

The appellant was now 18 years old. In July 2010 two newspapers published an image of him. He was at that time barely 14 years old. These photographs had been published by the newspapers at the request of the police. The publication of the appellant’s photographs and those of others who had been involved in public disorder in Londonderry was part of a police campaign known as ‘Operation Exposure’ which was designed to counteract sectarian rioting at what are called ‘interface areas’ in parts of Derry. Interface areas are situated at the boundaries of parts of the city which are predominantly inhabited by one or other of the two main communities.
The appellant argues that publication of photographs of him constituted a violation of his article 8 rights. ‘
Held: The appeal failed. The publication of his photograph was not an infringement of the applicant’s human rights.
There was, per Lords Kerr and Wilson, in interference in his rights, but that interference was proportionate and justified.
Lords Toulson, Clarke, and Hodge did not think that there had been an interference with the appellant’s human rights, because in the circumstances there had been no expectation of privacy.
Lord Toulson JSC said: ‘ In Campbell’s case Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said at para 21 that ‘Essentially the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy’. He also warned that courts need to be on guard against using as a touchstone a test which brings into account considerations which should more properly be considered at the later stage of proportionality. Applying Campbell’s case, Sir Anthony Clarke MR said in Murray’s case at para 35 that ‘The first question is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy’. He said at para 36 that the question is a broad one which takes account of all the circumstances of the case, including the attributes of the claimant, the nature of the activity in which the claimant was involved, the place at which it was happening, and the nature and purpose of the intrusion. The principled reason for the ‘touchstone’ is that it focuses on the sensibilities of a reasonable person in the position of the person who is the subject of the conduct complained about in considering whether the conduct falls within the sphere of article 8 . If there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy, or legitimate expectation of protection, it is hard to see how there could nevertheless be a lack of respect for their article 8 rights.”

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] HRLR 13, [2015] UKSC 42, [2015] WLR(D) 280, [2016] AC 1131, [2015] 3 WLR 155, [2015] EMLR 25, [2015] 4 All ER 90, UKSC 2013/0181

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal fromJR 38, Re Judicial Review QBNI 21-Mar-2013
Application for judicial review of a decision by the PSNI to release to local newspapers for publication images of persons suspected of being involved in sectarian rioting and violent offending at an interface area at Fountain Street/Bishop Street . .
CitedX v Iceland ECHR 18-May-1976
The right to respect for private life was held to ‘comprise also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings’. . .
CitedNiemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
CitedRotaru v Romania ECHR 4-May-2000
Grand Chamber – The applicant, a lawyer, complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the use against him by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file which contained information about his conviction for . .
CitedPG and JH v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-2001
The use of covert listening devices within a police station was an infringement of the right to privacy, since there was no system of law regulating such practices. That need not affect the right to a fair trial. The prosecution had a duty to . .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedSidabras And Dziautas v Lithuania ECHR 27-Jul-2004
Former KGB officers complained that they were banned, not only from public sector employment, but also from many private sector posts. This ‘affected [their] ability to develop relationships with the outside world to a very significant degree, and . .
CitedSciacca v Italy ECHR 11-Jan-2005
The court was asked whether the applicant’s rights under Article 8 had been infringed by the release to the press of an identity photograph taken of her by the Italian Revenue Police while she was under arrest and investigation for various criminal . .
CitedCemalettin Canli v Turkey ECHR 18-Nov-2008
The Court found interference in the applicant’s right to respect of his private life in that the police prepared and submitted to a domestic court an inaccurate report in the context of criminal proceedings against him. . .
CitedReklos and Davourlis v Greece ECHR 15-Jan-2009
(Press release) The court considered the rights when photographs were taken in public: ‘the court finds that it is not insignificant that the photographer was able to keep the negatives of the offending photographs, in spite of the express request . .
CitedWood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-May-2009
The appellant had been ostentatiously photographed by the police as he left a company general meeting. He was a peaceful and lawful objector to the Arms Trade. He appealed against refusal of an order for the records to be destroyed. The police had . .

Cited by:

CitedWeller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Nov-2015
The three children of a musician complained of the publication of photographs taken of them in a public place in California. . .
CitedNT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
CitedRichard v The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 18-Jul-2018
Police suspect has outweighable Art 8 rights
Police (the second defendant) had searched the claimant’s home in his absence in the course of investigating allegations of historic sexual assault. The raid was filmed and broadcast widely by the first defendant. No charges were brought against the . .
CitedZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Police, Human Rights, Family

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.549907

RE v The United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Oct 2015

Judges:

Guido Raimondi, P

Citations:

62498/11 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)), [2015] ECHR 947, (2016) 63 EHRR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedPrivacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another IPT 12-Feb-2016
‘hearing in respect of the claim by Privacy International, the well known NGO, and seven internet service providers, of which Greennet Limited carries on operations in this country and the other Claimants have customers in this country, though their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.554368

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 25 Nov 2015

The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant as to his conduct as an MP. The defendant having pleaded justification, the court now tried the liability issue.
Held: The claim failed. The publication had the benefit of reynolds privilege.
Warby J said: ‘Applying these principles to the evidence in the present case the key factors to my mind are these. The claimant was a serving MP, and a Committee chair. The articles related wholly and exclusively to his conduct in those public roles, and not in any way to his private or personal life. I do not consider that the nature of the information is such as to engage Article 8. Further, Mr Yeo is unsurprisingly a robust individual and, although I have no doubt he has suffered considerable stress and anxiety as a result of publication there was, on the evidence, no interference of any seriousness with his family or home life, or with his relationships within his community. In summary, this was a disclosure that related to his public roles, not his private life. The consequences for him of the attack on reputation that was involved were not of a nature or gravity such as to engage Article 8; his ‘personal integrity’ was not undermined. It follows that in my judgment the right approach in principle is the one indicated by the European Court in the Sunday Times case and by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds itself.’

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3375 (QB), [2017] EMLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoYeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 4-Feb-2015
The claimant MP sought damages alleging defamation by the defendant newspaper. The court heard a second case management conference as to amended particulars of claim. . .
See AlsoYeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 22-Jul-2015
Pre-trial review of libel action. . .

Cited by:

CitedEconomou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
CitedNT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
CitedZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.555034

Liberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others: IPT 5 Dec 2014

The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (and similarly also known as MI6) and the Government Communications Headquarters.

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

[2014] UKIPTrib 13 – 77-H, [2015] HRLR 2, [2015] 3 All ER 142

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Admn 2-Feb-2017
PI appealed from a ruling of the IPT that the provision which empowered the Secretary of State to authorise ‘the taking . . of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified’ was wide enough to encompass computer . .
At IPTPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others CA 23-Nov-2017
The claimant sought to bring judicial review against the IPT. The IPT argued that section 67(8) of the 2000 Act prevented such a claim. . .
See AlsoLiberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) and Others v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others IPT 6-Feb-2015
. .
At IPTPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
AppliedPrivacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another IPT 12-Feb-2016
‘hearing in respect of the claim by Privacy International, the well known NGO, and seven internet service providers, of which Greennet Limited carries on operations in this country and the other Claimants have customers in this country, though their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.539999

Miranda v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 19 Feb 2014

The claimant alleged that his detention by the police and the removal from him of encrypted computer storage devices purporting to use powers under the 2000 Act. He and his journalist partner had received and published materials said to be of security data received from the US reating to British security services. He now sought judicial review saying that the powers had been used for an improper purpose.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Ouseley, Openshaw JJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 255 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 93, [2014] 1 WLR 3140, [2014] HRLR 9, [2014] 3 All ER 447

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 7-Apr-1998
An application had been made for a production order under section 93H of the 1988 Act which was concerned with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct. The issue was whether an order obtained for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of . .
CitedCC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another Admn 20-Dec-2011
The claimant challenged the use against him of anti-terrorist powers to question and detain passengers at airports etc.
Held: Whether the poers had been used for a proper purpose: ‘will depend on what the officers knew and why they decided to . .

Cited by:

CitedLord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
CitedMiranda, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others CA 19-Jan-2016
The claimant had been stopped at Heathrow by the defendant’s officers, and an encrypted data device had been taken from him using powers derived from the 2000 Act. The device was thought to contain material taken from the US NSA security service. He . .
CitedPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.521581

T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: Admn 3 May 2013

The claimant, a 15 year old boy,alleged that his detention in the cells at a Magistrates court when facing a charge of breach of bail conditions was a breach of his human rights and under the 1933 and 2010 Acts.
Held: In the particular circumstances there was a breach of the 1933 Act, but not otherwise.

Judges:

Sir John Thoma P QBD, Cranston J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1119 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 31, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.503472

Holmes v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Feb 2009

The applicant complained under Article 6 – 1 of the Convention that the ancillary relief proceedings were not dealt with within a reasonable time, that he was not given a real opportunity to present his case and that some of the judges involved in the proceedings were not impartial.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

5787/06, [2009] ECHR 429

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Family

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.317935