Category: Human Rights

Selvanayagam 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.

Citations:

Unreported, 12 December 2002, 57981/00, [2002] ECHR 857

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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: . .
Cited – Wright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.218816

Johansen v Norway: ECHR 14 Oct 1985

(Commission) A pacifist objected to civilian substitute service on the ground that it tended to uphold respect for military service.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. Referring to article 4(3)(b): ‘The Convention does not prevent a state from taking measures to enforce performance of civilian service, or from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service.’

Citations:

Unreported, 14 October 1985

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court Admn 7-Oct-2004
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector.
Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.219439

Edwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Jul 2003

(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the other in the company of an undercover officer in possession of forged currency. Each was later convicted. The prosecution had applied for and been granted permission to withhold evidence.
Held: The court must examine the procedures in each case to make sure the defendants’ rights were protected. In a criminal system, it was essential that an adversarial equality of arms between prosecution and defence must be maintained. Whether it was necessary for particular items to be witheld was for the national courts to determine, and the instant court could only look at the procedure followed. Here the undisclosed evidence may have related to an undisclosed issue of fact relevant to the case was decided by the judge. The procedure failed to allow the defence the adversial opportunity to test evidence, and was unfair, and infringed the defendants’ rights. However the failures in these circumstances were not sufficient to justify an award of damages or otherwise.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-2003, 40461/98, 39647/98, [2003] ECHR 381, [2011] ECHR 2267

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants were charged with serious drugs offences. The prosecutor had applied for public interest immunity certificates. The judge had required the appointment of independent counsel. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The same district . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Commission opinion – Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2004
E had been convicted of possession of heroin with intent to supply, and L of possession of counterfeit currency. In each case public interest certificates had been obtained to withold evidence from them. The judge had refused requests to exclude . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.185141

Perry v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Jul 2003

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The claimant had been arrested, then released to attend an identification parade. Several attempts failed, then with senior officer’s consent he was video taped on his next visit to the police station. The tape was used to identify him, and led to his conviction. The use was outside the Codes of Practice.
Held: The covert surveillance was an infringement of his human rights. It was not in accordance with law, and there had been no expectation of being videoed in this way.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award

Citations:

63737/00, Times 26-Aug-2003, [2003] ECHR 375, (2004) 39 EHRR 3

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8.2

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Admn 22-May-2008
The claimant challenged the right of police officers to take his photograph as he attended an annual general meeting of Reed Elsevier Plc. He was a campaigner against the arms trade, but had always acted lawfully. The company noted the purchase of . .
Cited – Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 19-Dec-2012
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.185149

Ryabykh v Russia: ECHR 24 Jul 2003

The entrenched rights of a litigant would be illusory if a judicial decision by an independent body which had become final and binding could thereafter be quashed by a higher court on the application of a state official. A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character.
Held: The supervisory review procedure within Russia was incompatible with Article 6-1.

Citations:

52854/99, [2003] ECHR 396, (2005) 40 EHRR 25

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights6-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Joint Stock Company (Aeroflot-Russian Airlines) v Berezovsky and Another CA 16-Jan-2014
The appellant had judgments obtained in Russia against the respondent. It now appealed against a refusal of enforcement of those judgments based upon the ground that there was a complete defence to the recognition and enforcement of the judgments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.185133

Steel and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Sep 1998

The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant consents, and impose a sentence of up to 6 months’ imprisonment if the Defendant refuses to consent to a bind over. The procedure is initiated by a complaint and a bind over order does not constitute a criminal conviction.
Held: The UK law of Breach of Peace was not so vague as to constitute breach of human rights. It was a breach only where there had been no likelihood at all of violence from any act and nobody else impeded by otherwise peaceful act of progress. ‘The proceedings brought against the first applicant for breaching the peace also display these characteristics: their deterrent nature is apparent from the way in which a person can be arrested for breach of the peace and subsequently bound over ‘to keep the peace or be of good behaviour’, in which case no penalty will be enforce, and the punitive element derives from the fact that if a person does not agree to be bound over, he will be imprisoned for a period of up to 6 months. . . In these circumstances, the Commission considers the charge of breach of the peace to be a criminal offence and binding over proceedings to be ‘criminal’ in nature, for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention.’ and ”Breach of the peace is not classed as a criminal offence under English law. However, the Court observes that the duty to keep the peace is in the nature of a public duty; the police have powers to arrest any person who has breached the peace or whom they reasonably fear will breach the peace; and the magistrates may commit to prison any person who refuses to be bound over not to breach the peace where there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that his or her conduct caused or was likely to cause a breach of the peace and that he or she would otherwise cause a breach of the peace in the future. . . . Bearing in mind the nature of the proceedings in question and the penalty at stake, the Court considers that breach of the peace must be regarded as an ‘offence’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c).’ ‘

Citations:

Times 01-Oct-1998, 24838/94, (1998) 28 EHRR 603, [1998] ECHR 95, [1998] HRCD 872, 5 BHRC 339, [1998] Crim LR 893

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Magistrates Courts Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Howell (Errol) CACD 1981
The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable . .

Cited by:

Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Williamson v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 21-Feb-2003
The claimant had been arrested by an officer entering his house to investigate a breach of the peace, then held for two nights. The police believed that he posed no continuing threat, but believed he had to be brought before the magistrates before . .
Cited – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Nero and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 29-Mar-2012
Parties appealed against convictions for aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act arising from trespassing demonstrations. They argued that the lawfulness of the activity being carried out on the land subject to the trespass is an ingredient in the . .
See Also – Steel and Morris v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Feb-2005
The applicants had been sued in defamation by McDonalds. They had no resources, and English law precluded legal aid for such cases. The trial was the longest in English legal history. They complained that the non-availablility of legal aid infringed . .
Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.165662

Brogan and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Nov 1988

ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
The four applicants were arrested and detained under prevention of terrorism legislation on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. They were released without charge after periods between four and six days and without having been brought before a magistrate.
Held: In each case there had been a violation of article 5.3 but not article 5.1. There was an intention to bring them before a court if sufficient and usable evidence had been obtained during the police investigation following their arrest, and this was sufficient to satisfy the requirement in article 5.1(c) that the detention was for the purpose of bringing them before the court. There was no reason to believe that the police investigation was not in good faith or that their detention was for any other reason than to further the investigation by confirming or dispelling the suspicions which grounded their arrest. In other words, the police were not required to intend to take the applicants to court in the event of there being insufficient evidence after investigation to proceed against them.

Citations:

11209/84, [1988] ECHR 24, 11234/84, (1988) 11 EHRR 117, 11266/84

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – A 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 Also – Brogan and Others v United Kingdom (Article 50) ECHR 30-May-1989
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) – Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient. . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.165024

Jecius v Lithuania: ECHR 31 Jul 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 5-1 as regards the applicant
The applicant complained of violation of his article 5 rights in successive periods of detention. The first period of five weeks was under a broad provision of the criminal code which permitted preventive detention in connection with banditry, criminal association or terrorising a person. During that period no investigation was carried out and no charge was made.
Held: Preventive detention of the kind found was not permitted by article 5.1(c). A person may be detained under that clause only ‘in the context of criminal proceedings’ for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority ‘on suspicion of his having committed an offence’

Judges:

J-P Costa P

Citations:

34578/97, [2000] ECHR 404, (2002) 35 EHRR 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Incomplete – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2014
The claimants said that the restrictive tactics used by the respondent when policing crowds at a royal wedding.
Held: The appeals failed. The police had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimants were likely to cause a breach of the . .
Incomplete – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.165921

Lawless v Ireland (No 3): ECHR 1 Jul 1961

The Irish Government derogated from article 5 in July 1957 in order to permit detention without charge or trial, and the applicant was detained between July and December 1957. He could have obtained his release by undertaking to observe the law and refrain from activities contrary to the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940, but instead challenged the lawfulness of the Irish derogation. He failed.
Held: It was for the court to determine whether the conditions laid down in article 15 for the exercise of the exceptional right of derogation had been made out: ‘In the general context of Article 15 of the Convention, the natural and customary meaning of the words ‘other public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ is sufficiently clear; they refer to an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the State is composed. Having thus established the natural and customary meaning of this conception, the Court must determine whether the facts and circumstances which led the Irish Government to make their Proclamation of 5 July 1957 come within this conception. The Court, after an examination, finds this to be the case; the existence at the time of a ‘public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ was reasonably deduced by the Irish Government from a combination of several factors, namely: in the first place, the existence in the territory of the Republic of Ireland of a secret army engaged in unconstitutional activities and using violence to attain its purposes; secondly, the fact that this army was also operating outside the territory of the State, thus seriously jeopardising the relations of the Republic of Ireland with its neighbour; thirdly, the steady and alarming increase in terrorist activities from the autumn of 1956 and throughout the first half of 1957. Despite the gravity of the situation, the Government had succeeded, by using means available under ordinary legislation, in keeping public institutions functioning more or less normally, but the homicidal ambush on the night of 3 to 4 July 1957 in the territory of Northern Ireland near the border had brought to light, just before 12 July – a date, which, for historical reasons, is particularly critical for the preservation of public peace and order – the imminent danger to the nation caused by the continuance of unlawful activities in Northern Ireland by the IRA and various associated groups, operating from the territory of the Republic of Ireland.’

Citations:

332/57, (1961) 1 EHRR 15, [1961] ECHR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2014
The claimants said that the restrictive tactics used by the respondent when policing crowds at a royal wedding.
Held: The appeals failed. The police had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimants were likely to cause a breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.164859

Sen v The Netherlands: ECHR 21 Dec 2001

Citations:

(2001) 36 EHRR 81, 31465/96, [2001] ECHR 888

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

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 . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.167293

Boultif v Switzerland: ECHR 2 Aug 2001

The applicant complained under Article 8 that the Swiss authorities had not renewed his residence permit, after which he had been separated from his wife, a Swiss citizen and who could not be expected to follow him to Algeria. Switzerland argued that his conviction for an offence of violence was sufficient justification for interfering with his rights.
Held: The Convention does not guarantee any right to inhabit a country. The refusal was in accordance with law, but the question was whether the interference in this manner was necessary in a democratic society. Although he had been convicted of a serious crime, the evidence was of rehabilitation. The interference in this case was not proportionate.
As to the suggested article 8 interference: ‘The Court has only to a limited extent decided cases where the main obstacle to expulsion is the difficulties for the spouses to stay together and in particular for a spouse and/or children to live in the other’s country of origin. It is therefore called upon to establish guiding principles in order to examine whether the measure was necessary in a democratic society.
In assessing the relevant criteria in such a case, the Court will consider the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant; the length of the applicant’s stay in the country from which he is going to be expelled; the time elapsed since the offence was committed as well as the applicant’s conduct in that period; the nationalities of the various persons concerned; the applicant’s family situation, such as the length of the marriage; and other factors expressing the effectiveness of a couple’s family life; whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship; and whether there are children in the marriage, and if so, their age. Not least, the Court will also consider the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country of origin, though the mere fact that a person might face certain difficulties in accompanying her or his spouse cannot in itself exclude an expulsion.’

Citations:

54273/00, (2000) 22 EHRR 50, [2001] ECHR 497

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969), European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Confirmed – Uner v The Netherlands ECHR 18-Oct-2006
(Grand Chamber) The court considered the application of article 8 considerations in extradition and similar proceedings, and said: ‘the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
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 . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.164814

National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 29 Jul 2019

Second challenge to the 2016 Act seeking a declaration of incompatibility of ‘bulk’ powers.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2057 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.640133

Z, Re Judicial Review: SCS 27 Nov 2012

The petitioner said that in reaching her decision for the return of the petitioner with his wife and children to the Republic of Congo, she had not properly given priority to the interests of the children, and had wrongly refused to treat the petitioner’s submissions as a new claim.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘. A fair interpretation of what the respondent said at page 7 of her letter was that, in assessing overall the best interests of the children, she took into account that it would be in their best interests to be with their parents; that their Nationality was Congolese and that it would be in their best interests to be brought up within that culture; that educational facilities were an important factor in the assessment of best interests, and that the facilities in the UK would be better than those in the Congo, but that, in the absence of reliance on particular factors, the fact that the children would be returned along with their parents meant that the effect of the difference in educational opportunities between the UK and the Congo would not be particularly detrimental to them. ‘

Judges:

Lady Paton, Lady Dorrian, Lord McGhie

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 87, [2012] CSIH 87

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Euriopean Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.466332

Kopecky v Slovakia: ECHR 28 Sep 2004

(Grand Chamber) The court said of the practice of the Convention institutions under A1 P1: ‘An applicant can allege a violation of article 1 of Protocol 1 only in so far as the impugned decisions related to his ‘possessions’ within the meaning of this provision. ‘Possessions’ can be either ‘existing possessions’ or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a ‘legitimate expectation’ of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right. By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a ‘possession’ within the meaning of article 1 of Protocol 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition.’

Judges:

Wildhaber P

Citations:

[2004] ECHR 446, (2005) 41 EHRR 43, 44912/98

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A1P1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Kopecky v Slovakia ECHR 7-Jan-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award . .

Cited by:

Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Brewster, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 8-Feb-2017
Survivor of unmarried partner entitled to pension
The claimant appealed against the rejection of her claim to the survivor’s pension after the death of her longstanding partner, even though they had not been married. The rules said that she had to have been nominated by her partner, but he had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.447634

Ruiz-Mateos v Spain: ECHR 23 Jun 1993

There had been a court action for the restitution of company shares expropriated by government. An issue as to the constitutionality of a legislative act (Act 7/1983), which was relied on by the government in the expropriation proceedings, was referred to the Constitutional Court. The applicant complained (among other things) of the delays in his restitution case occasioned by the proceedings in the Constitutional Court. The Spanish government submitted that ‘the proceedings in the Constitutional Court should not be taken into account in ruling on the question of ‘reasonable time”.
Held: The government’s suggestion was rejected. ‘According to the Court’s well-established case-law, proceedings in a Constitutional Court are to be taken into account for calculating the relevant period where the result of such proceedings is capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute before the ordinary courts.’

Citations:

12952/87, [1993] ECHR 27

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School and Others CA 20-Jan-2010
The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.273141

Chambers v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Dec 2007

The applicant was, at the material time, a Lieutenant in the Royal Army. She was dismissed from the armed forces pursuant to the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces. The applicant submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal arguing that her dismissal, and the treatment to which she was subjected, breached the 1975 Act. As a result of the House of Lords’ judgment in MacDonald (AP) (Appellant) v. Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) the applicant withdrew her domestic proceedings.

Judges:

J Casadevall, P

Citations:

10540/05, [2007] ECHR 1155

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271007

Salford City Council v GJ, NJ and BJ (Incapacitated adults): FD 16 May 2008

The court considered the place of human rights considerations in local authority decisions regarding the care and placement of incapacitated adults.
Held: The situation should be reviewed at least annually and at shorter intervals as circumstances required.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1097 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 1295, [2008] Fam Law 997, [2008] MHLR 274, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Salford City Council v BJ (Incapacitated Adult) FD 11-Dec-2009
. .
Cited – P and Q v Surrey County Council CA 28-Feb-2011
The appellant sisters, both with substantial learing disabilities appealed against a declaration that the arrangements made for their care by the respondent did not amount to a deprivation of their liberty. In either case, they would only be allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.270961

SA (Article 8, Burden of Proof) Algeria: IAT 18 Jun 2008

AIT 1. Neither Boultif v Switzerland [2001] 33 EHRR 50 nor Amrollahi v Denmark (11 July 2002, BAILII: [2002] ECHR 585) is authority for the proposition that the burden of proof lies on the respondent to show that it is reasonable to expect an applicant’s family to accompany him to his own country of origin (where he has a right of residence and where it is probable his country makes provision in its immigration law for family reunion).
2. The European Court of Human Rights has not seen a period of delay of limited duration (before an applicant can be considered for re-admission to the country where he had established family ties) as in itself giving rise to disproportionality: see e.g. Kaya v Germany Appn. No. 31753/02 28 June 2007), [2007] Imm AR 802, para 68

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00054

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270760

Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Seigneur of Sark and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2008

The claimants said that the the laws restricting residence and voting rights and oher constitutional arrangements on the Isle of Sark were in breach of European law, and human rights law.
Held: The claims failed. The composition of Chief Pleas under the Reform Law are not inconsistent with the rights conferred by Article 3, nor did the rules restricting aliens from standing for certain senior elected positions. ‘The mere fact that the Seneschal is a member of Chief Pleas . . and also the Judge of Sark does not mean that he lacks the impartiality and/or independence and/or the appearance thereof demanded by Article 6(1). If he did it would mean that the holder of judicial office is, effectively, barred from holding a position within a legislature or executive. ‘

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1354 (Admin), [2008] 3 WLR 867

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 19, European Convention on Human Rights p1 A3 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McGonnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-2000
The applicant owned land in the parish of St Martin’s in Guernsey. He made a number of applications for planning permission for residential use, but they were all rejected. In about 1986 he moved into a converted packing shed on his land. In 1988 a . .
Cited – Mathieu Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium ECHR 2-Mar-1987
(Plenary Court) The court described and approved the way in which an ‘institutional’ right to vote had developed into ‘subjective rights of participation – the ‘right to vote’ and the ‘right to stand for election’.’ It described the ambit of Article . .
Cited – Pabla Ky v Finland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
A member of the Finnish Parliament who also sat as an expert member of the Court of Appeal was said to lack independence as a judge.
Held: The complaint was rejected. Also there was no no objective justification for the applicant’s fear as to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) CA 23-May-2007
The claimant was a Chagos Islander removed in 1970 to make way for a US airbase. The court had ordered that the islanders be allowed to return, but the appellant had passed an Order in Council effectively reversing the position, and now appealed a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
at First Instance – Barclay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimants said that restrictions within the constitution of Sark on who could sit in the Chief Pleas were incompatible with their human rights. The claimants variously owned property on Sark but had restricted rights to vote and stand.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, European, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270209

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A; A v A: FD 18 Apr 2002

The husband had been convicted of trafficking in cannabis, and an order had been made confiscating his assets. His wife had already petitioned for divorce and begun ancillary relief proceedings. She claimed that her interest in the house under section 24 of the Act was protected. The receiver sought sale of the house to recover the sum ordered.
Held: The section under the 1994 Act did protect the interest of the wife. Her right to occupy the house under the 1973 Act created an interest over and above her financial interest, and that interest was protected by section 31(4). There had to be a right and that right had to be ‘in’ the property. She claimed a similar protection under the Human Rights Act. Despite the risk of the husband being unable to satisfy the confiscation order, and thus be returned to prison, the proper order in this case was to vest the entire house in the wife’s name.

Judges:

Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

Times 09-May-2002

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24, Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4) 62(5)(a) 62(3), European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 Pro 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Family, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.170297

Drieman and others v Norway: ECHR 4 May 2000

A challenge to the conviction and sentencing of the claimants for disrupting a lawful whaling expedition was held inadmissible. A fine was considered to be proportionate for such direct action.

Citations:

33678/96

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.630987

LM v Minister for Justice and Equality: ECJ 25 Jul 2018

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Surrender procedures between Member States – Conditions for execution – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal

Citations:

[2018] EUECJ C-216/18PPU, [2018] WLR(D) 515, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.631176

Karassev v Finland: ECHR 12 Jan 1999

Admissibility. The arbitrary denial of citizenship may violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8. The Convention did not guarantee the right to acquire a particular nationality. Nevertheless, it did ‘not exclude that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual.’

Judges:

G Ress, P

Citations:

31414/96, [1999] ECHR 200, (1999) 28 EHRR CD132

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘Is it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to deny British citizenship to the child of a British father and a non-British mother simply because they were not married to one another at the time of his birth or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.540464

OOO and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: QBD 20 May 2011

The several claimants had been brought to the UK as children, but then taken into effective slavery in households here. They had reported their treatment to the police, and now sought damages saying that the police had failed to make appropriate investigations and protect them from further inhuman and degrading treatment.

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1246 (QB), [2011] HRLR 29, [2011] UKHRR 767

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.440089

Lambert and Others, Regina v: CACD 31 Jul 2000

The principal issue is as to the effect of the 1998 Act on statutory provisions, that provide a benefit to a defendant, who is being tried for a criminal offence, but require him to prove certain facts which the statute specifies before he can obtain that benefit.

Judges:

Lord Woolfe LCJ, Rougier, Bell JJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Crim 3542, [2000] UKHRR 864, [2001] 1 Cr App R 14, [2002] QB 1112, [2001] 2 WLR 211, [2001] 1 All ER 1014, [2001] HRLR 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.374451

RU (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Jul 2008

The appellant, who is aged 38, appeals with the leave of this court against the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal rejecting his Article 8 claims on a redetermined appeal.

Judges:

Pill, Scott Baker, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 753

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270581

Gilboy, Regina (on the Application of) v Liverpool City Council and others: CA 2 Jul 2008

The court was asked whether the internal review procedure for reconsideration by local housing authorities of a decision to terminate a demoted tenancy established by sections 143E-143F of the Housing Act 1996 and the Demoted Tenancies (Review of Decisions (England) Regulations 2004 violates Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights.

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 751, Times 20-Aug-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996, Demoted Tenancies (Review of Decisions (England) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270578

Borrows v HM Coroner for Preston: QBD 15 May 2008

The family members disputed who should have custody of the deceased’s body and the right to make arrangements for the funeral.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1387 (QB), [2008] EWHC 1387 (Admin), [2008] Fam Law 984, [2008] 2 FLR 1225

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Cremation Regulations 1930 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re JS (Disposal of Body) FD 10-Nov-2016
Child’s Wish for post-mortem cryonic Preservation
JS, a child of 14, anticipating her death from cancer expressed the desire that her body should receive cryonic preservation in the hope that one day a treatment might be available to allow her to be revived, and proceedings were issued. Her parents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Human Rights, Coroners

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270485

Gillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Jun 2008

The court set the questions to be answered later in response to the complaint as to the use of stop and search powers by the British police.

Citations:

4158/05, [2008] ECHR 521

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 8 10, Terrorism Act 2000 44

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

At First Instance – Gillan and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and Another Admn 31-Oct-2003
The applicants challenged by way of judicial review the way they had been stopped and searched under the Act. They attended a demonstration. The search revealed nothing suspicious. General authorisations for such searches had been issued under the . .
At Court of Appeal – Gillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 29-Jul-2004
The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate.
Held: The . .
At House of Lords – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .

Cited by:

Question Set – Gillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2009
(Admissibility and Summary) . .
Question Set – Gillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jan-2010
The claimants had been stopped by the police using powers in the 2000 Act. They were going to a demonstration outside an arms convention. There was no reason given for any suspicion that the searches were needed.
Held: The powers given to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270099

Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Sussex Police and Another: Admn 16 May 2008

The complainant’s brother had been arrested for being drunk. After a time in a cell, he was found unwell and fell into a coma. Complaints were made of his treatment. The Police Complaints Commission was to investigate the events after the arrest independently, but the Sussex police wanted to investigate the matters before the arrest. The claimant wanted the entire investigation to be by the Commission.
Held: The Commission did have jurisdiction to investigate matters before the arrest, but it may be practical and proper to engage the local force to carry out that investigation. Such an extended investigation may in any event be required to satisfy the human rights obligations of the defendants.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1240 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Reform Act 2002 10, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
Cited – Stephen Jordan (No 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The applicant was a soldier who had been court marshalled for misuse of travel warrants. He wished to use in his defence his recent epilepsy. There was some delay while medical reports were obtained, and subsequently when the new legal system was . .
Cited – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission and Another CA 22-Oct-2008
The court was asked to consider whether the IPCC could investigate the circumstances leading to the arrest of a suspect who fell into a coma after being arrested for being drunk. The IPCC appealed, saying that it did not have jurisdiction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270063

Davies v Health and Safety Executive: CACD 18 Dec 2002

The court considered whether the reverse burden of proof in a statute creating offences is compatible with the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6(2) of the ECHR. The judge had ruled against a submission that section 40 was not compatible with the presumption of innocence in article 6(1) unless the section was read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the employer.
Held: The appeal failed. The imposition of a legal burden of proof was justified, necessary and proportionate. Regard had to be had to the fact that the Act’s purpose was both social and economic, to the fact that duty holders were persons who had chosen to engage in work or commercial activity and were in charge of it and that in choosing to operate in a regulated sphere they must be taken to have accepted the regulatory controls that went with it. However: ‘Before any question of reverse onus arises the prosecution must prove that the defendant owes the duty (in the case of section 3 to the person affected by the conduct of his undertaking) and that the safety standard (in the case of section 3 exposure to risk to health or safety) has been breached. Proof of these matters is not a formality. There may be real issues about whether the defendant owes the relevant duty or whether in fact the safety standard has been breached, for example where the cause of an accident is unknown or debatable. But once the prosecution have proved these matters the defence has to be raised and established by the defendant. The defence itself is flexible because it does not restrict the way in which the defendant can show that he has done what is reasonably practicable.’

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown J, Gordon J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2949, [2003] ICR 586, [2003] IRLR 170

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 40, European Convention on Human Rights 6(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Chargot 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270004

CE (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 May 2008

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of the AIT which on a reconsideration dismissed her appeal from the Secretary of State’s decision that her removal from the United Kingdom would not breach Article 8.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 651

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269714

Lightfoot v The Lord Chancellor: CA 23 Jul 1999

The claimant wanted to make a claim for her own bankruptcy, but could not do so without finding the court fees. She challenged the refusal of the defendant to give her exemption.
Held: The attempt failed. The absolute requirement of a fee (without any provision for a discretionary power of waiver) was entirely in accord with the statutory bankruptcy scheme and Parliamentary intention. Thus inability to pay on the part of some petitioners did not invalidate the scheme.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rattee J

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 3025, [2000] HRLR 33, [2000] QB 597, [2000] BPIR 120, [1999] 4 All ER 583, [2000] BCC 537, [2000] 2 WLR 318

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268838

P and others v Quigley: QBD 16 May 2008

The claimants sought an injunction to prevent the defendants publishing any information about their private sexual and other conduct. Held; The defendants had originally threatened publication before a previous order by consent, they had failed to confirm their intention later to abide by it, and therefore the first two claimants were entitled to the permanent injunction.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1051 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 88 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268692

Re Arrows Ltd No 4: HL 1995

The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal from the judge who had directed that the transcripts of examinations of a director of an insolvent company under section 236 on the Director of the Serious Fraud Office undertaking that the transcripts would not be used save in the circumstances specified in section 2(8) of the 1987 Act. The result was that the transcripts should be made available to the director without condition.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘The inevitable effect of a witness in civil proceedings claiming the privilege against self-incrimination is to deprive the opposite party and the court of evidence relevant to the dispute under consideration. Until recently, this has not given rise to much litigation. But the recent upsurge of financial fraud, particularly in relation to companies, has raised in an acute form the conflict between the witness’s basic right to rely on the privilege on the one hand and the public interest in successfully pursuing and recovering the fruits of such fraud.’ and ‘Only Parliament can weigh the conflicting public interests as between the demands of justice to the accused, the need to obtain the information for the purposes of civil proceedings (including investigatory proceedings) and the public interest in the successful prosecution of those guilty of fraud.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘In my view, where information has been obtained under statutory powers the duty of confidence owed on the Marcel principle cannot operate so as to prevent the person obtaining the information from disclosing it to those persons to whom the statutory provisions either require or authorise him to make disclosure.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Citations:

[1995] 2 AC 75

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 236, Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Re Arrows Ltd (No 4) CA 8-Apr-1993
A Civil Court cannot stop the Serious Fraud Office using evidence which had been gathered under compulsion during Insolvency interviews under s236. Any element of confidentiality was overriden. . .
Cited – Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.

Cited by:

Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Cited – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.242454

Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 1992

A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.
Held: The court discharged the injunction granted at first instance and held that the police were obliged to comply with a subpoena which could only be resisted on grounds which would have been available to the true owner of the documents.
The statutory powers given to the police are coupled with a public law duty. The precise extent of the duty is difficult to define in general terms beyond saying that the powers must be exercised only in the public interest and with due regard to the rights of individuals. In the context of the seizure and retention of documents, the public law duty is combined with a private law duty of confidentiality towards the owner of the documents.
Dillon LJ said: ‘Even where a subpoena has been served, the police should not disclose the seized documents to the advisers of a party to civil proceedings in advance of the attendance at court required by the subpoena, unless at the least the police have first given to the true owner of the documents notice of the service of the subpoena and of the wish of the police to produce the documents in advance of the attendance at court required by the subpoena, and have given the true owner a reasonable opportunity to state his objections, if any, to that course.’ and ‘The responsibilities which are by law and custom entrusted to the police are wide and varied. The powers conferred upon them must be considered against the background of those responsibilities. If the hands of the police were too strictly tied with regard to the use of documents and information acquired under compulsory powers then the public interest would suffer . . The statutory powers given to the police are plainly coupled with a public law duty. The precise extent of that duty is, I think, difficult to define in general terms beyond saying that the powers must be exercised only in the public interest and with due regard to the rights of individuals.’
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC at first instance had said that section 22 referred to the duration of retention, not to its purpose: ‘However, there manifestly must be some limitation on the purposes for which seized documents can be used. Search and seizure under statutory powers constitute fundamental infringements of the individual’s immunity from interference by the state with his property and privacy – fundamental human rights. Where there is a public interest which requires some impairment of those rights, Parliament legislates to permit such impairment. But, in the absence of clear words, in my judgment Parliament cannot be assumed to have legislated so as to interfere with the basic rights of the individual to a greater extent than is necessary to secure the protection of that public interest. In the case of this Act, it is plainly necessary to trench upon the individual’s right to his property and privacy for the purpose of permitting the police to investigate and prosecute crime; hence the powers conferred by Part II of the Act. But in my judgment Parliament should not be taken to have authorised use of seized documents for any purpose the police think fit. For example, could the police provide copies of seized documents to the Press save in cases where publicity is necessary for the pursuit of their criminal investigations? . . In my judgment, subject to any express statutory provision in other Acts, the police are authorised to seize, retain and use documents only for public purposes related to the investigation and prosecution of crime and the return of stolen property to the true owner. Those investigations and prosecutions will normally be by the police themselves and involve no communication of documents or information to others. However, if communication to others is necessary for the purpose of the police investigation and prosecution, it is authorised. It may also be, though I do not decide, that there are other public authorities to which documents can properly be disclosed, for example to City and other regulatory authorities or to the security services. But in my judgment the powers to seize and retain are conferred for the better performance of public functions by public bodies and cannot be used to make information available to private individuals for their private purposes.’
Sir Christopher Slade said: ‘In my judgment, documents seized by a public authority from a private citizen in exercise of a statutory power can properly be used only for those purposes for which the relevant legislation contemplated that they might be used . . As a starting point, therefore, it is necessary to consider the purposes for which Parliament contemplated that documents seized under the powers conferred by Part II of the Act of 1984 might properly be used by the police. In my judgment, those purposes must be co-terminous with the purposes for which it envisaged that such documents might properly be retained by the police. The Vice Chancellor, ante, p.234B, stated that ‘Section 22 is dealing with the duration not the purpose of retention.’ I do not, for my part, read the scope of section 22 as being so limited as this. Not only does section 22(2) specify certain stated purposes for which anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation may be retained, but the subsection is prefaced by the words ‘Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above.’ These prefacing words presuppose that subsection (1) has itself specified, albeit in general terms, the purposes for which documents seized by virtue of section 19 or 20 may be retained. Accordingly, it seems to me, they presuppose that the phrase in subsection (1), ‘so long as is necessary in all the circumstances,’ has specified in general terms not only the duration but also the purposes for which retention of seized documents may continue.’
What then is the meaning of the phrase in section 22(1), ‘so long as is necessary in all the circumstances?’ In my judgment, in its context, this phrase can only mean: so long as is necessary for carrying out the purposes for which the powers given by sections 19 and 20 have been conferred. I shall not attempt a comprehensive statement of those purposes. They clearly include inter alia the primary purposes of investigating and prosecuting crime and the return to the true owner of property believed to have been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence. Further, the relevant sections would, I think, authorise acts which were reasonably incidental to the pursuit of those primary purposes, thus including in appropriate circumstances the disclosure to third parties of seized documents.’

Judges:

Nolan LJ, Dillon LJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

[1992] Ch 225, [1992] 1 All ER 72

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Ellis) v The Chief Constable of Essex Police Admn 12-Jun-2003
An officer proposed to print the face of a convicted burglar on posters to be displayed in the town. The court considered the proposal. The probation service objected that the result would be to make it more difficult for him to avoid criminality on . .
Cited – Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire QBD 13-Jan-1995
The police were asked by shopkeepers concerned about shoplifting, for photographs of thieves so that the staff would recognise them. The police provided photographs including one of the claimant taken in custody. The traders were told only to show . .
Cited – Preston Borough Council v McGrath CA 12-May-2000
The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
Held: The document had not been given to the police under . .
Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation.
Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning . .
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Cited – Merseyside Police v Owens Admn 31-May-2012
The police had refused to returns items seized from Mr Owens on the basis that to do so would indirectly encourage and assist him in suspected criminal activity. CCTV footage had been removed from him to attempt identify an arsonist of a house.The . .
Cited – Re Arrows Ltd No 4 HL 1995
The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal from the judge who had directed that the transcripts of examinations of a director of an insolvent company under section 236 on the Director of the Serious Fraud Office undertaking that the transcripts would . .
Cited – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Intellectual Property, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.183559

C and Another v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council: FD 18 Jul 2002

Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it should be listed before a judge with experience also of administrative law. Such cases now involved a broader and more investigative approach than hitherto. The courts have a wide discretion when looking at such matters which also placed greater responsibility on a court.

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (Q) v Same QBD 1-Jun-2001
The Prison Service’s policy of refusing to allow children over the age of eighteen months to stay with their mother in prison was lawful. The impairment of family life was an inevitable and inherent part of the imposition of a sentence of . .
Cited – Regina (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (Q) v Same QBD 1-Jun-2001
The Prison Service’s policy of refusing to allow children over the age of eighteen months to stay with their mother in prison was lawful. The impairment of family life was an inevitable and inherent part of the imposition of a sentence of . .
Cited – In re M (Care: Challenging decisions by local authority) 2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.174416

LXD and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: Admn 28 Mar 2019

Challenge to failure of the defendant to provide accommodation to claimant’s who were under physical threats from third parties.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1120 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – LXD and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Merseyside Police Admn 17-May-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.639684

Regina (on application of Thompson) v Central Criminal Court: Admn 6 Oct 2005

Collin J considered the relation between the withholding of bail and human rights law saying: ‘The approach under the Bail Act is entirely consistent with the approach of the European Court as regarded proper under Article 5, namely there must be a grant of bail unless there are good reasons to refuse. The approach therefore really is not should there be bail granted but should custody be opposed, that is, is it necessary for the defendant to be in custody. That is the approach that the court should take. Only if persuaded that it is necessary should a remand in custody take place. It would be necessary if the court decides that whatever conditions can be reasonably imposed in relation to bail there are nevertheless substantial grounds for believing that the defendant will either fail to surrender to custody, commit an offence, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Unreported, 6 October 2005

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976, European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fergus, Regina (On the Application of) v Southampton Crown Court Admn 4-Dec-2008
The applicant challenged the withdrawal of bail on surrender to the Crown Court.
Held: Applying the case of Thompson, ‘bearing in mind the presumption in favour of granting bail and the high threshold that a defendant should only be remanded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.375583

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 authority to manage its housing stock in the interests of the locality and of those in greatest need: ‘Every secure tenant, whether sole or joint, is limited to one assignment or other transmission of the secure tenancy. The rule limiting succession to one transmission applies to all secure tenants equally.’
In proceedings between private parties the court does not act incompatibly with article 8 by making or enforcing a possession order without considering questions of proportionality, and it makes no difference that the landlord is a public authority.
Moses J said: ‘It is plain that Parliament had to strike a balance between security of tenure and the wider need for systematic allocation of the local authority’s housing resources in circumstances where those housing resources are not unlimited. The striking of such a balance is pre-eminently a matter of policy for the legislature. The court should respect the legislative judgment as to what is in the general interest unless that judgment was manifestly without reasonable foundation.’

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 794, [2003] HLR 1028

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 87, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Coombes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 8-Mar-2010
The landlord council brought proceedings for possession. The tenant (C) had remained in possession after his mother’s death, but enjoyed no second statutory succession. He had lived there since 1954 when he was six. C sought a declaration of . .
Approved – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.414887

Kelly v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Apr 2008

Admissibility – The applicant’s wife died on 14 August 1992. They had no children from the marriage. On 29 May 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 2 June 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. The applicant appealed on 13 June 2000. On 6 November 2000 the Tribunal confirmed that the decision remained unchanged. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

69076/01, [2008] ECHR 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268077

Gulmez v Turkey: ECHR 20 May 2008

The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights clearly fell within the sphere of his personal rights and was therefore civil in nature’.
An individual must be able to know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable.

Citations:

[2008] ECHR 402, 16330/02

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Applied – Ganci v Italie ECHR 30-Oct-2003
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Cited – Uzukauskas v Lithuania ECHR 6-Jul-2010
ECHR The applicant had a licence for a pistol and rifle. His was refused another licence, and then the existing licence was withdrawn. His name had been included in a police list in an operational records file . .
Cited – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Cited – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR 6-Apr-2010
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . .
Cited – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 13-Oct-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268029

Stefanov v Bulgaria: ECHR 22 May 2008

Article 5(1) may apply to deprivations of liberty of even a very short duration.

Citations:

[2008] ECHR 426, 65755/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268030

SB v X County Council, In re P (a Child), In Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent): CA 20 May 2008

The court asked ‘what is the proper test for dispensing with parental agreement to the making of a placement order under section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act)?’
Held: Any question of contact between the children and their family members was for the court and not the local authority to resolve. The word ‘requires’ in section 52(1)(b) ‘was plainly chosen as best conveying . . the essence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Wall and Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 535, Times 29-May-2008, [2008] 2 FLR 625

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption and Children Act 2002 52(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
Cited – Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267920

YG (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Apr 2008

Application for permission to appeal from Asylum and Immigration Tribunal refusing application by YG (China) to remain in the United Kingdom on Article 8 grounds. Birth of child after entry.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 530

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267915

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN: CA 14 May 2008

The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country guidance applicable to the case when deciding whether to order the failed asylum applicant’s return. The applicant said that if returned to Greece his human rights concerns at being then returned to Afghanistan would not be considered.
Held: The Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The clause was not an absolute bar to consideration of other matters and evidence. However ‘I will not leave the case without making clear my view that the list system renders the United Kingdom’s compliance with ECHR Article 3 fragile. In the absence of individual examinations of the merits of individual cases by those responsible for specific executive and judicial decisions in those cases, the whole weight of compliance falls on the measures and systems in place for monitoring law and practice in the listed States, and does so in circumstances where government has no discretion to take a State off the list, but must seek main legislation. ‘

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 464, Times 20-May-2008, [2008] INLR 668, [2008] UKHRR 863, [2008] 3 WLR 1386, [2009] 1 All ER 116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 3, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, the Dublin II Regulations

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Nasseri v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Jul-2007
The applicant had sought and been refused asylum. He was found to have come via Greece, and steps were put in place to return him there. He now complained that the provision which allowed no discretion to the respondent to look at his case when the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Cited – Assenov and Others v Bulgaria ECHR 28-Oct-1998
An allegation of violence by a police officer did require a thorough, impartial and careful investigation by a suitable and independent state authority: ‘The court considers that in these circumstances, where an individual raises an arguable claim . .
Cited – Banks v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2007
The applicants complained of maltreatment by prison officers in breach of article 3. The matter had been investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service which had decided not to prosecute. Civil proceedings had been raised and settled. The applicants . .
Cited – Taylor v Lancashire County Council and others CA 17-Mar-2005
The tenant occupied his farm under a lease limiting his use of the farm. He was found to be trading in breach of his covenant and a notice to quit was issued and possession sought. He argued that the 1986 Act was discriminatory and inadequate to . .
Cited – TI v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Mar-2000
The Dublin II Regulation did not absolve the United Kingdom from responsibility to ensure that a decision to expel an asylum seeker to another Member State did not expose him, at one remove, to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. ‘In . .
Cited – Jabari v Turkey ECHR 11-Jul-2000
A ‘rigorous scrutiny’ was to be conducted of a claim that an individual’s deportation to a third country would expose him to treatment prohibited by Article 3, before it could be rejected.
Held: ‘If the State is to avoid breach of Article 3 by . .
Cited – In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) HL 14-Mar-2002
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act is not available where the suggested interpretation is contrary to express statutory words or is by implication necessarily contradicted by the statute. The judge’s task is to interpret, not to legislate. The proposed . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Cited – KRS v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Dec-2008
Admissibility – The applicant’s claim for asylum had failed, and he challeged the decision to return him to Greece, the point of entry to the EU, saying that he would be at risk if so returned.
Held: The United Kingdom would not breach its . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
At Court of Appeal – Nasseri v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2013
Questions set for the parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267656

Juhnke v Turkey: ECHR 13 May 2008

Medical treatment, may well be experienced as degrading by a patient who is subjected to it against his will, but ‘A measure which is therapeutically necessary from the point of view of established principles of medicine cannot in principle be regarded as inhuman and degrading’

Citations:

52515/99, [2008] ECHR 379, (2008) 49 EHRR 534

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Herczegfalvy v Austria ECHR 24-Sep-1992
The applicant was detained in an institution for mentally deranged offenders. While so detained he was subjected to the forcible administration of food and neuroleptics and to handcuffing to a security bed. He complained of violation of his Article . .

Cited by:

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.

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267641