Category: Human Rights

In re KH (A Child): FD 5 Oct 2012

Application by an NHS Trust for declarations in relation to the best interests of a boy known in the proceedings as KH. The Trust seeks approval of a medical treatment plan which comes before the court because there are some matters that are not agreed and because the treatment plan involves the withholding of life-sustaining treatment in the event of a serious deterioration in KH’s condition.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC B18 (Fam), [2013] Med LR 70, [2013] Fam Law 34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.464868

CAS and CS v Romania: ECHR 20 Mar 2012

The applicants raise several complaints related to the repeated rape and other ill-treatment suffered by the first applicant. In particular, the first applicant alleged that the criminal investigations into those facts had been ineffective, and that there had been an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life.

Judges:

Josep Casadevall, P

Citations:

26692/05, [2012] ECHR 512, (2015) 61 EHRR 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.452271

Lucas v The United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Mar 2003

Detention for a few hours following arrest for wilful obstruction of the highway and then a fine was proportionate: ‘An analysis of the Court’s case-law . . reveals that the Contracting States’ discretion in punishing illegal conduct intertwined with expression or association, although wide, is not unlimited. It goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether the penalty was compatible with Article 10 or 11. The Court must examine with particular scrutiny the cases where sanctions imposed by the national authorities for non-violent conduct involve a prison sentence.’

Citations:

39013/02, [2003] ECHR 717

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

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: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.464464

Ruddy v Rae, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police and Another: SCS 2 Mar 2011

The pursuer had been arrested under warrant. He complained that other officers in Strathclyde assualted him when iin custody. That complaint was rejected after investigation, and proceedings were refused either by way of criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings. He made a civil complaint saying that he had been denied his human right and that there had been no effective investigation. He now appealed against rejection of that complaint.
Held: The claim was incompetent.
Lord Clarke said: ‘Any practitioner in the business of civil litigation might, when faced with this omnibus approach to several claims in a single action, query the appropriateness of this approach. He or she might reflect that in a single sheriff court action a straightforward claim for damages for assault finds itself coupled with (a) a claim for breach of the substantive obligation under article 3 of the Convention and (b) claims against two defenders ‘severally’ for breaches of the obligation arising under the article as regards investigation and inquiry. One action is being brought against two separate defenders with three distinctive juristic bases of claim being made.’

Judges:

Lord Clarke (Opinion)

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 16, 2011 Rep LR 62, 2011 SLT 387, 2011 GWD 9-209, [2011] CSIH 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Roghts 3

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.430272

Pelling, Regina (On the Application of) v Bow County Court: Admn 19 Oct 2000

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Penry-Davey J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 636 (Admin), [2001] ACD 1, [2001] UKHRR 165

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Storer v British Gas plc CA 25-Feb-2000
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Pelling, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bow County Court CA 22-Jan-2001
Application for permission to appeal from refusal of leave to bring judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.331012

Z v Latvia: ECHR 24 Jan 2008

The applicant alleged that his detention on remand was excessively long, that the proceedings against him were unreasonably long and that he was denied a fair trial since his requests to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of further witnesses were refused by the domestic courts.
The court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint that he had not been allowed to vote in the referendum on the accession of Latvia to the EU. The obligations imposed on Contracting States by A3P1 were ‘limited to parliamentary elections and do not apply to referendums’.

Judges:

BM Zupancic P

Citations:

14755/03, [2008] ECHR 76

Links:

Bailii, Hudoc

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264393

Varnava And Others v Turkey: ECHR 10 Jan 2008

Where an individual had disappeared in circumstances raising a suspicion that he may have been killed, article 2 imposes a continuing duty to investigate the death. In this case the duty was said to have persisted for 34 years since the disappearance of a number of Greek Cypriots at the time of the Turkish invasion of Northern Cyprus.

Citations:

16064/90, [2008] ECHR 30

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – McCaughey and Another, Re Application forJudicial Review SC 18-May-2011
The claimants sought a fuller inquest into deaths at the hands of the British Army in 1990 in Northern Ireland. On opening the inquest, the coroner had declined to undertake to hold a hearing compliant with article 2, and it had not made progress. . .
See Also – Varnava And Others v Turkey ECHR 18-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber0 Turkey had failed to investigate the disappearance of individuals in Northern Cyprus in 1974. Turkey had ratified the Convention in 1954, but had only recognised the right of petition in 1987.
Held: (Grand Chamber) ‘the court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264390

Shabelnik v Ukraine: ECHR 15 Jan 2008

Citations:

16404/03, [2008] ECHR 111

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Shabelnik v Ukraine ECHR 19-Feb-2009
A suspect’s position will have been substantially affected as soon as the suspicion against him is being seriously investigated and the prosecution case compiled: ‘The manner in which article 6(1) and (3)(c) is to be applied during the preliminary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264314

Kearns v France: ECHR 10 Jan 2008

The claimant, whilst pregnant, travelled from Ireland to, and gave birth in France, to use their system of anonymous registration. She wanted the child adopted, and, following the birth, the system whereby she could request the return of the child within a two month period was twice explained to her. She was told that, after this period, the child would be available for adoption. She duly signed the relevant documents, and did not seek the return of the child within the two month period. However, some five months after she had signed the documents, she sought the return of the child. The child’s father had also begun proceedings in Ireland. The French Cour de Cassassion, overruling the local appeal court, made a full adoption order.
Held: There no breach of the mother’s rights under ECHR Article 8. The principal argument centred on the short time-scale for any change of mind permitted by the French legislation. As to this, the ECtHR said: ‘As regards the time limit prescribed by French law, the government pointed out that it had been reduced from three to two months by the Act of 5 July 1996, so that the child could quickly enjoy stable emotional relations within a new family and have the benefit of parental ties.

As it found in Odievre v France [2003] 1 FCR 621 at para 44, the court observes that it is confronted in the present case with interests that are not easily reconciled: those of the biological mother, the child and the adoptive family. There is also a general interest at stake (at para 45). In striking a balance between these different interests, the child’s best interests should be paramount.
In this connection, the court accepts the relevance of the arguments put forward by the government on the basis of studies by child-welfare professionals, which have stressed that it is in the child’s interests to enjoy stable emotional relations within a new family as quickly as possible. It further observes that the tribunal de grande instance held that psychological and legal stability should be sought for the child, ‘if only through the shortness of the time within which the natural parents may avail themselves of the appropriate procedures’.
Furthermore, while the two-month time limit may seem brief, it nevertheless appears sufficient to allow the biological mother time to reflect and to reconsider her decision to give the child up. The court is mindful of the psychological distress which the applicant must have experienced, but observes that she was 36 years old at the time, was accompanied by her mother and had two lengthy interviews with the social services after giving birth.
The court lastly notes that in a recent case (VS v Germany (App no 4261/02) (admissibility decision, 22 May 2007)), concerning a minor who had consented to the adoption of her child, it found that the German authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation, although under German law, consent to adoption is irrevocable except in the event of a declaration of nullity, which had not been sought in that particular case.
Having regard to the margin of appreciation which states must be afforded in view of the diversity in legal systems and traditions and in practice (see Odievre v France [2003] 1 FCR 621 at para 49, and Evans v UK [2007] 2 FCR 5 at para 77), the court considers that the time limit prescribed by the French legislation seeks to strike a balance and to ensure sufficient proportion between the competing interests (ibid; see also, conversely and mutatis mutandis, Mizzi v Malta [2006] 1 FCR 256).
Moreover, in the circumstances of the case, the action brought by the third party before the Irish authorities has no bearing on the conclusion reached by the court.

Judges:

Bostjan M. Zupancic, P

Citations:

35991/04, [2008] ECHR 1, [2008] 2 FCR 19, 24 BHRC 49, (2010) 50 EHRR 33, [2008] Fam Law 309, [2008] 1 FLR 888

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court spelt out the stark effects of the proportionality requirement in its application to a determination that a child should be adopted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264340

Micallef v Malta: ECHR 15 Oct 2009

‘The Court reiterates that for Article 6(1) in its ‘civil’ limb to be applicable, there must be a dispute over a ‘civil right’ which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law’
Preliminary proceedings or what are referred to as ‘interim measures’ do not normally determine civil rights

Citations:

17056/06, [2009] ECHR 1571, [2010] 50 EHRR 37, [2011] ECHR 2153

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Citing:

See Also – Micallef v Malta ECHR 15-Jan-2008
. .

Cited by:

Applied – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 5-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to the circumstances under which the identity of a claimant should be protected in an action where he sought to restrain the publication of private information about him.
Held: Tugendhat J accepted the proposition . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264357

Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another: CA 1 Feb 2008

The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the Secretary in a position of apparent influence over the approach of the Parole Board in its curial duties. From that position he had sought, inappropriately, to influence the manner in which the Board performed its duties. The Secretary said the Board did not act as a court.
Held: The Board could have standing as a court. The Secretary of State had used his power of appointment to influence decisions, and ‘a court must be independent not only of the parties but of the executive. This is not merely because this is a requirement of the separation of powers but because the executive sometimes has an interest in the result of the proceedings. So far as the Parole Board is concerned the possibility exists that the Secretary of State may be anxious for the Board to apply a stricter, or alternatively a more lenient, test to releasing prisoners than that required by the law.’ The appellant had restricted te Board from oral hearings by restricting its budget. The findings of lack of independence were fully justified. The power to remove a Parole Board member was also too widely expressed. As to sponsorhsip of the Board by the appellant: ‘the relationship between the Board and its sponsoring units has been and is one that is liable to create the perception that the Board is not independent. The fact that the Board has to work closely with NOMS requires that it should be manifestly independent of NOMS. The current sponsorship arrangements defeat that requirement. ‘

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 29, Times 05-Feb-2008, [2008] 1 WLR 1950, [2008] 3 All ER 289, [2008] UKHRR 500

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 2003 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jul-2001
The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson CA 6-May-1992
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson CA 11-Mar-1996
The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant . .
Cited – Girling v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 21-Dec-2006
The claimant had challenged the findings of the Parole Board in his case, saying that the Board was not an independent tribunal as required under human rights law, since it was subject to direction from the Home Secretary.
Held: The Home . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Cited – McGetrick, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board and Another CA 14-Mar-2013
The claimant prisoner appealed against refusal of review of the use of allegations and evidence of offences not tried against him when deciding as to his release on licence. The material would suggest that he might pose a continuing risk to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264053

Ofulue and Another v Bossert: CA 29 Jan 2008

The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to deny the claimants’ title.
Held: The appeal failed. A finding by the ECHR that a particular area falls within the contracting states’ margin of appreciation is therefore a signal to the national judge that the decision of the national authorities as to the content of rights within that area should receive appropriate respect. The court was to apply Pye -v- United Kingdom. The margin of appreciation given to a national court was not something to be retested on each adverse possession case. A person believing himself to be a tenant may still be in adverse possession, even if his belief that he is a tenant is incorrect. The statement in the pleadings did not amount to an acknowledgement.

Judges:

Arden LJ, May LJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 7, [2008] HRLR 20, [2008] 3 WLR 1253, [2008] UKHRR 447, [2009] Ch 1, [2008] NPC 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 29, Land Registration Act 1925 75(1), Human Rights Act 1998 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Applied – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-2007
UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant
The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Cited – Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Miailhe v France (No 2) ECHR 26-Sep-1996
Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of . .
No longer correct – Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer ChD 23-Mar-2005
The paper owner sought possession of land. The defendant said he had acquired a possessory title. The land was registered.
Held: The claimant’s human rights under article 1 were engaged. To be justifiable, the interference in that right had to . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council CA 21-Mar-1995
The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any . .
Cited – Re Flynn (no 2) 1969
An acknowledgement of title to restart a limitation period must be precisely focused on a disputed right. . .
Cited – Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka 1977
A debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. An acknowledgement of part only of a debt cannot operate to acknowledge more.
Kerr J . .
Cited – Markfield Investments Ltd v Evans CA 9-Nov-2000
The claimants were paper owners of land occupied by the defendant. The claimant said the acquiescence had been interrupted by an abortive court action by the claimant’s predecessor in title.
Held: With regard to any particular action the . .
Cited – BP Properties Ltd v Buckler CA 31-Jul-1987
The putative owner of the paper title wrote to the defendant who occupied the relevant property in October 1974 as follows: ‘Since we wish to help you as much as possible we are prepared to allow you to remain in occupation of the house and garden . .
Cited – Horner v Cartwright CA 11-Jul-1989
Stuart Smith LJ discussed the status of pleadings in a limitation as an acknowledgement: ‘It is unnecessary for the purpose of this judgment to deal with Mr. Horner’s submission that a statement in an action once it is contained in a pleading enures . .
Cited – Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council HL 3-Nov-1988
The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the . .
Cited – Re Gee and Co (Woolwich) Ltd 1975
Company accounts can acknowledge the company’s liability for debts as at the date at which the accounts are drawn up even if they are not finalised and signed until after that date. . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ofulue and Another v Bossert HL 11-Mar-2009
The parties disputed ownership of land, one claiming adverse possession. In the course of negotations, the possessor made a without prejudice offer to purchase the paper owner’s title. The paper owner claimed that this was an acknowledgement under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264011

Fosh v Cardiff University: EAT 23 Jan 2008

The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed victimisation. After the case failed, she was herself suspended, and her email account searched from which further disciplinary charges were laid. The Tribunal had found her subsequent dismissal procedurally fair, and that the University’s objection of conflict had been proper. The Tribunal had correctly applied the law. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0412 – 07 – 2301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Race Relations Act 1976 2 54A, Employment Rights Act 1996, Regulation of Investigating Powers Act 2000

Citing:

Cited – St Helens Borough Council v Derbyshire and others HL 25-Apr-2007
The claimants were pursuing an action for equal pay. Several others settled their own actions, and the respondents then wrote direct to the claimants expressing their concern that the action ws being continued and its possible effects. The claimants . .
Cited – Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd CA 26-Feb-1988
An Asian member of the respondent association of taxi cab operators secretly recorded conversations with other members to gather evidence for a claim under the Act. He was expelled from the association for this conduct. He alleged race . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
Cited – Oyarce v Cheshire County Council EAT 13-Jun-2007
EAT Victimisation
Burden of proof
Appeal – Perversity challenge on finding important for remedy.
Cross-Appeal – Did ET misdirect itself on burden of proof on victimisation claim.
As a . .
Cited – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Cited – Copland v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Apr-2007
The applicant had been an employee. In the course of a dispute with her employer, she discovered that the principal had been collecting information about her telephone calls, emails and internet usage.
Held: The collection of such material . .
Cited – X v Y (Employment: Sex Offender) CA 28-May-2004
The claimant had been dismissed after it was discovered he had been cautioned for a public homosexual act. He appealed dismissal of his claim saying that the standard of fairness applied was inappropriate with regard to the Human Rights Act, and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fosh v Cardiff University CA 3-Feb-2009
Oral application for permission to appeal. Leave Refused. No error of law was identified. The judge refusing leave had warned the claimant as to the possibility of a costs order if she persisted. . .
At EAT – Fosh v Cardiff University CA 29-Sep-2009
The University sought the costs of having attended at an oral renewal of application for leave to appeal.
Held: The professor had gone ahead despite a warning about it not being justified. She had prepared extensive grounds for the appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.263973

ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Jan 2008

ZT applied for asylum. It was refused. On her appeal, the respondent certified that the claim was manifestly unfounded. She sought judicial review.
Held: The procedure laid down by rule 353 should have been applied to the further submissions made by ZT. Had that procedure been applied the Secretary of State might have come to a different decision. Accordingly her decision fell to be quashed so that she could consider ZT’s renewed application according to rule 353. Buxton LJ agreed with this result but, for his part, said that he would assume that the process engaged rule 353.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.263848

Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council: Admn 25 Oct 2002

The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of the National Assistance Act, failed to provide the family with accommodation suited to her disability. The claimants had had their human rights infringed by the respondents who had failed in their duties to provide assistance and so to respect their rights to private and family life.
Held: The courts must respect the intention of the Act and the seriousness of the infringement. The council had not acted for some 20 months. There is no comparable tort, but awards should neither be low or high in comparison. Awards or maladministration are comparable. andpound;10,000 was appropriate here.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2002, Gazette 12-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2282 Admin, [2003] HLR 27, [2003] HRLR 111

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1988, European Convention on Human Rights Art 8, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Morris v London Borough of Newham Admn 2002
The claimant complained that the defendant authority had failed to provide her and her family with suitable accommodation pursuant to its duty under section 193. Breach of duty was conceded. The relief sought by the claimant included damages for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
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.

Damages, Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.178030

Regina (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Jul 2002

The applicant had been a detained mental patient. He was granted a deferred order for his release. He challenged the delay of the respondent and his refusal to allow release under section 17 for overnight stays out of the hospital.
Held: The secretary of state had a duty to act with reasonable speed. The department had chosen in practice to rely upon section 43 to control a patients behaviour in this situation, but that was wrong, and the proper section to act under was section 17. The 1983 Act could be read so as not to deny the applicant’s human rights.

Judges:

Mr Justice Crane

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 817 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.174789

Castillo Algar v Spain: ECHR 28 Oct 1998

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1998] ECHR 99, 28194/95

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.165690

Just for Kids Law, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 Jul 2019

The claimant organisation challenged the procedures applying to protect children when used as covert intelligence sources.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1772 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 386

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Children, Police

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.639696

Blaj and Others v Court of Alesd, Romania and Others: Admn 17 Jun 2015

Whether extradition of the three appellants to Romania pursuant to European Arrest Warrants would be contrary to their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the conditions in prisons in Romania.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aikens

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.549106

Taranenko v Russia: ECHR 15 May 2014

The Court considered the question of the proportionality of a sentence imposed for crime committed in the course of peaceful protest.

Citations:

19554/05 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 485

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Full Judgment – Taranenko v Russia (Summary) ECHR 15-May-2014
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Article 11-1
Freedom of peaceful assembly
One year’s detention pending trial and three year suspended sentence prison for involvement in protest against President: violation
Facts . .
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

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.525825

Taranenko v Russia (Summary): ECHR 15 May 2014

Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Article 11-1
Freedom of peaceful assembly
One year’s detention pending trial and three year suspended sentence prison for involvement in protest against President: violation
Facts – In December 2004 the applicant was arrested at the scene of a protest action against Presidential policies. She was part of a group of about forty people who had forced their way through identity and security checks into the reception area of the President’s administration building and had locked themselves in one of the offices, where they had started to wave placards and to distribute leaflets out of the windows. She was charged with participation in mass disorder and remanded in custody for a year, at the end of which time she was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years.
Law – Article 10 of the Convention read in the light of Article 11: The arrest, detention and conviction of the applicant constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression, which interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others.
The applicant and the other participants in the protest action had wished to draw the attention of their fellow citizens and public officials to their disapproval of the President’s policies and their demand for his resignation. This was a topic of public interest and contributed to the debate about the exercise of presidential powers. The protest action had taken place in the President’s administration building. It was significant that the administration’s mission was to receive citizens and examine their complaints and that its premises were therefore open to the public, subject to identity and security checks. The protesters, however, had failed to comply with the established admission procedure. Instead, they had stormed into the building, pushed one of the guards aside, and jumped over furniture before locking themselves in a vacant office. Such behaviour, intensified by the number of protesters, could have frightened those present and caused disruption. In such circumstances, the actions of the police in arresting the protesters and removing them from the premises may have been justified by the demands of protection of public order.
It remained to be ascertained whether the length of the applicant’s detention pending trial and the penalty imposed on her were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The applicant’s conviction was at least in part founded on the domestic courts’ condemnation of the political message conveyed by the protesters. Indeed, she was accused of ‘throwing anti-[Putin] leaflets’ and ‘issuing an unlawful ultimatum by calling for the President’s resignation’. At the same time, it was significant that she was not convicted solely for the expression of an opinion, but rather for such expression mixed with particular conduct. The participants in the protest action had come to the building to meet officials, hand over a petition criticising the President’s policies, distribute leaflets and talk to journalists. They were not armed and did not resort to the use of violence or force, except for pushing aside the guard who had attempted to stop them. The disturbance that had followed was not part of their initial plan but a reaction to the guards’ attempts to stop them from entering the building. Although that reaction may have appeared misplaced and exaggerated, it was significant that the protesters had not caused any bodily injuries to those present. Indeed, the charges against them did not mention any use or threat of violence or any infliction of bodily harm. Although, they were found guilty of damaging property the domestic courts had not established whether the applicant had personally participated in causing such damage or had committed any other reprehensible act. It was also significant that before the end of the trial the defendants had paid for all the pecuniary damage caused by their action.
The Court considered that the circumstances of the applicant’s case presented no justification for her being remanded in custody for a year or being given a three year suspended prison sentence. The unusually severe sanction had imposed in the present case must had had a chilling effect on the applicant and others taking part in protest actions. Thus, the interference in question had not been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of Article 5 ss 3 as the authorities had extended the applicant’s detention on grounds which, though relevant, could not be regarded as sufficient.
Article 41: EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Citations:

19554/05 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 675

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Full Judgment – Taranenko v Russia ECHR 15-May-2014
The Court considered the question of the proportionality of a sentence imposed for crime committed in the course of peaceful protest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527206

The Mayor of London v Hall and Others: QBD 29 Jun 2010

The Mayor sought possession of land outside Parliament occupied for some considerable time by the defendant protesters.

Judges:

Griffith Williams J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1613 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.420046