Category: Human Rights

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Waltham Forest London Borough Council: CA 15 Mar 2002

The house owner sought a lawful use certificate. He wished to use the house as sheltered housing for six people recovering from mental illness, with support from a resident carer. The rules allow such a certificate where there would be a total of six people living in the property. The local authority refused the certificate on the basis that there would be seven people living there including the carer. The inspector granted it on the basis that the change would not be so substantial as to amount to a material change of use.
Held: The inspector was correct. The difference was not sufficient to make the change of use substantial. The comparison should be between the existing use and the proposed use, and there was no notional intermediate level of permitted use. If section 192 did affect the owner’s human rights the section was a proportionate and legitimate interference.

Judges:

Lords Justice Schiemann, Tuckey and Jonathan Parker

Citations:

Gazette 11-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 330, [2002] 13 EG 99, [2002] 2 PLR 83, [2002] JPL 1093

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55 192

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.170076

The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v McNally: CA 25 Jan 2002

The claimant sought damages against the police for malicious prosecution and otherwise. He sought disclosure of whether a party referred to in the case as X, had at any time been a paid informer. The police appealed an order to disclose this. Counsel for the police had sought to rely upon assertions made as to X’s behaviour. The judge refused a public interest immunity certificate.
Held: The general rule is against disclosure of informant’s identities even in civil cases, but there are exceptions, including the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this case there was such a risk, and the judge’s order stood. The judge need not restrict himself to the list of exceptions in the NSPCC case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 14, [2002] Crim LR 832

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marks v Beyfus 1890
The plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. He called the Director of Public Prosecutions as a witness, who refused to identify the name of the person who had given him the information on which he had acted against the plaintiff.
Cited – Savage v Hoddinot (Chief Constable of Hampshire) CA 6-Feb-1997
A police informer may abandon anonymity to sue police for promised fees. . .
Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.167466

McPherson v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Dec 2001

The appellant had entered the UK as a visitor on regular occasions and latterly had used false passport. She was then convicted of supplying Class A drugs, and ordered to be deported. She had children who also were in the UK, and did not wish to be separated from them, and was afraid of violence against her if she was returned to Jamaica The adjudicator had failed to make a determination on her claim under article 8, and the IAT had declined to allow an appeal.
Held: It was wrong not to hear the point. She had the right to make the claim, and had the right to have it determined. There was clear evidence that the state might be unable to protect her from an individual. There was a change in the law between the adjudicator’s decision and the IAT decision whereby someone breaching an order under the Jamaican Domestic Violence Act might be imprisoned. A state could not be required to guarantee the safety of an individual, but some judgement had to be made. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Sedley and Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1955, [2002] INLR 139

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bari 1986
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.167311

Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Feb 2006

Husband and wife sought leave to remain to care for the husband’s father who was settled as a refugee, but suffered chronic depression and presented a high suicide risk.
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 75, [2006] INLR 473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Nov-2005
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238541

Regina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye: CACD 11 Nov 2005

The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry.
Held: The jury should have been directed as to the defence of reasonable excuse and otherwise. The statute had to be read so as to comply with art 31 of the 1951 Convention. The convictions however were safe in this case.
Kennedy L.J said that the burden of proof was legal rather than evidential: ‘For that same reason, namely that the defendant alone is likely to have all of the relevant information, and bearing in mind the importance of maintaining an effective immigration policy, and the limitation on the penalties which can be imposed under the Act, we see no reason to conclude that the burden of proof should be interpreted as being anything less than a legal burden. An evidential burden would do little to promote the objects of the legislation in circumstances where the prosecution would have very limited means of testing any defence raised. ‘

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Bell J, Dobbs J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2865, Times 05-Dec-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 2, Convention and Protocols relating to the Status of Refugees 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Cited – Khaboka v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1993
A refugee does not become a refugee because of recognition as such. He is recognised because he is a refugee so, for the purposes of Article 31.1 the term refugee includes someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee, in other . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 11-May-2004
The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a . .
Cited – Regina v Abdul Hussain and others CA 1999
The judge had been wrong to refused to leave the defence of necessity to the jury. The court gave guidance as to the proper approach. The judge should have asked himself whether there was evidence of such fear operating on the mind of the defendant . .
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 – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235244

Fedotov v Russia: ECHR 25 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – No violation of Art. 3 (one period of detention); Violation of Art. 3 (other period of detention); Violation of Art. 5-1; Not necessary to examine under Arts. 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – State to secure enforcement of domestic judgments; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings.

Citations:

5140/02, [2005] ECHR 925

Links:

Bailii

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231545

Clinique Des Acacias And Others v France: ECHR 13 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim dismissed; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

65407/01, [2005] ECHR 714, 65399/01, 65405/01

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231388

Gunaydin v Turkey: ECHR 13 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-d; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (Art. 3); Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient (Art. 6-1); Costs and expenses partial award.

Citations:

27526/95, [2005] ECHR 721

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231389

Mogos v Romania: ECHR 13 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 3 concerning the incident with the police; No violation of Art. 3 concerning the living conditions in the transit centre; No failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34.

Citations:

20420/02, [2005] ECHR 724

Links:

Worldliii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231397

Bracci v Italy: ECHR 13 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objectionj rejected (estoppel); Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d concerning the examination of witnesses; No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d for the remainder; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient.

Citations:

36822/02, [2005] ECHR 713

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231390

The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden And Ivanov v Bulgaria: ECHR 20 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 11; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic and Convention proceedings.

Citations:

44079/98, [2011] ECHR 1250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231392

Westminster City Council and Another v Morris; Regina (Badu) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 14 Oct 2005

The claimant sought housing assistance. She had a child. She was subject to immigration control. She complained that when considering her application, the Act required the authority to disregard her responsibiltes to her children.
Held: The Act was inconsistent with her right to family life. The declaration of incompatibility was upheld. The section was an interference in the right, but no sufficient justification for the interference was established: ‘a policy objective of driving a British parent out of the country because of the immigration status of her child was not one his Lordhsip was prepared to attribute to Parliament.’

Judges:

Auld, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1184

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 185(40, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Wychavon District Council and Another Admn 20-Dec-2005
The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231234

Maurice v France: ECHR 6 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; No separate issue under Art.14 in conjunction with P1-1; No separate issue under Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention and domestic proceedings; Just satisfaction reserved.

Citations:

11810/03, [2005] ECHR 683

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Maurice v France ECHR 2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Maurice v France ECHR 21-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Maurice v France ECHR 15-Sep-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231012

Langley and others v Liverpool City Council and others: CA 11 Oct 2005

Families had challenged the removal of their children into the care of foster parents by the respondents. The family father, who was blind, had taken to driving. The respondents appealed findings that they had acted unlawfully and in breach of the human rights of the families. There had been an Emergency protection Order, but the children had been removed by th epolice officer without a warrant under section 48(9).
Held: There was nothing in the Act to require a warrant. The argument on surplusage (that section 48(9) would otherwise serve no purpose) failed because the section was intended to address a particular need to have authorised entry to premises.
The police officer had however acted outside his powers in purporting to execute the Emergency Protection order. It was not for him to do so. The appeal by the local authority succeeded, but not that of the police constable, though no personal blame attached to the officer.
Dyson LJ explained the differences between the powers under sections 44 and 46: ‘In my judgment, the statutory scheme clearly accords primacy to section 44. Removal under section 44 is sanctioned by the court and it involves a more elaborate, sophisticated and complete process than removal under section 46. The primacy accorded to section 44 is further reinforced by section 46(7) and 47(3)(c). The significance of these provisions is that they show that it was contemplated by Parliament that an EPO may well not be in force when a removal is effected under section 46, and that removal under section 46 is but the first step in a process which may later include an application for an EPO . . I would therefore, hold that (i) removal of children should usually be effected pursuant to an EPO, and (ii) section 46 should be invoked only where it is not practicable to execute an EPO. In deciding whether it is practicable to execute an EPO, the police must always have regards to the paramount need to protect children from significant harm.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Dyson, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1173, Times 19-Oct-2005, [2006] 1 FLR 342, [2006] 1 WLR 375

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 44 46 48(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
Cited – Venema v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-2002
A young child aged 11 months was separated from her mother because of fears that the mother was suffering from Munchausen syndrome by proxy and would injure her. The child was returned five months later, following medical reports which found that . .
Cited – X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) FD 16-Aug-2004
Munby J reviewed the grant of Emergency Protection Orders, and summarised the applicable law: ‘The matters I have just been considering are so important that it may be convenient if I here summarise the most important points:
(i) An EPO, . .

Cited by:

Cited – A v East Sussex County Council and Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 2-Jul-2010
A appealed against the dismissal of her claim for damages under the 1998 Act after the defendants had taken action anticipating possible abuse of her baby child. The baby had been returned after the suspicions were allayed. She complained that the . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231044

Kalnasi v Hungary: ECHR 27 Sep 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Remainder inadmissible; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic and Convention proceedings.

Citations:

4417/02, [2005] ECHR 642

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231016

Iza Ltd And Makrakhidze v Georgia: ECHR 27 Sep 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Violation of P1-1; Remainder inadmissible; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

28537/02, [2005] ECHR 641

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – ‘Iza’ Ltd And Makrakhidze v Georgia ECHR 8-Aug-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231017

Draon v France: ECHR 6 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; No separate issue under Art.14 in conjunction with P1-1; No separate issue under Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention and domestic proceedings; Just satisfaction reserved.

Citations:

1513/03, [2005] ECHR 679

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Draon v France ECHR 21-Jun-2006
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231011

Shannon v The United Kingdom: ECHR 4 Oct 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
The defendant had already been charged with offences when he was called for interview and obliged to answer questions from a financial investigator. His answers would have been admissible at trial against him. The prosecution was not eventually pursued.
Held: The complainant was entitled not to be called upon to answer such questions even if eventually they would not in fact have been used. The obligation to attend for interview was not compatible with his right not to incriminate himself.

Citations:

6563/03, Times 12-Oct-2005, [2009] ECHR 2257

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231010

Petri Sallinen And Others v Finland: ECHR 27 Sep 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine under Art. 6; Not necessary to examine under Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (one applicant); Finding of violation sufficient (others); Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

50882/99, [2005] ECHR 643

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231007

Rey And Others v France: ECHR 5 Oct 2004

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.

Citations:

68406/01;68412/01;68408/01;…, [2004] ECHR 486

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230583

Scordino v Italy: ECHR 29 Jul 2004

(French Text) Grand Chamber. In the context of unreasonable delay in violation of article 6(1), there was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion non-pecuniary damage.

Citations:

(2006) 45 EHRR 207, 36813/97, [2004] ECHR 412

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Scordino v Italy (No. 2) ECHR 15-Jul-2004
. .

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 . .
See Also – Scordino v Italy (3) ECHR 17-May-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Damages

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230579

Slimani v France: ECHR 27 Jul 2004

A Tunisian was committed to a psychiatric hospital on several occasions. He died while detained in a detention centre awaiting deportation. The applicant complained that there had been a violation of article 2 on two grounds: the detention centre had not been equipped with the necessary medical facilities, and the doctors had failed to administer the appropriate treatment.
Held: The substantive complaint was rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of the available domestic remedies. However article 2 obliged a State to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction: ‘The obligations on Contracting States take on a particular dimension where detainees are concerned since detainees are entirely under the control of the authorities. In view of their vulnerability, the authorities are under a duty to protect them.’ and ‘besides the health of prisoners, their well-being also has to be adequately secured, given the practical demands of imprisonment. In this context account has to be taken of the particular vulnerability of mentally ill persons. These guarantees must, by analogy, benefit other persons deprived of their liberty, such as persons placed in administrative detention.’

Citations:

57671/00, [2004] ECHR 396, (2006) 43 EHRR 49

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Cited – Kats and Others v Ukraine ECHR 18-Dec-2008
The applicants were the parents and son of a prisoner who died in custody of an HIV related illness. They complained of her treatment in custody.
Held: If someone dies in custody an explanation of the cause of death must be provided, including . .
Cited – Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Another Admn 26-Jul-2016
The court was aked what article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires of a coroner when a serving prisoner dies of natural causes.
Held: The reuest for judicial review failed. Mr Tyrrell’s death was, from the outset, one which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230569

Mykhaylenky And Others v Ukraine: ECHR 30 Nov 2004

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, ratione personae);Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award;Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

35201/02, [2004] ECHR 656, 35196/02, 35091/02

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230649

Zdanoka v Latvia: ECHR 17 Jun 2004

Citations:

58278/00, [2004] ECHR 268

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Zdanoka v Latvia ECHR 16-Mar-2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that her disqualification from standing for election to the Latvian Parliament and to municipal elections infringed her rights as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 10 and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230506

Cases of Pini And Bertani And Manera And Atripaldi v Romania: ECHR 22 Jun 2004

The making of an adoption order was sufficient to establish an Article 8 right to respect for family life notwithstanding the fact that the children had never moved to live with the adopters. Protection of the right to family life pre-supposes the factual existence of family life.

Citations:

78030/01, [2004] ECHR 275, 78028/01, [2005] Fam Law 697, 40 EHRR 13, (2005) 40 EHRR 13, [2005] 2 FLR 596

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Webster (the Parents) v Norfolk County Council and others CA 11-Feb-2009
Four brothers and sisters had been adopted after the parents had been found to have abused them. The parents now had expert evidence that the injuries may have been the result of scurvy, and sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
Cited – A v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230509

Kolu v Turkey: ECHR 2 Aug 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection joined to merits rejected (six-month period); Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c and 6-3-d; Not necessary to examine Art. 6 for the remainder; Not necessary to examine Art. 7; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

35811/97, [2005] ECHR 557

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229832

Siliadin v France: ECHR 26 Jul 2005

(French Text) A 15-year-old girl, had been brought from Togo to France and made to work for a family without pay for 15 hours a day. She had been held in servitude and required to perform forced labour
Held: France had violated article 4 by having failed to introduce criminal legislation which would afford effective protection to her.
Article 4 imposes positive obligations on the State to protect individuals, particularly children and other vulnerable people, including by means of penalisation and effective prosecution of acts contrary to Article 4. Slavery is the status of a person over whom powers attached to the right of ownership are exercised. Servitude is an obligation to provide one’s services that is imposed by the use of coercion. Forced or compulsory labour is work performed involuntarily and under the threat of a penalty.

Citations:

[2006] 43 EHRR 16, 73316/01, [2005] ECHR 545, [2005] 20 BHRC 654

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, SIM

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4

Cited by:

Cited – Nambalat v Taher and Another EAT 8-Dec-2011
nambalatEAT2011
EAT National Minimum Wage Act 1998
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)
Unauthorised deductions from wages
All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the . .
Cited – Regina v SK CACD 8-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against her conviction for trafficking a complainant into the United Kingdom for the purposes of exploitation, contrary to section 4 of the 2004 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and a retrial ordered. The court . .
See Also – Siliadin v France ECHR 2-Dec-2011
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights . .
Cited – Hounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229837

Kniat v Poland: ECHR 26 Jul 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

71731/01, [2005] ECHR 539

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Human Rights

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229825

PM v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jul 2005

A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way he would have if he and the mother had been married.
Held: There was no proper justification of the different treatment. The purpose of the allowance was to encourage fathers to support their children, and to support them in making new families. There was no reason why previously unmarried fathers should be treated worse.

Citations:

6638/03, Times 15-Sep-2005, [2005] ECHR 504, (2005) 18 BHRC 668, [2009] ECHR 2255

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A14 P1a1

Citing:

Cited – McMichael v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1995
In the course of care proceedings, medical and social services’ reports were disclosed to the courts, but not to the parents involved.
Held: The courts’ failure to show reports to the parents in care proceedings was a breach of the Convention. . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination, Income Tax

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229820

Simsek And Others v Turkey: ECHR 26 Jul 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 2 (substantive and procedural); Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 17; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.

Citations:

35072/97, 37194/97, [2005] ECHR 546

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Human Rights

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229829