ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section
Citations:
48343/16, [2019] ECHR 218
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636002
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section
48343/16, [2019] ECHR 218
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636002
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : Third Section Committee
19650/11, [2019] ECHR 201
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636007
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to education-{general} : Fourth Section Committee
56443/11, [2019] ECHR 224
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636012
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage – award : Fourth Section
19788/03, [2019] ECHR 178, [2020] ECHR 193
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.635993
ECHR Judgment : No Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Second Section
43624/14, [2019] ECHR 221
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636016
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : Third Section Committee
45013/05, [2019] ECHR 239
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636000
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage – award : Fifth Section
76254/11, [2019] ECHR 233
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.635997
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section
57031/10, [2019] ECHR 229
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636022
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fifth Section Committee
29674/07, [2019] ECHR 209
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.635996
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : First Section
2683/12, [2018] ECHR 918
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628882
ECHR Judgment : Preliminary objection dismissed : Third Section
23608/16, [2018] ECHR 863
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628845
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee
50117/13, [2018] ECHR 873
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628839
ECHR Judgment : Struck out of the list : Fourth Section
27153/07, [2018] ECHR 927
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628879
ECHR Judgment : Preliminary objections dismissed : First Section
55080/13, [2018] ECHR 890
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628851
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section
24129/11, [2018] ECHR 897
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628844
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee
14619/12, [2018] ECHR 809
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628807
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
29446/12, [2018] ECHR 920
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628898
ECHR Judgment : No Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section
70465/14, [2018] ECHR 931
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – AT v Estonia ECHR 13-Nov-2018
ECHR Judgment : No Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628877
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Second Section
52548/15, [2018] ECHR 910
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628885
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Fourth Section
5406/07, [2018] ECHR 781
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628822
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
4954/15, [2018] ECHR 835
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628873
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section
7972/09, [2018] ECHR 779
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628798
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Fifth Section
14237/07, [2018] ECHR 826
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628866
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : Fourth Section Committee
30462/15, [2018] ECHR 837
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628836
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : First Section Committee
49253/11, [2018] ECHR 848
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628867
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : First Section Committee
46245/08, [2018] ECHR 853
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628775
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Second Section
43185/11, [2018] ECHR 882
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628794
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee
39047/11, [2018] ECHR 756
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628750
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
48616/14, [2018] ECHR 760
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628748
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : First Section Committee
15333/16, [2018] ECHR 849
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628787
ECHR Judgment : No Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Fifth Section
3779/11, [2018] ECHR 851
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628768
ECHR Judgment : Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association : Second Section Committee
14299/05, [2018] ECHR 876
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.628766
49349/99, [2003] ECHR 257
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.277252
[2005] EWCA Civ 1261
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.234552
[2005] EWCA Civ 1258
England and Wales
See Also – Esfandiari and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 23-Mar-2006
The claimant argued that the funeral benefits regime unlawfully discriminated against migrants because the 1987 Regulations did not permit payments to be made for a burial abroad, except as provided for by EU law.
Held: The argument was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.234554
45718/99, [2005] ECHR 615
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.230759
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their complaint that as serving prisoners they were unable to vote.
Simon Brown LJ VP
[2001] EWCA Civ 927
European Convention on Human Rights 3, Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218256
The appellant was a British citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay by US authorities. He was captured by American forces in Afghanistan. He claimed that his detention was a violation of international law and that, under the United Kingdom Domestic Law, the defendants owed him a duty by diplomatic means to take reasonable steps to bring to an end his detention, or to bring to an end the features of that detention which allegedly violate international law.
Lord Phillips MR, Waller LJ, Carnwath J
[2002] EWCA Civ 1316
England and Wales
See Also – Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217549
W had been brought to the UK illegally by Chinese gangs. He had argued that his considerable debts to these gangs meant that if returned he or his family would be subject to severe physical threat including death. The SS now appealed from his grant of asylum.
[2002] EWCA Civ 1189
European Convention of Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217512
Mummery, Hale LJJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 533
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217068
Challenge to lawfulness of removal form association in immigration detention
[2019] EWCA Civ 784
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636711
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection partly accepted (non-exhaustion) ; Preliminary objection partly dismissed (non-exhaustion) ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
47863/99
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.182538
ECHR Judgment : No Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section
50053/16, [2019] ECHR 283
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636055
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
15121/11, [2019] ECHR 223
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636036
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Second Section
11236/09, [2019] ECHR 276
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636043
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : First Section
4755/16, [2019] ECHR 181
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.635994
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
73007/14, [2019] ECHR 284
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636072
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Third Section
23887/16, [2019] ECHR 277
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636057
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections-{general} : First Section Committee
70571/14, [2019] ECHR 285
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636066
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Fifth Section Committee
41920/09, [2019] ECHR 235
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636004
ECHR Judgment : Revision admitted Non-pecuniary damage – award : Second Section
9580/03, [2019] ECHR 245
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636014
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
60475/14, [2019] ECHR 286
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636073
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee
49089/10, [2019] ECHR 222
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636010
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Fourth Section
878/13, [2019] ECHR 272
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636044
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : First Section
39065/16, [2019] ECHR 236
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636028
ECHR Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : First Section
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary damage – award : First Section
49725/11, [2018] ECHR 915, [2020] ECHR 591
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628902
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Fifth Section Committee
66356/10, [2018] ECHR 924
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628900
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
63510/11, [2018] ECHR 916
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628893
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Fourth Section
40938/16, [2018] ECHR 894
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628859
ECHR Judgment : Article 6+6-3-c – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
45060/10, [2018] ECHR 901
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628816
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee
74111/13, [2018] ECHR 762
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628751
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section Committee
20546/16, [2018] ECHR 864
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628854
ECHR Judgment : No Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section
23183/15, [2018] ECHR 933
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – AT v Estonia (No 2) ECHR 13-Nov-2018
ECHR Judgment : No Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Second Section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628876
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section
ECHR Judgment : Damage – claim dismissed : Third Section
54490/10, [2018] ECHR 842, [2020] ECHR 223
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628874
ECHR Judgment : Article 10 – Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee
47847/09, [2018] ECHR 935
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628880
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee
48749/16, [2018] ECHR 790
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628869
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee
27368/06, [2018] ECHR 854
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628852
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
33193/14, [2018] ECHR 834
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628858
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Fifth Section Committee
10395/14, [2018] ECHR 923
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628896
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee
8555/17, [2018] ECHR 859
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628853
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : First Section Committee
39186/11, [2018] ECHR 793
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628862
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee
8797/16, [2018] ECHR 838
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628861
[1995] ECHR 2, 14518/89
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.440528
3360/09, [2010] ECHR 1776
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.426001
The court considered the compatibility of section 41 with the suspect’s article 5 Human Rights insofar as it failed to provide a mechanism for a suspect to challenge his detention and be released on conditions of bail.
Held: No arguable case had been made out.
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 2146 (Admin)
Terrorism Act 2000 41, European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.343941
The applicants complained of their continued detention in Iraq in a UK internment facility as an infringement of their human rights.
[2008] EWHC 2391 (Admin)
England and Wales
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 19-Dec-2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 22-Dec-2008
. .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been detained on the request of the Iraqi criminal court in a detention facility run by the UK armed forces. They complained of their proposed transfer to an Iraqi facility in anticipation of facing trial for murder, for which if . .
At High Court – Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant Iraqi nationals complained of their long term detention by British forces in Iraq, and of their transfer to the Iraqi authorities for trial for murder.
Held: The transfer was a breach of the applicants’ rights. The Iraqis had . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 17-Mar-2015
Leggatt J explained the idea of enforced disappearance: ‘a concept recognised in international law and . . a practice which is internationally condemned. It involves detention outside the protection of the law where there is a refusal by the state . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 26-Jun-2015
Reasons for orders following a case management hearing to review whether there are steps which the court should now be taking to procure compliance by the Secretary of State for Defence with the duty of the UK under articles 2 and 3 of the European . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 7-Apr-2016
The court considered the extent of the state’s obligations to investigate allegations of unlawful killing and ill-treatment of civilians by British soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. It follows a hearing to consider three issues: i) Whether the . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v The Secretary of State for Defence and Others CA 9-Sep-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.277286
The local authority abandoned its care plan for her child without first consulting her. The mother appealed a refusal by the court to award damages.
Held: The appeal failed. The authority had infringed the mother’s human rights, but her remedy lay in a declaration, and damages were not to be awarded. The breach was purely procedural. The decalaration was an adequate remedy in this case.
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Wilson
Times 01-Feb-2007
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Appeal from – P v South Gloucestershire Council FD 2006
The applicant’s child had been taken into care by the defendant, on the basis of a proposed care plan. The authority abandoned the care plan but without consulting with the mother first. She sought damages saying that the authority had infringed her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.248914
(15305/06 DECISION), [2006] ECHR 841
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.246524
The bankrupt had been discharged from his bankruptcy, but his share in the family home remained vested in the trustee who applied for the sale of the home. His wife applied to set aside an order for sale on the basis that it interfered with her right to family life.
Held: Previous decisions had not considered the effect of Article 8 on applications under s335A. The section allowed a judge to do what he considered just and reasonable in all the circumstances. He had to balance the needs of the creditors and of the applicant. Those interests were different in character and quality. No sufficient error had been shown in the way the district judge had exercised his discretion to allow the setting aside of his order.
Paul Morgan QC
Times 04-Aug-2006
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14, Insolvency Act 1986 335A(3)
England and Wales
Cited – In re Lowrie 1981
When a judgment creditor applies for an order for sale of a property subject to a Charging Order, the competing equities of the parties will be carefully weighed. . .
Cited – Re Citro, Lloyds Bank plc v Byrne and Byrne, Abbey National plc v Moss and others and Barclays Bank plc v Hendricks CA 1991
Trustees in bankruptcy of bankrupt husbands successfully appealed for the removal of provisos delaying the operation of orders for sale made under s30 in respect of each husband’s matrimonial home for the benefit of that husband’s wife who had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.244694
[2001] EWHC Admin 1174
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.241514
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – No violation of Art. 8; No violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 14; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
37038/97, [2005] ECHR 778
Human Rights
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.235637
The court emphasised the need not merely to identify the relevant factors that weigh in each direction when considering whether to make an order for possession in a nuisance case, but to explain clearly why it is or is not proportionate to interfere with a Convention right in order to address a pressing social need.
Sedley LJ
(2001) 33 HLR 72, [2001] EWCA Civ 944
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217984
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory right, which was not the same as an article 3 right to liberty and not to be discriminated against. In the light of Giles and Smith it was clear that the facts of these cases were outside the ambit of Article 5, and therefore neither respondent could rely on Article 14. The decision letter did what it was required to do. It explained to the prisoner why his application was being refused. The reasons were personal to him, and had nothing to do with the attitude of Syria. The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded.
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger
[2004] EWCA Civ 1309, Times 26-Oct-2004
European Convention on Human Rights 3, Criminal Justice Act 1991
England and Wales
Cited – Webster v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Mar-1987
(Commission) An American citizen was detained in England, and eventually deported to France. He complained that there was discrimination against foreign nationals, who did not challenge orders for deportation but sought parole. That was disputed by . .
Cited – Grice v United Kingdom ECHR 1994
(Year?) The applicant was a serving prisoner suffering from AIDS, who complained that aids sufferers were being discriminated against because unlike those suffering other medical conditions they were not released early on compassionate grounds. The . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL 27-Jul-2000
The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2003
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .
Cited – Douglas v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The applicant had sought a student loan to support his studies as a mature student. It was refused because he would be over 55 at the date of the commencement of the course. He claimed this was discriminatory.
Held: The Convention required the . .
Cited – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was a prisoner serving a determinate term exceeding 15 years. He complained that the respondent’s remaining juridsiction as to his release on licence infringed his human rights.
Held: This was the sole remaining element of the . .
Cited – Karlheinz Schmidt v Germany ECHR 18-Jul-1994
Article 14 of the Convention operates not by way of the conferral of a freestanding right not to be discriminated against, but rather by way of complementing the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent . .
Cited – Van Raalte v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Feb-1997
A was an unmarried childless man over 45 complaining of a law which exempted unmarried childless women over 45 from paying contributions under the General Child Benefits Act. Apart from the exempted women, the entire adult population was subject to . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board Ex Parte White QBD 16-Dec-1994
The concept of ‘risk’ was not confined to risk to the United Kingdom public alone, as a result of which the Parole Board is entitled, indeed, in an appropriate case, required, to take into account the risk to the public in a country to which a . .
Cited – Botta v Italy ECHR 24-Feb-1998
The claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday.
Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216421
Each doctor appealed convictions for manslaughter by gross negligence, saying that the offence was insufficiently clearly established to comply with human rights law, in that the jury had to decide in addition and as a separate ingredient whether the act was a crime. A patient had died whilst under their supervision and care.
Held: The offence of manslaughter by gross negligence was clearly stated in Adomako. The offence required death resulting from a negligent breach of a duty of care to the deceased exposing the victim to risk of death, and that the circumstances were so reprehensible as to amount to gross negligence. The reference to crime was no more that an emphisis to a jury of the need on the prosecution to prove more than just civil negligence.
Judge LJ, Treacy, Bean JJ
Times 13-Oct-2004, [2004] EWCA Crim 2375, [2005] 1 Cr App R 328
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Applied – Regina v Shulman, Regina v Prentice, Regina v Adomako; Regina v Holloway HL 1-Jul-1994
An anaesthetist failed to observe an operation properly, and did not notice that a tube had become disconnected from a ventilator. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died, and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, being guilty of gross . .
Adopted – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Cited – ABC and Others, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2015
Several defendants sought to appeal against convictions. They were public officials accused of having committed misconduct in public office in the sale of information relating to their work to journalists. The journalists were convicted of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216391
The patient had a violent history. His eventual realease from a secure mental hospital was ordered, but the conditions imposed for his release could not be met. He argued that his continued detention infringed his human rights.
The Honourable Mr Justice Collins
[2004] EWHC 2193 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215930
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 had been settled the court was invited to pursue the decision.
Held: The Act was intended to fulfil the purpose of promoting family life, and therefore the human rights of the claimant were engaged under Art 14, and ‘the Council’s refusal to treat the Claimant as having a priority need for accommodation in circumstances where a parent with a dependent child who was not subject to immigration control would have been treated as having a priority need for accommodation amounted to an infringement of her right under Art. 14 to enjoy her right to respect for her family life under Art. 8 without discrimination.’ A declaration of incompatibility was made.
Keith J
[2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin), Times 20-Oct-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 865, [2005] 1 All ER 351, [2004] UKHRR 1126, [2004] HRLR 43, [2005] 1 FLR 429
Housing Act 1996 185(4)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 14
England and Wales
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Regina (Annette Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 22-May-2002
The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Cited – Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .
Distinguished – Gaygusuz v Austria ECHR 16-Sep-1996
The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Admn 4-Mar-2002
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
Cited – Gay v Sheeran, London Borough of Enfield CA 18-Jun-1999
The ability for a court to order the transfer of a secure tenancy between partners under the Act depended upon the court first making an occupation order in favour of the party from whom the tenancy was to be transferred, but the order could be made . .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Taiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others SC 22-Jun-2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215932
The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The planning guidance required authorities to provide sites, but against other planning priorities. The Inspector had found little planning impact from the unlawful development, and the effect on their family life substantial.
Held: The judge had erred. The Inspector had correctly applied Article 8 rights.and without convert them into ‘the broader proposition that the needs of gypsies ‘must be met’.’ (Auld LJ dissenting)
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld, The Right Honourable Lord Justice Wall And The Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey
[2004] EWCA Civ 1248, Times 14-Oct-2004
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Hedges and Hedges v Secretary of State for Environment v East Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 15-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Leominster District Council ex parte Pothecary CA 28-Oct-1997
A building was erected without planning permission. The local planning authority chose not to serve an enforcement notice but rather had invited an application for retrospective planning permission.
Held: The fact that a building has already . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Appeal from – Chichester District Council v First Secretary of State and others Admn 29-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Botta v Italy ECHR 24-Feb-1998
The claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday.
Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s . .
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 – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214642
44521/98, [2003] ECHR 581
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213557
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 the courts in dealing with his challenge. The Court said: ‘the applicant was contesting the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on a series of rights commonly recognised to prisoners . . at least some of the serious restrictions laid down by the decrees . . such as the one restricting his contact with his family and the ones affecting his finances – certainly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature.’
41576/98, [2003] ECHR 566, (2005) 41 EHRR 16
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Applied – 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 . .
Applied – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213554
55081/00, [2003] ECHR 519
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213525
38389/97, [2003] ECHR 613
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213579
26624/95, [2003] ECHR 626
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213589
48263/99, [2003] ECHR 618
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213583
A dwellinghouse had exploded, killing the occupants. The defendant was to be tried for alleged breaches of the 1974 Act in the gas supoplies to the house. The appellant complained that a jury trial would be an infringement of its rights, since a jury asked to sit for three to six months would be prejudiced against it, and be unable to deliver a proper verdict.
Held: Applying Heasman, it was for the appellant to show that a jury trial would necessarily result in an infringement of its rights. That had not been shown. The absence of reasons from a jury’s verdict did not make for an unfair trial.
Lord Maclean and Lord Osborne And Lord Hamilton
[2004] ScotHC 57, [2004] ScotHC 68
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Refik Saric v Denmark ECHR 2-Feb-1999
The appellant complained that the absence of reasons from a jury’s verdict meant that the trial had been unfair.
Held: ‘The absence of reasons in the High Court’s judgment was due to the fact that the applicant’s guilt was determined by a . .
Cited – Heasman v J M Taylor and Partners SCS 8-Mar-2002
Appropriateness of use of jury in civil trials in Scotland. . .
Cited – Regina v Davies CACD 2003
The defendant said that section 40 of the 1974 Act was not compatible with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) of the Convention, unless the section was read down to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant.
Held: The Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213656
55951/00, [2003] ECHR 625
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213588
42738/98, [2003] ECHR 624
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213587
60851/00, [2003] ECHR 580
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213556
65436/01, [2003] ECHR 617
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213582