Where an applicat claimed protection both under asylum laws and under human rights legislation, the facts of the persecution which might not succeed under one head might be effective under the other, and the adjudicator should deal separately with each claim, identifying factual determinations for each purpose.
Buxton, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Times 18-Aug-2005
England and Wales
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.229375
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regards the fairness of the proceedings; Inadmissible under P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the length of the proceedings; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected.
394/03, [2005] ECHR 442
Human Rights
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.228749
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Preliminary objections rejected (out of time, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies); No violation of P1-1.
45036/98, [2005] ECHR 440
Human Rights
Cited – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.228730
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
40159/98, [2005] ECHR 448
Human Rights
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.228707
19679/92, [2001] ECHR 366
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.212359
20610/02, [2006] ECHR 402
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Jurkosek v Slovenia ECHR 6-Apr-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.243693
28666/08, [2010] ECHR 274
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.403003
48531/07, [2010] ECHR 299
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.402976
The appeal court had previously remitted a matter to the Restrictive Practices court, having found that the court might be biased. The parties having settled the main litigation, they sought the additional costs incurred by them in correcting what they said was the fault of the court. The Lord Chancellor responded that the parties were acting only in a representative capacity, the court hearing was not determinative of their rights, thus their Human rights had not been infringed. No representative order had been made. The request failed.
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Robert Walker, Master of the Rolls
[2001] EWCA Civ 1217
Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Human Rights Act 1998, Restrictive Practices Court (Resale Prices) Rules 1976 9(b)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159908
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Rix
[2001] EWCA Civ 1245
England and Wales
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159881
The applicant complained that she had been subject to degrading treatment, by virtue of the conditions under which she had first been held in a police cell, and subsequently in prison. She was very severely disabled, and the treatment was unsuitable for her needs, in that male officers had been used to assist her attend the toilet, and that she had been kept in conditions which, for her, had been dangerously cold, with a risk of developing sores, and left her unable to attend the toilet or keep herself clean. Though no intention had been shown to humiliate here, the question must be looked at in the light of her particular circumstances and needs, and the treatment had been degrading. ‘There is no evidence in this case of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the Court considers that to detain a severely disabled person in conditions where she is dangerously cold, risks developing sores because her bed is too hard or unreachable, and is unable to go to the toilet or keep clean without the greatest of difficulty, constitutes degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.’
Judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, in which Judge Costa joined, made clear that the primary responsibility lay not with the police or the prison authorities: ‘but with the judicial authorities who committed the applicant to an immediate term of imprisonment for contempt of court.
While there appear on the material before the court to have been certain failings in the standard of care provided by the police and prison authorities, these stemmed in large part from the lack of preparedness on the part of both to receive and look after a severely handicapped person in conditions which were wholly unsuited to her needs. On the other hand, I can see no justification for the decision to commit the applicant to an immediate term of imprisonment without at the very least ensuring in advance that there existed both adequate facilities for detaining her and conditions of detention in which her special needs could be met.’
Costa Pres, Fuhrmann J, Loucaides J, Bratza J, Greve J, Traja J, Ugrekhelidze J
Times 13-Aug-2001, 33394/96, [2001] ECHR 453, [2001] ECHR 458, [2011] ECHR 2270
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Cited – Regina v Qazi and Another CACD 4-Nov-2010
The defendant appealed against sentence, saying that given his serious medical condition, any imprisonment would threaten his human rights.
Held: The court set out the law. A court imposing a sentence should not concern itself with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159479
The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied.
Held: The characterisation under the rules of such proceedings as civil was a starting point only. The fact that no sanction of imprisonment could apply was relevant but not determinative. In fact the allegation required proof of dishonesty, the potential penalties were substantial, and the purpose was punitive and deterrent. Rules relaxing the admissibility of evidence were convenient for the effective collection of taxes, but that was not a consideration when the proceedings were in their nature criminal.
Potter LJ, Mance LJ, Nourse Sir
Times 03-Aug-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1040, [2001] 1 WLR 2253
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1, Value Added Tax Act 1994 60(1), Finance Act 1994 8(1), VAT Tribunal Rules 1986
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill CACD 31-Jul-2003
The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159489
Deliberations of the professional conduct committee hearing a case of professional conduct were in the presence of an assessor who gave advice to the committee. After returning from deliberation the assessor described the advice given, and the chairman announced his decision.
Held: This infringed the right under article 8 of the doctor to a fair trial since he was not allowed to comment on the advice given. Allegations which were irrelevant to the doctor’s practice should be deleted from the charge list presented. As to the lay member’s presence on the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, Lord Hope of Craighead said: ‘From this summary it can be seen that Mrs. Walker was and is eminently well qualified to sit on the Professional Conduct Committee as one of its lay members. She brought to that membership an extensive knowledge of the health service in Wales, as a result of having worked there for many years as ~ nurse and midwife and her period of service as director of the South East Wales Institute. It is in the public interest that those who serve as lay members on disciplinary bodies of this kind should be well-informed and have experience of working in the area within which cases are likely to arise on which they may be called upon to adjudicate. It could not possibly be suggested that there was anything in Mrs. Walker’s general background that would be likely to give rise to the danger or possibility of bias on her part when she was considering a case from Wales.’
Lord Hope of Craighead
Times 11-Apr-2000, [2000] UKPC 16, (Appeal No 21 of 1999), [2000] 1 WLR 1760
Medical Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Cited – Fox v General Medical Council PC 1960
The appeal by a doctor from the disciplinary committee of the GMC to the board of the Privy Council lies of right by the statute and the terms of statute do not limit or qualify the appeal in any way, so that the appellant is entitled to claim that . .
Cited – Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
Cited – The British Medical Association, Regina (on the Application of) v The General Medical Council and Another Admn 4-May-2016
The BMA sought to challenge the validity of the rules governing the procedure of Fitness to Practice panels. In particular the BMA challenged the new absence of a requirement that the panel’s legal advice and assistance be available to the parties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159404
(Dominica) The importance of telecommunications in today’s society meant that it would be an infringement of the right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the constitution to grant a monopoly right to provide such services within a nation. Interference with the provision of a telecommunications service can amount to interfering with the freedom of expression of those who would wish to use that service. The court must then decide whether such a restriction was reasonably required in a democratic society, to protect the rights and freedoms of others. It then fell to the challenger to show that it was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Times 09-Jan-2001, [2000] UKPC 42, [2001] 1 WLR 1123
Cited – Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla PC 14-Feb-2001
PC (Anguilla) A first non-religious radio station had been formed, but came to include much criticism of the government. One programme was suspended by the government. The programme makers complained that this . .
Cited – George Worme Grenada Today Limited v The Commissioner of Police PC 29-Jan-2004
PC (Grenada) The defendant was editor of a newspaper which carried a story severely defamatory of the prime minister. He was convicted of criminal libel, and appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Cited – Observer Publications Limited v Campbell ‘Mickey’ Matthew The Commissioner of Police and The Attorney General PC 19-Mar-2001
PC (Antigua and Barbuda) The claimant complained of the delay by the respondents in processing their request for a licence to run a radio station. It appealed refusal of constitutional redress and thta its right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159430
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal offence.
Held: Nevertheless, the provision of such information was required in this case, for purposes associated with the maintenance of public safety, and was therefore not an infringement of his right against self incrimination.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 22-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] UKHL 11, [2000] 2 WLR 373, [2000] 2 AC 412, [2000] 1 All ER 773, [2000] All ER (D) 199
Environmental Protection Act 1990 71(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Bank of England v Riley 1992
Exercise of the right of privilege against self-incrimination. . .
Cited – In Re London United Investments Plc CA 1992
The privilege against self-incrimination was impliedly excluded by the terms of a statute which conferred power on company inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to require documents and answers to questions from any person whom they . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex Parte Smith HL 15-Jul-1992
The applicant having been cautioned for an offence under the Companies Act 1985, he objected to being required to answer questions put to him in connection with the matter by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office under the 1987 Act.
Held: . .
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 – Bishopsgate Investment Limited v Maxwell CA 1999
A person required to answer questions under the section may not refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. (Dillon LJ) ‘It is plain to my mind – and not least from the Cork Report – that part of the mischief in the old law before the . .
Cited – A T and T Istel Ltd v Tully HL 9-Sep-1992
The second plaintff had agreed to supply computer systems to a health authority. New owners of the company discovered allegations that the contract had been operated fraudulently. An order had been obtained for production of documents, but the order . .
Cited – Rex v Warickshall 1783
Evidence that stolen goods were found under the bed of the accused was admitted notwithstanding that the discovery was made in consequence of her inadmissible confession. Evidence obtained by oppression should be admitted to court. Involuntary . .
Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Cited – Hamilton and Another v Naviede and Director of SFO HL 26-Jul-1994
A Company Court Judge may not fetter the later use of insolvency interviews by a criminal court. The obligation to give the information will not prejudice the fairness of a possible criminal trial, since the accused would still have the protection . .
Cited – Hui Chi-ming v The Queen PC 5-Aug-1991
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No . .
Cited – Orkem v Commission (Judgment) ECJ 18-Oct-1989
The court considered the powers of the Commission to demand information in an investigation of possible offences against the Community competition laws. Article 11 of Regulation 17 of 1962 gave the Commission power, for the purposes of ensuring the . .
Cited – Serves v France ECHR 20-Oct-1997
Captain Serves was a French officer charged in 1988 before a military court, together with a lieutenant and corporal of his company, with the murder of a civilian in the Central African Republic. In 1989 the proceedings were quashed for procedural . .
Cited – Funke v France ECHR 25-Feb-1993
M. Funke successfully challenged his conviction for failing to provide documents which the customs authorities had demanded of him, on the grounds that his rights under Article 6 had been infringed: ‘The Court notes that the customs secured Mr. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council ex parte Green Environmental Industries Limited, Moynihan CA 9-Oct-1997
There was no protection against self-incrimination where information was properly required by the Waste Regulation Authority to carry out its duties. . .
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – C Plc v P and Attorney General Intervening CA 22-May-2007
The respondent had been subject to a civil search, which revealed the existence of obscene images of children on his computer. He appealed against refusal of an order that the evidence should not be passed to the police as evidence. He said that the . .
Cited – Gold Nuts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 8-Feb-2016
INCOME TAX – CORPORATION TAX – preliminary hearing on matters of law – COP9 letter issued to Mr Budhdeo (‘Mr B’) – contractual disclosure offered and refused – whether FTT has jurisdiction to close a ‘COP9 enquiry’ – no -whether HMRC using SA and CT . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159043
Once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court had to make a declaration, even if the case was very old. The effect of the 1998 Act on statute law was not retrospective, but where it affected common law the effect could be retrospective, since common law was deemed always to have been the way it now is. The result was that standards of evidence in criminal cases had retrospectively made many convictions liable to be set aside.
‘(i) The CCRC, subject to the proper exercise of the discretion conferred by section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, can refer to this court a conviction following a trial whenever it took place;
(ii) this court, once such a reference has been made, has no option, however old the case, but to declare the conviction unsafe if that is the result either of the admission of evidence obtained in breach of article 6 or of a change in the common law, which is deemed always to have been that which it is authoritatively declared to be, as, for example, by reason of R v Preddy’,
Rose LJ VP, Rougier J, McCombie J
Times 11-Jun-2001, Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1260, [2001] 3 WLR 751
England and Wales
See Also – Regina v Kansal CACD 24-Jun-1992
K had been convicted of two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. He was also convicted of two counts under the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that being a bankrupt (a) he removed property which he was . .
Cited – Regina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
Appeal from – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158770
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public opinion. Of a sentence under the section: ‘The Secretary of State is not dealing with a sentence of the same kind as the mandatory life sentence imposed on an adult murderer, the duration of which is determined by the sentence of the court and is for life. In cases of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure the duty of the Secretary of State is to decide how long that detention is to last, not to determine whether or not to release prematurely a person on whom the sentence of the court is life imprisonment.’ The fixing of the tariff amounted to a sentencing exercise, to which Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies, and that the requirements of Article 6(1) were not met because the Home Secretary, who set the initial tariff, was not independent of the executive.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead
Gazette 10-Sep-1997, [1997] Fam Law 786, [1998] AC 407, [1997] UKHL 25, [1997] 3 All ER 97, [1997] 3 WLR 23, [1997] 2 FLR 471
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1(5) 4, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Venables Regina v Same, Thompson CACD 7-Aug-1996
A sentence of a young person to ‘Detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure’ is not to be thought of as the same as a life sentence; The Home secretary had been unfair in setting the tarriff sentence for two youths convicted of murder on a basis which . .
At First instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Venables; Regina v Similar QBD 7-May-1996
The Home Secretary was wrong to apply adult criteria on setting a release date for a child detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for an offence of murder. . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Smith v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2003
The case asked what duty the respondent had, in respect of youths sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure before 30th November 2000, to review their continued detention at regular intervals. A statement said that once a tarriff had . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar CA 11-Feb-2004
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the . .
Cited – Browne v The Queen PC 6-May-1999
(St Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder whilst still a youth. He had accordingly been sentenced to be detained ‘during [the Governor-General’s] pleasure; and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
See Also – T and V v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Apr-1999
Public trial in an adult court of juvenile charged with murder and imposition of a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure with a tariff of fifteen years fixed by a member of the executive. The trial of two ten year olds in a public . .
See Also – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Cited – O’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158900
Lord Woolf MR said that where the original proceedings are brought by a public authority, an appeal is part of those proceedings to which section 22(4) applies: ‘In our judgment, where the original proceedings are brought by, or at the instigation of, a public authority, as is the case with a prosecution, an appeal by the defendant is part of the proceedings to which section 22(4) applies. There cannot be a different position on an appeal from that of the trial so far as the issue of retrospectivity of the Human Rights Act 1998 is concerned. Any other construction would mean that in criminal cases the Court of Appeal could not give the required protection to the individual (who would clearly be a victim of any unlawful act) so that there would be a need for an otherwise unnecessary but time-consuming and expensive trip to Strasbourg. In addition, otherwise section 7(1)(b) will apply where the appeal is by a public authority, but not when the appeal is made by the defendant.’
Lord Woolf MR, Judge LJ, Collins J
[2000] EWCA Crim 86
European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 1988, Drug Trafficking Act 1994
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford HL 24-Jan-2002
Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158736
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Second Section
36366/06, [2019] ECHR 198
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.634327
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee
2120/10, [2019] ECHR 189
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.634324
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee
35425/07, [2018] ECHR 1031
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.634103
19894/02, [2006] ECHR 345
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.243639
The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the warrant was in breach of his right to a fair trial.
Held: The hearing at which the possession order had been granted satisfied the applicant’s right to a fair trial. The issue of the warrant merely gave effect to the order, and did not alter the tenant’s legal status, nor make any decision about his rights. Proportionality had been considered at the first hearing. The choice of the County Court rather than the High Court was made without reference to any characteristic of the applicant, and could not be said to be discriminatory.
The issue of a warrant was an administrative and not a judicial process.
Kennedy LJ: ‘the routine enforcement of court orders . . should not normally entail a separate hearing’. There is a need for ‘court administration [to be] flexible and efficient’.
Rix LJ: ‘An efficient procedure for routine execution of the court’s orders is in the public interest’.
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ
Times 06-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1138, [2002] 1 WLR 1537
Housing Act 1985 85, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
England and Wales
Cited – Kariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Dec-2001
The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new . .
Cited – Bristol City Council v Hassan and Glastonbury CA 23-May-2006
The council had obtained possession orders for two properties from secure tenants, but the orders were suspended for so long as rent arrears were being discharged. The judges had understood that a date must appear on the possession order.
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) CA 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147621
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was resisted on the basis that there was more than one building as required by the Act. The judge was wrong to hold so, failing to allow that whether the property was more than one building was one only of the considerations. If it could reasonably described as one house, that was sufficient, and the fact that it might also reasonably be described as two houses did not defeat the claim. Interpreted in this way there was no incompatibility with the human rights act.
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Rix
Gazette 14-Jun-2001, Times 09-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 761, [2001] 3 WLR 824
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(2), Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Appealed to – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Malpas v St Ermin’s Property Ltd CA 1992
. .
Cited – Parsons v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity; Parson v Gage HL 1974
The House left open the exact meaning of the phrase ‘material’ in the section noting that whether a part is material is an issue which must be largely factual and one of common sense. The legislative purpose of the rule that divisions of the . .
Cited – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL 1982
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .
Cited – Duke of Westminster and Others v Birrane CA 17-Nov-1994
A basement extending under the house next door means that the property with the basement is not a not a dwelling-house for leasehold enfranchisement purposes. The result would create difficulties with flying freeholds. ‘The primary purpose of . .
Cited – Lake v Bennett CA 1970
The building had been constructed in 1869. It was used as a house on three floors with a basement. The ground floor was later used as a shoe repairing shop and then as a betting shop with living accommodation still used for dwelling purposes in the . .
Cited – Cadogan v McGirk CA 25-Apr-1996
The court considered whether the 1993 Act should be construed as expropriatory legislation and therefore was to be read strictly.
Held: The Court rejected the submission that the relevant provisions must be strictly construed because the 1993 . .
Cited – Peck v Anicar Properties Ltd CA 15-Oct-1970
The tenant owned two leasehold properties, which had been joined into one. The tenant sought enfranchisement of only one of the properties to avoid being blocked by the rateable value limit, and by 2(2). . .
Cited – Wolf v Crutchley ChD 23-Oct-1970
The plaintiff came to own two adjoining houses, let on long leases at low rents. She sought to use the legislation to enfranchise one property. The landlord objected saying that the houses had been used as guesthouses, and that a door had been . .
Cited – In re W (An Infant) HL 1971
The court considered the reasonability of parental disagreement in applications for adoption: ‘Two reasonable parents can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as . .
Cited – Sharpe v Duke Street Securities 1987
The court considered an application for leasehold enfranchisement where a doorway had been constructed between the two ground-floor halls and the tenant of the two maisonettes occupied both together as his residence. Two residential units may . .
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 – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another CA 6-Feb-2001
Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus . .
Appeal from – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147560
If the state is to interfere in the child’s right to respect for his family life, it has a duty to use its best endeavours to make good what it has taken away.
[2001] EWCA Civ 757, [2001] 1 FLR 582
England and Wales
Cited – A and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147562
The defendant owned land subject to an inclosure award of 1743, in exchange for other land which had made the owner a lay rector. The land was subject to the burden of a duty to maintain the chancel of the parish church. The defendants had been found liable to repair the chancel, but appealed on the basis that the Council was a public authority and the notice was served in breach of the defendants human rights to peaceful enjoyment of their land. By attaching what was in effect a tax to private land, the law allowed discrimination between land ownership. It was neither appropriate not proportionate to single out former glebe land as having responsibility to maintain public buildings.
Gazette 01-Jun-2001, Times 15-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 713, [2002] Ch 51
Human Rights Act 1998, Chancel Repairs Act 1932
England and Wales
Appeal from – Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesby, Warwickshire and Another ChD 7-Feb-2000
A lay rector could be liable for the physical upkeep of the chancel of the church by virtue of the Act, and such liability was not removed by the new Human Rights Act. Such liability could exist whether or not he had notice of the liability when . .
Appeal from (Disapproved) – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147549
The claimant sought a judicial review against a Chief Constable against whose force she had made complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation, not to remit disciplinary proceedings against her under regulation 14 of the 1985 Regulations to another Chief Constable. Her complaint was that, in making that decision, he had not acted judicially.
Held: The fact that a Chief Constable had been named as a defendant in proceedings brought by a constable, did not disqualify him from exercising his statutory duties as chief constable to hear disciplinary proceedings against the same constable. The regulations imposed an unequivocal duty on him to hear the complaint, and his general and continuing duties for the maintenance of discipline put him in a different position to that of a judge hearing a case.
Times 12-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 638, [2001] IRLR 442
Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 518) 13.1
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Chief Constable of Merseyside, Ex Parte Bennion QBD 18-Jul-2000
A senior officer had begun a claim against the police officer alleging sex discrimination. She complained that when disciplinary proceedings were commenced against her, the person making the decision would be the Chief Constable, and that his . .
Cited – Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147533
The section placed the burden upon a specially restricted patient to prove that he was not suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree requiring him to be detained, before the Tribunal could order his release. This shifting of the burden was in breach of his human rights not to be detained. It was not possible to construe the section to achieve compatibility, and a declaration of incompatibility was made.
Times 02-Apr-2001, Gazette 24-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 415, [2002] QB 1
Mental Health Act 1983 72 73, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147486
The claimant, subject of a civil restraint order had been refused leave to bring certain proceedings.
Chadwick, Buxton LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 340, [2001] 3 All ER 942, [2002] 1 WLR 320, [2002] BPIR 80, [2001] ACD 66
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147468
The court was asked ‘When a mental health review tribunal has ordered the discharge of a patient, is it lawful to readmit him under section 2 or section 3 of the [Mental Health Act 1983] where it cannot be demonstrated that there has been a relevant change of circumstances?’
Held: There was nothing to prevent the social worker applying again for the re-admission of a mental patient who had been discharged by a decision of the mental health tribunal, against the balance of medical opinion, and even though there had been no demonstrable change in the situation, provided only that the application was not made within a very few days of the tribunal’s decision. There was an implied exception to the general rule requiring a change in circumstances. The doctors and social workers exercised an independent professional judgement.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Gazette 12-Apr-2001, Times 28-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 239, [2002] QB 235
England and Wales
Appealed to – Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
Followed – Regina v Managers of South Western Hospital and Another, Ex Parte M QBD 24-Mar-1993
The patient was detained on the application of an AMHP. In purported pursuance of section 11(4) the AMHP had consulted the patient’s mother as her nearest relative. However, the patient’s mother was not ordinarily resident in the UK, and, according . .
Appeal from – Regina v Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust and Snazell ex parte Von Brandenburg Admn 26-Jun-2000
. .
Appeal from – Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
Appealed to – Regina v Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust and Snazell ex parte Von Brandenburg Admn 26-Jun-2000
. .
Cited – Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147443
The claimants appealed against a refusal of their request for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to grant them exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. If returned to Poland the daughter of the family would face educational difficulties.
Held: The case presented at first instance had been factually incorrect. Everyone is entitled to be educated to a minimum standard: if the right was to have any content it should at least encompass the provision of an effective education.
Schiemann, Tuckey LJJ, Sir Swinton Thomas
[2000] EWCA Civ 343, [2001] 1 WLR 1359, [2001] ELR 401, [2001] Imm AR 282, [2001] INLR 219
European Convention on Human Rights A2P1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School HL 22-Mar-2006
The claimant had been accused with others of arson to school property. He was suspended for the maximum forty five day period. The school then invited the family to discuss arrangements to return to the school, but the family did not attend. After . .
Cited – A v Essex County Council SC 14-Jul-2010
The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147376
The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. The applicant alleged that the Secretary had no power to so order without going first to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Held: the Secretary’s duties were not solely to look to the applicant’s bests interests, but also to immigration control. Nevertheless it was argued that to move a person under treatment could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. In this case that argument failed. It could not be assumed that he would not receive proper health care in Malta. It was also argued that once subject to the Mental Health Act, he could only be dealt with under that Act. Parliament had not circumscribed the Home Secretary’s Immigration Act powers, and those remained in effect. Appeal refused.
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey, And Sir Swinton Thomas
[2000] EWCA Civ 311
Immigration Act 1971 2(1)(b), 86(2), Mental Health Act 1983 47, 86
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147344
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the respondent had failed to take account of the length of time he had been here and, given the non-continuation of contact with his wife and children, the unlikelihood of his re-offending.
Held: The decision needed to be proportionate under two provisions, European and Human Rights law.
European law guaranteed freedom of movement within the EU for workers, subject to limitations on public policy grounds, which included the personal conduct of the individual, but ‘Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for the taking of such measures’
In any event, in the imposition of limitations on the right of free movement of EU nationals, member states must respect any relevant provision of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Simon Brown, Ward, Sedley LJJ
[2000] EWCA Civ 158, [2000] Imm AR 478, [2000] INLR 361, [2000] 2 CMLR 1086
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration Act 1971 3(5), Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9
England and Wales
Cited – Goremsandu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1996
The applicant had been convicted of incest with his daughter, and served with a deportation notice on release from prison.
Held: Removal on ‘public policy’ grounds may be a justified response to sufficiently serious criminal conduct, if . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Marchon CA 23-Feb-1993
It was permissible for the Home Secretary to order the deportation of a convicted drug trafficker for the public good, even though he was an EC national, and though there was nothing to suggest any propensity to commit any further offences. It was . .
Cited – Al-Sabah (Sheikh Mohammed Nasser) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 1992
The applicant, a Kuwaiti citizen of previous good character had been ordered to be deported after serving a sentence for drugs and dishonesty. He sought review of the IAT’s refusal of his appeal, arguing that Rule 162 of the 1983 rules required the . .
Cited – Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorass-AE v Plisofatissis and Kouvelas ECJ 18-Jun-1991
ellinikiECJ1991
National measures adopted in order to give effect to Community rights must themselves comply with the fundamental principles of Community law: ‘With regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, referred to in the ninth and tenth . .
Cited – Regina v Pierre Bouchereau ECJ 27-Oct-1977
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147191
The Act protects the privacy of a corporate body. A television company which secretly filmed in a company’s store could be held to have infringed the privacy of the company by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The Act went further than the Human Rights Convention in this respect, but there is no reason to limit the extent of the operation of the Act to match the convention. ‘An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate.’
Lord Mustill said: ‘To my mind the privacy of a human being denotes at the same time the personal ‘space’ in which the individual is free to be itself, and also the carapace, or shell, or umbrella, or whatever other metaphor is preferred, which protects that space from intrusion. An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate.’
The Master Of The Rolls, Lady Justice Hale And Lord Mustill
Times 12-Apr-2000, Gazette 28-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 116, [2001] QB 885
Broadcasting Standards Act 1996 110 111, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation Admn 9-Jul-1999
The Corporation challenged a finding that it had infringed the privacy of a film subject of an investigation by the Watchdog programme. The corporation said that the subject, Dixons, as a corporation, had no right of privacy under Human Rights Law. . .
Appealed to – Regina v Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation Admn 9-Jul-1999
The Corporation challenged a finding that it had infringed the privacy of a film subject of an investigation by the Watchdog programme. The corporation said that the subject, Dixons, as a corporation, had no right of privacy under Human Rights Law. . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147149
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in such matters. Where the Home Secretary reviewed the decision before it got to the High Court, that court must look at the latest decision, but in the Court of Appeal, the facts had to be examined as at the date of the High Court decision. Despite the wealth of material to show that grave human rights abuses still occur in Turkey, the court was unable to hold that the Secretary of State was bound to find the risk of this particular applicant being ill-treated to be a real one. Clearly there exists a conflict of opinion as to the degree of risk faced generally by returnees to Turkey, but the decision was not irrational.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Schiemann And Lord Justice Thorpe
Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 17-Feb-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 22, [2001] 1 All ER 719, [2000] Imm LR 306
European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Resumed from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 27-Oct-1998
The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Cruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Selmouni v France ECHR 28-Jul-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
Cited – Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Oct-1991
Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
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 – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Abdullah Turgut Admn 22-May-1998
The appellant sought exceptional leave to remain, having been refused asylum.
Held: The issue concerned a Turkish citizen seeking asylum because he feared persecution if he was returned to Turkey, in being a Kurdish draft evader likely to be . .
Adjourned to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 27-Oct-1998
The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147055
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee
16831/10, [2019] ECHR 190
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634317
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Second Section Committee
16602/06, [2019] ECHR 185
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634320
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Second Section
31775/16, [2019] ECHR 191
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634321
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Second Section
ECHR Judgment : Struck out of the list : Second Section
19620/05, [2019] ECHR 197, [2019] ECHR 897
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634326
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Second Section Committee
50886/08, [2019] ECHR 188
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634318
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee
3627/07, [2019] ECHR 186
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634323
ECHR Judgment : Right to a fair trial : Access to court : First Section
21497/14, [2018] ECHR 1020
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634134
ECHR Judgment : Article 34 – Individual applications : Fourth Section Committee
59937/08, [2018] ECHR 1035
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634128
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Second Section Committee
18081/07, [2019] ECHR 199
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634316
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
3450/09, [2018] ECHR 1036
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634127
ECHR Judgment : Article 3 – Prohibition of torture : Fifth Section
12267/16, [2019] ECHR 183
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634312
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : First Section
19951/16, [2019] ECHR 182
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634311
ECHR Judgment : No Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
64020/09, [2018] ECHR 1039
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634133
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
19156/07, [2018] ECHR 1053
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634123
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
7486/12, [2018] ECHR 1023
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634100
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary damage – award : Second Section Committee
52815/15, [2018] ECHR 1025, [2019] ECHR 821
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634102
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
21869/14, [2018] ECHR 1060
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634120
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
66042/10, [2018] ECHR 1042
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634097
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Third Section
76550/13, [2018] ECHR 1045
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634122
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Fifth Section Committee
61075/10, [2018] ECHR 1057
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634116
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : Fourth Section Committee
8976/07, [2018] ECHR 1030
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634096
ECHR Judgment : No Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
37723/11, [2018] ECHR 1021
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634101
ECHR Judgment : No Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Fifth Section Committee
18706/16, [2018] ECHR 1051
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634098
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : Third Section
9348/14, [2018] ECHR 1024
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634121
ECHR Judgment : Article 2 – Right to life : Second Section
15014/11, [2018] ECHR 1043
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634105
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Third Section
5552/06, [2018] ECHR 1044
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634094
The Claimant brought his application for judicial review, seeking a declaration under s.4(2) of the 1998 Act that s.2(1) of the 1961 Act, which maintained the previous position at common law and makes assisting suicide a criminal offence, is incompatible with the rights of the Claimant under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as a matter of domestic law.
Held: The application failed (before the judgment, the Court heard that the claimant had taken his own life in Switzerland).
Irwin LJ, Phillips J
[2018] EWHC 2615 (Admin)
Human Rights Act 1998 4(2), Suicide Act 1961
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625913
The claimants challenged the right of the respondent, purporting to us the royal prerogative, to withdraw their passports on being suspect of terrorist links.
Held: The claims were dismissed. The use of the Royal Preogative was long established, and ‘we are in no doubt that it is not to be implied that Parliament intended to abrogate the Royal Prerogative power in relation to terrorism related activities when it enacted the TPIM Act.’
Hamblen LJ, Cranston J
[2016] EWHC 1898 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 437
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 41, Parliament and Council Directive EC/2004/38 27
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.567875
12322/07, [2010] ECHR 275
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.402996
14447/06, [2009) ECHR 407
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.316656
Pichford J
[2004] EWHC 2958 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.220671
29903/02, [2006] ECHR 356, 45466/99
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.243648
9277/02, [2006] ECHR 339
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.243633
75798/01, [2006] ECHR 344
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.243638
A challenge under article 5 to decisions about a prisoner’s treatment were misconceived in the context of the Secretary of State’s refusal to transfer a prisoner to open conditions with a view to improving his prospects of release: ‘[Article 5(4)] is not to do with how persons are treated while they were detained or where they are placed in the prison system. Other parts of the Convention, none of which are suggested to have been infringed in this case, deal with those matters. That being so, there is no obvious way in which Article 5 has any connection with the decision which is at the moment complained of as to whether this man should in be enclosed or open conditions.’
Buxton LJ
[2000] Prison Law Reports 62
European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
See Also – Regina (Gunn) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Regina (Kelly) v Same Regina (Zahid Khan) v Same CA 14-Jun-2001
The new Regulations and court rules expressly reserved to a costs judge the decision about whether a costs order should be made against the Legal Services Commission. The former practice of the trial judge making this decision must no longer apply. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.187523
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in exceptional circumstances. It was said to be wrong automatically to impose a life sentence on the mentally ill and not criminally culpable, being ‘inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ within the unqualified prohibition, and the sections requiring imposition of such sentences where the offender is mentally ill, would be incompatible with article 3.
Held: The advantage of the life sentence is its flexibility. A determinate sentence would eventually result in release with no control. Courts had been reluctant to impose life sentences, and the Act was a response to that. It was not arbitrary, but proportionate and compliant.
L Bingham of Cornhill, L Steyn, L Hutton, L Millett, L Rodger of Earlsferry
[2003] UKHL 25, Times 09-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1213, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 8, (2004) 75 BMLR 34, [2003] 2 Cr App R 24, [2003] 4 All ER 557
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109, Mental Health Act 1983 37, Crime (Sentences) Act 1977 2, European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Approved – Regina v Offen; Regina v McGuillard; Regina v McKeown; Regina v Okwuegbunam; Regina v Saunders (Stephen) CACD 15-Nov-2000
For the purposes of the Act, where a defendant faced a compulsory life sentence following two convictions for certain offences, a finding by the judge that the defendant did not pose a serious risk to society, could be an exceptional circumstance . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1972
A complaint by a prisoner that as a mentally disordered person he should have been held in a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison was rejected as inadmissible. . .
Approved – Regina v Birch CACD 1989
Even where there is culpability, a hospital order with a restriction order may well be the appropriate way to deal with a dangerous and disordered person.
Mustill LJ discussed the effect of a restriction order: ‘In marked contrast with the . .
Cited – Regina v H (Special measures) CACD 28-Mar-2003
The defendant had learning difficulties, and sought permission from the court to have a support worker. He appealed an order made by the judge as to the steps to be taken.
Held: The courts should be flexible and ready to assist where necessary . .
Cited – Regina v London South West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Moyle QBD 10-Feb-2000
An application for the discharge of a mental patient under section 72, was to be based on the same criteria as would found the original decision to authorise detention under section 3. The criteria would mirror each other save that the burden of . .
Appeal from – Regina v Drew CACD 19-Dec-2001
The appellant, a mentally disordered offender appealed the imposition of an automatic life sentence. He asserted that it was a breach of his human rights.
Held: Although courts had repeatedly encouraged the use of orders under the Mental . .
Cited – Gray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
Cited – Fort, Regina v CACD 13-Dec-2013
The defendant had been found guilty of manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility. He had been 17, and a technically incorrect sentence of life imprisonment had been passed. There had been conflicting diagnoses of his condition between . .
Cited – Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.181923
The appellant, a mentally disordered offender appealed the imposition of an automatic life sentence. He asserted that it was a breach of his human rights.
Held: Although courts had repeatedly encouraged the use of orders under the Mental Health Act, parliament had made its wishes clear, and such an order would provide greater protection for the public. The assumption under which he was detained was rebuttable, and that there was no evidence that he would not receive appropriate medical treatment. It was impossible to see how the introduction of the statutory assumption could have infringed the appellant’s Convention rights.
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell and Mr Justice Cooke
Times 14-Jan-2002, Gazette 21-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2861, [2001] EWCA Crim 2930
Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109, European Convention on Human Rights Art 3 5
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Newman CACD 18-Jan-2000
. .
Appeal from – Regina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.167317
ECHR Judgment : Right to a fair trial : First Section
1920/14, [2020] ECHR 820
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.656529
16263/02, [2006] ECHR 357
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.243649
33553/02, [2006] ECHR 348
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.243642
The applicants sought orders that their human rights had been infringed by the conditions of their detention at police stations. One asserted that he had not had opportunity to speak to his solicitor on the phone in private, and the other complained that the arrangements did not guarantee privacy. The court rejected the claims on the basis that the deprivation of the right was either theoretical in one case or illusory in the other. There was no evidence of actual interference with the prisoners human rights. Human Rights jurisprudence had suggested that there was no need to demonstrate actual prejudice, but the UK Act required the court to establish a municipal jurisprudence of human rights. Our common law rights are not lessened or weakened by being re-shaped to fit the facts of particular cases. The rights under the Act and Convention had always to be read in the particular context.
Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Poole
Times 17-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 553
European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998 2
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159951
A local authority granted the applicant an introductory tenancy, but then gave notice of its intention to issue possession proceedings in the light of tenancy breaches. The tenant requested a review, and the date was set, but this was later than the date upon which the possession proceedings were to begin. He alleged that the review was nullified by that fact. The review was defective, but the Act provided for no consequences to flow from such a breach. In such cases, the tenant could apply for the warrant for possession to be stayed pending the outcome of the review, and that was adequate to cure the failure.
Jackson J
Times 15-Aug-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 567
Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 72), Housing Act 1996 129 (6)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159488
The claimant succeeded in an action for negligence against the respondent solicitors. The court required her to submit to a psychiatric examination to allow assessment of her claim. In default the entire action was to be stayed. She refused, and appealed, saying that her right to a fair trial had been infringed.
Held: The court had no power to order a rehearing of matters rejected at previous hearings. However the claimant had a duty to co-operate, and the stay was correct, but not as to all the heads of damages claimed, and the order was varied accordingly.
Lords Justice Judge and May
Gazette 28-Nov-2002
Access to Justice Act 1999 54(4), Civil Procedure Rules 52.3.7, European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.178300
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection joined to merits and rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 2 (killing of applicant
[1999] ECHR 55, 23763/94
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.165719
[2019] EWCA Civ 417
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634758
ECHR Judgment : Right to a fair trial : Second Section Committee
77043/12, [2020] ECHR 838
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.656520
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
ECHR Judgment : Struck out of the list : Second Section Committee
15708/10, [2018] ECHR 1041, [2020] ECHR 118
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634129
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Third Section Committee
34248/05, [2018] ECHR 1029
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634125
ECHR Judgment : Article 5 – Right to liberty and security : Fourth Section Committee
50153/12, [2018] ECHR 1059
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634112
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
57849/14, [2018] ECHR 1050
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634119
ECHR Judgment : Article 34 – Individual applications : Fourth Section Committee
55876/08, [2018] ECHR 1034
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634115
ECHR Judgment : Preliminary objection dismissed : Grand Chamber
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage – award : Grand Chamber
20452/14, [2018] ECHR 1048, [2020] ECHR 452
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634117
ECHR Judgment : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary damage – award : Second Section Committee
38206/11, [2018] ECHR 1022, [2020] ECHR 320
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634131
ECHR Judgment : Right to a fair trial : First Section
67944/13, [2018] ECHR 1019
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634099
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
22408/08, [2018] ECHR 1054
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634110
ECHR Grand Chamber – Remainder inadmissible – Impartial tribunal
76639/11, [2018] ECHR 1061
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634092
The defendant appealed from his conviction of sending out terrorist materials, saying that the judge was wrong to allow the jury to consider the definition of terrorist publication to wider audience than two men to whom videos sent.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Treacy LJ, Sir David Calvert-Smith , Judge Munro QC
[2018] EWCA Crim 547, [2018] WLR(D) 261, [2018] 1 WLR 6105
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.624004
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee
36245/12, [2018] ECHR 1058
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634095
ECHR Judgment : Article 6 – Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
41988/08, [2018] ECHR 1033
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634093
ECHR Judgment : No violation of Right to life Substantive aspect Violation of Right to a fair trial
48756/11, [2017] ECHR 999
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.608110
ECHR Judgment : Violation of Prohibition of torture – Degrading treatment Substantive aspect
17494/16, [2017] ECHR 978
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.608131
ECHR Judgment : Violation of Right to a fair trial Enforcement proceedings – Access to court Violation
19388/07, [2017] ECHR 1075
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.608099
ECHR Judgment : Violation of – Protection of property – Peaceful enjoyment of property
37199/05, [2017] ECHR 1013
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.608115
ECHR Judgment : Violation of Right to a fair trial – Administrative proceedings – Impartial tribunal
30953/09, [2017] ECHR 1052
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.608125
ECHR Judgment : Violation of Right to a fair trial Criminal proceedings Public hearing No violation
12668/08, [2017] ECHR 1021
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.608101