Category: Northern Ireland

Arthur (Non-Molestation Proceedings By A Child): FDNI 30 Sep 2009

The application was brought by Arthur, by his mother and next friend, Sarah, against his father, George. The application related to an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 10 September 2008. On 1 October 2008 the Master granted the applicant leave to proceed ex parte and made a Non-molestation Order.

Judges:

Stephens J

Citations:

[2009] NIFam 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998

Northern Ireland, Family

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421851

Reilly, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 10 May 2010

The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy.
Held: The appropriate remedy was the award of certiorari to quash the board’s decision. He declined to make an award of damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, noting that it was agreed that the appellant could not establish that he had been deprived of liberty as a result of the decision, and concluding that any frustration or distress which he might have suffered was not of such intensity as to justify an award of damages.

Judges:

Treacy J

Citations:

[2010] NIQB 56

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Apr-2010
The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
At first instance – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421865

Reilly, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 13 Apr 2010

The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with the appellant’s Convention rights under article 5(4), in failing to provide him with an oral hearing.

Judges:

Treacy J

Citations:

[2010] NIQB 46

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 10-May-2010
The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy. . .
Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
At First Instance – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416008

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v O’Brien and others: CANI 19 Oct 2006

Appeal by case stated against dismissal of charges under the 1972 and 1981 orders as regards the segregation of certain bovine animals.

Judges:

Nicholson LJ, Campbell LJ and Sheil LJ

Citations:

[2006] NICA 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brucellosis Control Order (Northern Ireland) 1972, Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Animals

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.246255

Lynch v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBNI 1983

Impartiality in the context of a broadcasters duties during an election is not to be equated simply with parity or balance as between political parties of different strengths, popular support and appeal.

Judges:

Hutton J

Citations:

[1983] NI 193 QBD

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Elections, Northern Ireland

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.181970

Magee And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 May 2015

ECHR Article 5-3
Brought promptly before judge or other officer
Inability of judge to address issue of conditional release in early stages of detention: inadmissible
Facts – The applicants were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murder of a police officer. They were brought, 48 hours later, before a County Court judge who reviewed the lawfulness of their detention and granted an extension for another 5 days (for further questioning and forensic examinations). Later, their pre-trial detention was further extended, the applicants being ultimately released without charge after 12 days.
Under Schedule 8 of the 2000 Terrorist Act of Northern Ireland, a detainee could be kept in detention for up to 28 days without charge. The lawfulness of that detention had to be reviewed by the competent judge within 48 hours and every 7 days thereafter. While that judge had the power to release if the arrest/early detention was unlawful, he/she had no power to release on bail.
Law – Article 5 – 3: Article 5 – 3 is structurally concerned with two separate matters: the early stages following an arrest, when an individual is taken into the power of the authorities, and the period pending any trial before a criminal court, during which the individual may be detained or released with or without conditions. These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked.
As regards the first limb, the Court’s case-law establishes that there must be protection, through judicial control, of an individual arrested or detained ‘on reasonable suspicion of having committed [a criminal] offence’, that is to say, even before any criminal charge may have been brought. The judicial control must be prompt, automatic (in other words, not depend on the application of the detained person) and before an independent judge or other officer with the power to order release, after hearing the individual and reviewing the lawfulness of, and justification for, the arrest and detention.
The Court found those conditions were satisfied in the applicants’ case and went on to consider whether there should have been a possibility of conditional release during the period of the applicants’ detention. It noted that although the applicants were twice brought before a County Court judge while in police custody, at no time were they brought before a judge with power to order conditional release. The Court found, however, that the applicants had been detained for a relatively short period (12 days), and were thus at all times in ‘the early stages’ of the deprivation of liberty, when their detention could be justified by the existence of reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence. Nothing in the Court’s case-law on Article 5 – 3 made it necessary for consideration also to be given to their conditional release during this period.
In any event, a number of safeguards had been in place to protect the applicants against arbitrary detention: the judge could only extend detention for a maximum of 7 days and the overall period could not exceed 28 days; before granting any extension the judge had to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that further detention was necessary and that the investigation was being conducted diligently and expeditiously; the judge also had to be satisfied that the arrest was lawful and consider the merits of detention; the first applicant had given evidence on oath during the first review and arguments from both applicants were heard during the second reviews; finally, the applicants had been able to challenge their continued detention by way of judicial review.
In the light of these factors, the absence of a possibility of conditional release during the period of the applicants’ deprivation of liberty did not give rise to any issues under Article 5 – 3.

Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Citations:

26289/12 29891/12 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 538

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.547590

Magill v Royal Group of Hospitals and Another: QBNI 28 Jan 2010

Citations:

[2010] NIQB 10

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Hucks v Cole CA 1968
(Reported 1993) A doctor failed to treat with penicillin a patient, the plaintiff, in a maternity ward. She was suffering from septic spots on her skin though he knew them to contain organisms capable of leading to puerperal fever. Several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Professional Negligence

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.403399

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re Judicial Review: CANI 27 Jun 2013

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

Citations:

[2013] NICA 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Adoption, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.513865

Cunningham v Fegan and Another: QBNI 19 Feb 2015

‘The plaintiff applied in the county court for two orders. The first was an order for discovery by the defendants of documents containing the fee arrangements entered into between the defendants’ solicitor and the defendants’ insurance company. The second was for an order that the defendants’ notice of intention to defend should be struck out on the basis that the fee arrangement entered into between Campbell Fitzpatrick now BLM Solicitors and the defendants’ insurance company, Axa, was contrary to public policy.’

Judges:

Stephens J

Citations:

[2015] NIQB 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.544868

Re Cochrane: CA 1906

(Court of Appeal of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor. As to the Earl Grey case, if ever there was a case to which the statute applied it was The Attorney-General v Grey. The court referred to the various benefits which the donor had retained in that case, including the son’s covenant to pay the rentcharge, but did not mention the reservation of the rentcharge itself.

Judges:

Fitzgibbon LJ

Citations:

[1906] 2 IR 200

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Re Cochrane 1905
(High Court of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor, distinguishing Earl Grey: ‘The limitation of this annuity, although prior to the gift, was, as well as being charged on the land, secured by . .
Cited – Grey (Earl) v Attorney General HL 1900
The donor conveyed land to his son by way of gift but reserved an annual rentcharge during his life which was charged on the land conveyed and which his son covenanted to pay (together with the other liabilities of the donor), and retained the right . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Re Cochrane 1905
(High Court of Ireland) The court considered the effectivenmess of a gift with a reservation to the donor, distinguishing Earl Grey: ‘The limitation of this annuity, although prior to the gift, was, as well as being charged on the land, secured by . .
Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Cited – St Aubyn v Attorney General HL 12-Jul-1951
The donor exercised powers of appointment ‘to make some part of the settled property his own’, and it was ‘wholly irrelevant that by a contemporaneous or later transaction he surrenders his life interest in other parts of it’. The different parts of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes – Other, Northern Ireland

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.223761

Regina v Bingham (On Appeal From The Court Of Appeal Northern Ireland) Regina v Cooke (On Appeal From The Court Of Appeal Northern Ireland): HL 24 Mar 1999

Where a defendant is called into the witness box, and gives no evidence in chief, but answers questions put to him by the prosecution has not failed to give evidence and so no adverse inference was to be drawn against him.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-1999, [1999] UKHL 13, [1999] 1 WLR 598

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988 / 1987 (NI 20)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Northern Ireland

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.135139