The judicial review procedure which restricted the matters which it considered so as to exclude consideration of the allegation by the applicant that the tribunal whose decision he challenged had not been impartial, was insufficient to support the provision of a fair trial. This amounted to a lack of control over that tribunal by a judicial body with full jurisdiction. To satisfy that requirement, the reviewing court needed the power to set aside the decision and to order that it be reheard by such an impartial tribunal.
Times 09-Jan-2001, (2001) 33 EHRR 288,  ECHR 526, 35605/97,  ECHR 528
Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
See Also – Kingsley v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 28-May-2002
The finding that a party had been denied a fair trial may of itself be sufficient compensation. The applicant had been excluded from management of licensed casinos. The appeal board had been found to have given the appearance of bias against him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Judicial Review
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.165963