swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Armed Forces - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
Matthews v The Ministry of Defence; QBD 22-Jan-2002 - Times, 30 January 2002; [2002] EWHC 13 (QB)
Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review [2002] NIQB 7; [2002] NI 151
29 Jan 2002
QBNI
Kerr J
Northern Ireland, Armed Forces, Coroners, Human Rights
The claimant challenged the Lord Chancellor's failure to introduce legislation to ensure that the coroners' system in Northern Ireland comprised with Human Rights Law.
1 Citers
Morris v The United Kingdom 38784/97; (2002) 34 EHRR 1253; [2002] ECHR 162
26 Feb 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Armed Forces
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to general structure of court martial system; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to specific complaints; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The factor which gave rise to an allegation of bias is that the members of a court-martial are subject in general to "the risk of outside pressure .. and that there was no statutory or other bar to their being made subject to external Army influence when sitting on the case" The risk of perceived bias was because of pressure on the decision-maker not to make a decision of which his employer would disapprove.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Melbourne v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ 754
26 Apr 2002
CA
Buxton LJ, Jackson J
Employment, Discrimination, Armed Forces
Renewed application for permission to appeal from a ruling of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Matthews v Ministry of Defence Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 773
29 May 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale
Personal Injury, Armed Forces, Human Rights
The Ministry appealed against a finding that the Act, which deprived the right of a Crown employee to sue for personal injuries, was an infringement of his human rights. Held: The restriction imposed by the section was not a procedural section, but a substantive one which delimited the rights and liabilities arising under civil law. Accordingly, human right slaw did not apply. The Commission on human rights was wrong to suggest that such rights might be affected.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others Times, 19 July 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] UKHL 31; [2003] 1 AC 734; [2002] 3 All ER 1074; [2002] ACD 97; [2002] HRLR 40; [2002] 3 WLR 437; [2002] HRLR 43; [2003] 1 Cr App R 1
18 Jul 2002
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Crime, Armed Forces, Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by court martial an offence committed in the UK or abroad. Held: The law laid down no rules to settle where a serviceman should be tried, but those involving service property or personnel would normally be dealt with by a courts martial, and where no such interests were involved, by a civil court. This was not unfair. The Presidents of the courts martial were senior officers reaching the end of their career. They had permanent positions, and sought no further advancement. They were independent. The lesser duties of lower court officers meant that the court could properly rely upon them to fulfil their oaths, and they were impartial. The system had been substantially improved, and was now compliant.
Army Act 1955 70 - Air Force Act 1955 70 - European Convention on Human Rights - Courts-Martial (Army) Rules 1997 (SI 1997/169)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
Butterfield and others v Secretary of State for Defence [2002] EWHC 2247 (Admin)
8 Oct 2002
Admn
Armed Forces, Benefits
[ Bailii ]
Gurung, Pun and Thapa v Ministry of Defence Times, 28 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin)
27 Nov 2002
QBD
McCombe J
Armed Forces, Human Rights, Discrimination, Immigration
The applicants were British Nepalese soldiers who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. They challenged the decision of the respondent in November 2000 to exclude them from a compensation scheme, but to allow other British nationals from India who had also been imprisoned. Held: The decision to exclude them was irrational. It offended the common law principle of equality before the law, and was discriminatory under the Convention. It was permissible for the government not to seek compensation on behalf of nationals of other states which had themselves reached a settlement with Japan, but that did not apply to these claimants. Standards which may have applied in 1955 need not be applied now. The ABCIFER case was to de distinguished because that case did not involve any element of race discrimination as did this.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Stephen Jordan (No 2) v The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Dec-2002 - 49771/99; (2003) 37 EHRR 2; [2002] ECHR 797; [2002] ECHR 803; [2001] Inquest LR 101; (2001) 11 BHRC 1
