The applicant owned land in the parish of St Martin’s in Guernsey. He made a number of applications for planning permission for residential use, but they were all rejected. In about 1986 he moved into a converted packing shed on his land. In 1988 a draft Detailed Development Plan for the island was under consideration and, at the public inquiry, the applicant made representations to the effect that construction of a residential building on his land should be permitted. The inspector rejected that contention and supported the proposal in the draft development plan for the land to be zoned as an area reserved for agricultural purposes and in which development was generally prohibited. In 1990 the States of Deliberation, presided over by the Deputy Bailiff, Mr Graham Dorey, debated and adopted the development plan. Three years later the applicant made a formal application for a change of use for his land. The relevant planning committee rejected the application and the applicant appealed to the Royal Court, comprising the Bailiff, Sir Graham Dorey, and seven Jurats. The applicant’s representative accepted that the written statement in the development plan provided for no development other than Developed Glasshouse, but he submitted that there were none the less reasons to permit a change of use in the particular case. The Royal Court dismissed the appeal. Where a member of a legislature with some direct responsibility for the passing of legislation was also acting as a member of the judiciary with responsibility for enforcing the laws passed, this inevitably gave an impression of bias and lack of impartiality. Here the Deputy Bailiff of Guernsey was also President of the states of direction. Consideration must be given to the method and security of judicial appointments, guarantees against outside pressures, and whether there was a proper presentation of independence: ‘ the mere fact that the Deputy Bailiff presided over the States of Deliberation when DDP6 was adopted in 1990 is capable of casting doubt on his impartiality when he subsequently determined, as the sole judge of the law in the case, the applicant’s planning appeal. The applicant therefore had legitimate grounds for fearing that the Bailiff may have been influenced by his prior participation in the adoption of DDP6. That doubt in itself, however slight its justification, is sufficient to vitiate the impartiality of the Royal Court, ‘
Times 22-Feb-2000, 28488/95, (2000) 30 EHRR 289, [2000] ECHR 62
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited by:
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Distinguished – Pabla Ky v Finland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
A member of the Finnish Parliament who also sat as an expert member of the Court of Appeal was said to lack independence as a judge.
Held: The complaint was rejected. Also there was no no objective justification for the applicant’s fear as to . .
Cited – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Seigneur of Sark and Another Admn 18-Jun-2008
The claimants said that the the laws restricting residence and voting rights and oher constitutional arrangements on the Isle of Sark were in breach of European law, and human rights law.
Held: The claims failed. The composition of Chief Pleas . .
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimants said that restrictions within the constitution of Sark on who could sit in the Chief Pleas were incompatible with their human rights. The claimants variously owned property on Sark but had restricted rights to vote and stand.
Constitutional, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.165817
