Regina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: CA 18 Oct 2004

The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in Australia.
Held: Any threat to their safety was not sufficient to justify not returning them to the Australian authorities. The 1998 Act required the UK to recognise the human rights of anyone within their jurisdiction. The Court referred to the essentially territorial nature of jurisdiction under Art 1 and the scope of the exception relating to diplomatic and consular activities. The court assumed, without concluding that while in the consulate the applicants were sufficiently within the authority of the consular staff to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of Article 1. The 1998 Act was equally capable of applying to the actions of the diplomatic and consular officials in Melbourne.

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Phillips Mr Slynn Of Hadley Lord
[2004] EWCA Civ 1344, Times 25-Oct-2004, [2005] 2 WLR 618, [2005] QB 643, [2004] HRLR 41, [2005] ACD 72, [2005] Imm AR 32, [2005] INLR 36
European Convention on Human Rights 1, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedSoering 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 . .
CitedEast African Asians v United Kingdom ECHR 1973
(Commission) A group of Asian men, United Kingdom citizens, complained that, among other things, their Article 8 rights to respect for family life were infringed when they were refused permission to enter the United Kingdom to join their wives. The . .
CitedX v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 25-Sep-1965
The applicant, a German national, claimed against the German consular and embassy officials in Morocco, alleging that they procured the Moroccan authorities to deport him from the country. The circumstances alleged by the applicant were bizarre.
CitedCyprus v Turkey ECHR 10-May-2001
Hudoc (Grand Chamber) Missing persons: No violation of Art. 2, Art. 4; Violation of Arts. 2 and 5 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 5 with regard to alleged detention; Not . .
CitedLoizidou v Turkey ECHR 23-Mar-1995
(Preliminary objections) The ECHR considered the situation in northern Cyprus when it was asked as to Turkey’s preliminary objections to admissibility: ‘although Article 1 sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ . .
CitedDrozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .
CitedWM v Denmark ECHR 14-Oct-1992
(Commission) The applicant lived in the German Democratic Republic (‘DDR’). He wished to move to the Federal Republic of Germany, but the DDR authorities refused him permission. At 1115 on 9 September 1988, together with 17 other DDR citizens, he . .
CitedBankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
CitedOcalan v Turkey ECHR 12-Mar-2003
The applicant had led Kurdish separatists training and leading a gang of armed terrorists. Warrants for his arrest had been taken out in Turkey. He had lived for many years in Syria but then sought political asylum in Greece, Russia and Italy, none . .
CitedMcElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2001
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint.
Held: . .

Cited by:
CitedAl-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedAl-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 19-Dec-2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Human Rights, Immigration, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.216534