Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. Their prison governors had applied guidance from the respondent to refuse such access. They argued that only if they were allowed to have oral interviews in prison with the journalists would they be able to have the safety of their convictions further investigated and to put forward a case in the media for the reconsideration of their convictions.
Held: A simple ban which prevented any prisoner speaking to journalists professionally and without discrimination was unlawful. There had been too many cases where convictions had been overturned after for example disclosure failures by prosecutors, and such miscarriages of justice have only been identified and corrected as a result of painstaking investigation by journalists. And those investigations have included oral interviews with the prisoners in prison.
Lord Steyn said: ‘Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J. (echoing John Stuart Mill), ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market:’ Abrams v. United States (1919) 250 U.S. 616, 630, per Holmes J. (dissenting). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country.’ History has demonstrated the fallibility of the justice system, and that mistakes are sometimes only rectified after journalistic involvement. There was no fundamental interference with the limited right of free speech, and interviews for this purpose must be allowed. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is severely under-resourced. There is a positive duty on judges, when things have gone seriously wrong in the criminal justice system, to do everything possible to put it right.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document.’
and ‘the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document.’
Lord Steyn emphasised the reasons why the right to freedom of expression is so important: ‘Freedom of expression is, of course intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self-fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J (echoing John Stuart Mill), ‘The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market’: Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616, 630, per Holmes J (dissenting). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country.’
Lord Slynn said: ‘The discretion to hear disputes, even in the area of public law, must, however, be exercised with caution and appeals which are academic between the parties should not be heard unless there is a good reason in the public interest for doing so, as for example (but only by way of example) when a discrete point of statutory construction arises which does not involve detailed consideration of facts and where a large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the near future.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough and Lord Millett
Times 09-Jul-1999, Gazette 28-Jul-1999, [1999] UKHL 33, [2000] 2 AC 115, [1999] 3 All ER 400, [1999] 3 WLR 328, [1999] EMLR 689, (1999) 7 BHRC 411, (1999) 2 CHRLD 359
House of Lords, Bailii
Prison Rules 1964 (1964 No 388), European Convention on Human Rights 10, Prison Act 1952 47(1), Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) CA 20-May-1993
Prison rules were ultra vires in so far as they provided for reading letters between prisoners and their legal advisers. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to the court. A prisoner’s unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of . .
Independent 20-May-93, Times 20-May-93, [1994] QB 198, [1993] EWCA Civ 12, [1993] 3 WLR 1125
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms; ex parte O’Brien; ex parte Main CA 9-Dec-1997
The removal of a prisoner’s right to talk to the press is part of the process of imprisonment. Prisoners’ letters could be read to the extent necessary to prove that they contained legally privileged material. A prisoner has no right to an oral . .
Gazette 08-Jan-98, Times 09-Dec-97, [1999] QB 349
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
[1982] AC 1, [1981] UKHL 8, [1983] 1 AC 1, [1982] 1 All ER 756, (1982) 75 Cr App R 16, [1982] 2 WLR 465
At first instance – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O’Brien QBD 19-Dec-1996
A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: ‘The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence . .
Times 17-Jan-97, [1996] EWHC Admin 388
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Times 29-Jul-94, [1995] QB 43, [1995] 1 WLR 734
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
[1990] 1 AC 109, [1988] UKHL 6, [1987] 1 WLR 776, [1988] 3 All ER 545
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Gazette 07-Apr-93, [1993] AC 534, [1993] UKHL 18, [1992] UKHL 6, [1992] QB 770, [1992] 3 WLR 28, [1993] 1 All ER 1011
Cited – Abraham v United States 1919
(US Supreme Court) Holmes J (dissenting): ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’ . .
(1919) 250 US 616
Cited – Silver v United Kingdom ECHR 1980
(Commission) Complaint was made as to the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence. The censorship of prisoners’ correspondence was ancillary to prison rules restricting the contents of correspondence. The Commission, therefore, and the Court had to . .
(1980) 3 EHRR 475
Cited – Silver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
6205/73, [1983] 5 EHRR 347, [1983] ECHR 5, 7052/75, 5947/72
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive . .
Times 13-Jun-95, Independent 08-Jun-95
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 21-May-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence. ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
Times 28-Jul-97, Gazette 01-Oct-97, [1997] UKHL 37, [1998] AC 539, [1997] 3 All ER 577, [1997] 3 WLR 492
Cited – Campbell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1992
The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that ‘every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor . .
13590/88, (1992) 15 EHRR 137, [1992] ECHR 41
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte O’Dhuibir and Another CA 27-Feb-1997
The insistence on the use of glass screens and no physical contact between a prisoner and visitors was in exceptional circumstances upheld even for visits by friends and relatives. . .
[1997] EWCA Civ 1110
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber CA 15-Feb-1996
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed. . .
Unreported 15 February 1996
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Times 20-May-02, Gazette 20-Jun-02, [2002] UKHL 21, [2002] 2 WLR 1299, [2003] 1 AC 563, 74 TC 511, [2002] STC 786, [2002] BTC 223, [2002] 3 All ER 1, [2002] HRLR 42, [2002] NPC 70, [2002] STI 806, 4 ITL Rep 809
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
[2003] EWCA Civ 103, Gazette 17-Apr-03, [2003] Ch 650, [2003] 3 WLR 999, [2003] 2 All ER 318, [2003] EMLR 16, [2003] HRLR 18
Cited – Nilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .
[2003] EWHC 3160 (Admin), Times 02-Jan-04, [2004] EMLR 9
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor CA 4-Apr-2001
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the . .
Gazette 01-Jun-01, Times 01-May-01, [2001] EWCA Civ 472, [2002] QB 13, [2001] 3 WLR 533, [2001] 2 FLR 1158, (2001) 59 BMLR 1, [2001] 2 FCR 153, [2001] HRLR 38, [2001] Fam Law 736
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
[2004] UKHL 2, Times 23-Jan-04, [2004] 2 WLR 201, [2004] 1 AC 1118, [2004] HRLR 11, 16 BHRC 279, [2004] 2 Cr App R 8, [2004] 1 All ER 925
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
[2004] EWCA Civ 49, Times 09-Feb-04, [2004] QB 1044, [2004] INLR 268, [2004] BLGR 463, [2004] 2 WLR 1351
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
[2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 142, [2004] EWHC Fam 411, [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 303
Cited – B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
Times 25-Feb-00, Gazette 16-Mar-00, [2000] 2 AC 428, [2000] UKHL 13, [2000] 2 WLR 452, [2000] 1 All ER 833, [2000] Crim LR 403, [2000] 2 Cr App R 65
Cited – Gillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 29-Jul-2004
The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate.
Held: The . .
[2004] EWCA Civ 1067, Times 12-Aug-04, [2004] 3 WLR 1144, [2005] QB 388
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
[2001] EWHC Admin 110
Cited – Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .
[2004] EWCA Civ 1540, Times 23-Nov-04, [2005] 1 WLR 1028
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
[2005] 4 All ER 609, [2005] EWCA Civ 226, Times 14-Mar-05, [2006] 1 WLR 3083
Cited – Wilkinson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue HL 5-May-2005
The claimant said that the widows’ bereavement tax allowance available to a wife surviving her husband should be available to a man also if it was not to be discriminatory.
Held: Similar claims had been taken before the Human Rights Act to the . .
[2005] UKHL 30, Times 06-May-05
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
[2005] UKHL 45, [2005] 2 AC 738, [2005] HRLR 38, [2005] UKHRR 939, [2006] 1 All ER 39, [2005] RPC 10, [2005] 3 WLR 152
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
[2005] EWCA Civ 1009, Times 30-Aug-05, [2005] HRLR 1220, [2005] 2 Prison LR 253
Cited – North Cyprus Tourism Centre Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Transport for London Admn 28-Jul-2005
The defendants had prevented the claimants from advertising their services in North Cyprus on their buses, and justified this saying that the Crown did not recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus since it was the result of an unlawful . .
[2005] EWHC 1698 (Admin), Times 24-Aug-05
Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
[2005] EWHC 1626 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1316
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Times 18-Oct-05, [2005] UKHL 58, [2005] 2 WLR 695, [2006] 2 AC 148, [2006] Lloyds Rep Med 1, [2006] 4 All ER 736, [2005] MHLR 276, [2005] HRLR 42, (2005) 86 BMLR 84
Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
[2005] UKHL 56, Times 14-Oct-05, [2006] 1 AC 262, [2005] 2 WLR 87, [2005] 4 All ER 1253, [2006] AC 262
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
[2005] UKHL 71, Times 09-Dec-05, [2005] 3 WLR 1249, [2006] 2 AC 221, [2006] 1 All ER 575, 19 BHRC 441, [2006] UKHRR 225, [2006] HRLR 6
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
[2005] EWHC 2840 (Admin)
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
[2006] EWHC 107 (QB), Times 09-Feb-06
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
[2006] UKHL 17, Times 03-Apr-06, [2006] 2 WLR 807, [2006] 2 AC 395
Cited – Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 28-Jul-2006
Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The . .
[2006] EWCA Civ 1118, Times 15-Aug-06, [2006] 1 WLR 3374, [2007] 2 All ER 297
Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
[2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam), [2007] EMLR 199, (2007) HRLR 3, [2007] 1 FLR 1146, [2007] HRLR 3, [2008] 1 FCR 440, [2007] Fam Law 399
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
[2007] EWCA Civ 101, 94 BMLR 84, [2008] EMLR 1, [2007] HRLR 19
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottingham City Council Admn 1-Feb-2008
The respondent authority had removed the child from the mother at birth but without first obtaining any court authority. The court had made a peremptory order for the return of the child. The court explained its actions.
Held: Neither social . .
[2008] EWHC 152 (Admin), [2008] 1 FLR 1660
Cited – A, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
[2008] EWHC 869 (Admin), Times 05-May-08
Cited – Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .
[2008] EWCA Civ 869
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
[2008] UKHL 61, (2008) 158 NLJ 1530, [2008] 3 WLR 955, [2008] 4 All ER 1055, [2009] 1 AC 453
Cited – Misick, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 1-May-2009
The former premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands sought to challenge the constitutionality of the 2009 order which was to allow suspension of parts of the Constitution and imposing a direct administration, on a final report on alleged corruption. . .
[2009] EWHC 1039 (Admin)
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
[2009] EWHC 152 (Admin)
Cited – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
[2010] UKSC 2, UKSC 2009/0016, [2010] UKHRR 204, [2010] 2 WLR 378, [2010] WLR (D) 12, [2010] 2 AC 534, [2010] 4 All ER 829, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 217
Cited – Zagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .
[2010] EWHC 3110 (Admin), [2011] ACD 33, [2011] Eu LR 315, [2011] HRLR 6
Cited – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
[2010] UKSC 54, UKSC 2009/0202, [2011] 1 All ER 729, [2011] 2 AC 15, [2011] 2 WLR 1, [2011] PTSR 185
Cited – Forsyth, Regina v, Regina v Mabey SC 23-Feb-2011
The defendants were to face trial on charges of making funds available to Iraq in breach of the 2000 Order. They said that the 2000 Order was ultra vires and ineffective, not having been made ‘forthwith’ after the UN resolution it was based upon, . .
UKSC 2010/0227, UKSC 2010/0226, [2011] UKSC 9, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 232, [2011] 2 All ER 165, [2011] 2 WLR 277, [2011] 2 AC 69
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
[2000] EWHC Fam 2, [2000] EWHC 3 (Fam), [2001] 1 All ER 323, [2000] 3 FCR 509, [2000] Fam Law 886, [2001] 2 WLR 253, [2001] Fam 59, [2001] 1 FLR 197, FD/00P10636
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
[2000] EWHC Fam 2, [2000] EWHC 3 (Fam), [2001] 1 All ER 323, [2000] 3 FCR 509, [2000] Fam Law 886, [2001] 2 WLR 253, [2001] Fam 59, [2001] 1 FLR 197, FD/00P10636
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
[2003] UKHL 36, Times 27-Jun-03, Gazette 04-Sep-03, [2003] INLR 521, [2003] HRLR 31, [2003] Imm AR 570, [2004] 2 WLR 603, [2004] 1 AC 604, [2004] 1 All ER 833
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
UKSC 2011/0108, [2011] UKSC 46, 2011 SLT 1061, [2012] 1 AC 868, (2011) 122 BMLR 149, [2011] 3 WLR 871, [2012] HRLR 3, [2011] UKHRR 1221
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
[2012] EWHC 13 (Admin)
Cited – Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice and Others QBD 12-Mar-2012
The claimant suffered locked-in syndrome and sought relief in a form which would allow others to assist him in committing suicide. The court considered whether the case should be allowed to proceed rather than to be struck out as hopeless.
124 BMLR 191, [2012] Med LR 383, (2012) 15 CCL Rep 427, [2012] WLR(D) 75, (2012) 124 BMLR 191, [2012] HRLR 16, [2012] EWHC 304 (QB)
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
[2012] UKSC 30, UKSC 2012/0105
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
[2013] WLR(D) 20, [2013] UKSC 1, UKSC 2010/0215
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
[2013] UKSC 38, UKSC 2011/0040, [2013] WLR(D) 244, [2014] AC 700, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 557, [2013] 4 All ER 495
Cited – AJA and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis and Others CA 5-Nov-2013
The Court was asked whether the Investigatory Powers Tribunal had the power to investigate whether police officers acrting as undercover agents, and having sexual relations with those they were themselves investigating had infringed the human rights . .
[2013] EWCA Civ 1342, [2013] WLR(D) 424, [2014] 1 All ER 882, [2014] 1 WLR 285
Cited – Core Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .
[2013] EWHC 651 (Admin), [2013] PTSR 1161, [2013] PTSR 1161
Cited – Hughes, Regina v SC 31-Jul-2013
Uninsured Driver Not Guilty of Causing Death
The appellant though an uninsured driver, was driving without fault when another vehicle veered across the road. The other driver died from his injuries, and the appellant convicted of causing his death whilst uninsured. At trial he succeeded in . .
[2013] UKSC 56, [2013] WLR(D) 324, [2013] 1 WLR 2461, [2013] 4 All ER 613, [2013] RTR 31, [2014] 1 Cr App R 6, [2014] Crim LR 234, UKSC 2011/0240
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
[2014] UKSC 60, [2014] WLR(D) 479, [2014] 3 WLR 1404, UKSC 2013/0098
Cited – Nunn, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
Limits to Duty To Investigate
The claimant had been convicted of a murder. He continued to protest his innocence, and now sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to act upon his requests for further investigations which might prove his innocence.
Held: The . .
[2014] 4 All ER 21, [2015] 1 AC 225, [2014] 2 Cr App R 22, [2014] 3 WLR 77, [2015] Crim LR 76, UKSC 2012/0175, [2014] UKSC 37, [2014] WLR(D) 265
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
[2015] EWHC 2630 (Fam)
Cited – Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
[2015] UKSC 21, [2015] 2 WLR 813, [2015] WLR(D) 151, [2015] 4 All ER 395, [2015] 1 AC 1787, [2015] 2 CMLR 43, [2015] 2 WLR 813, [2015] FSR 26, [2015] Env LR 34, UKSC 2014/0137
Cited – Miller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .
[2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 564
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
[2017] UKSC 5, [2017] 2 WLR 583, [2017] WLR(D) 53, UKSC 2016/0196, [2017] NI 141, [2018] AC 61, [2017] HRLR 2, [2017] 1 All ER 593, [2017] 2 CMLR 15
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
[2015] UKSC 49, [2015] WLR(D) 330, [2016] AC 88, [2015] HRLR 15, [2015] 2 Cr App R 34, [2016] 1 All ER 483, [2015] 3 WLR 344, UKSC 2013/0243
Cited – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
[2016] UKSC 54, [2017] 1 All ER 95, [2016] BTC 41, [2016] WLR(D) 540, [2016] STC 2306, [2016] 1 WLR 4164, [2016] STI 2746, UKSC 2015/0082
Cited – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
[2019] UKSC 22
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
[2018] UKSC 5, [2018] WLR(D) 81, [2018] AC 418, [2018] HRLR 10, [2018] 2 All ER 759, [2018] 2 WLR 651, [2018] INLR 315, UKSC 2015/0147
Cited – The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner CA 23-Nov-2010
A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded . .
[2010] EWCA Civ 1332, [2011] PTSR 416
These lists may be incomplete.
Leading Case
Updated: 10 December 2020; Ref: scu.135147
