Kirkwood v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Mar 1984

(Admissibility – Commission) The claimant, a United States national, said that the proceedings for his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States infringed article 6(3)(d), because he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the United Kingdom.
Held: Although ‘the tasks of the Magistrates’ Court included the assessment of whether or not there was, on the basis of the evidence, the outline of a case to answer against the applicant’ and ‘[t]his necessarily involved a certain, limited, examination of the issues which would be decisive in the applicant’s ultim[at]e trial’, nevertheless, ‘these proceedings did not in themselves form part of the determination of the applicant’s guilt or innocence, which will be the subject of separate proceedings in the United States which may be expected to conform to standards of fairness equivalent to the requirements of article 6, including the presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the committal proceedings’. In these circumstances ‘the committal proceedings did not form part of or constitute the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention’
Article 1 of the Convention: The undertaking given by High Contracting Parties in respect of everyone within their jurisdiction extends, in the Article 3 sphere, to a duty not to expose anyone to an irremediable situation of objective danger, even outside their jurisdiction.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: Because Article 2 authorises capital punishment, pursuant to the law and a court sentence, this may create a long period of incertitude for the convicted person during the appeal proceedings in an elaborate judicial system. However, it cannot be held that this long period of uncertainty (the’death row phenomenon’) falls outside the notion of inhuman treatment (Article 3).
The terms of Article 2 do not support the contention that if a State were to fail to require binding assurances from the Stale requesting extradition that the death penalty would not be inflicted, this would constitute treatment- contrary to Article 3.
Article 3 of the Convention; Factors to be considered in assessing whether the long period of uncertainty experienced by the person condemned to death, during the appeal procedures (the ‘death row phenomenon’) amounts to inhuman treatment: the importance of the appeal system designed to protect the right to life, delays caused by the backlog of cases before the appeal courts, the possibility of a commutation of sentence by very reason of the duration of detention on ‘death row’.
Article 6 of the Convention: This provision does not apply to a court’s examination of an extradition request from a foreign State, even if the Court carries out an assessment of whether there is an outline of a criminal case to answer against the applicant.

Citations:

10479/83, [1984] ECHR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.451302

Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited: HL 19 Jun 2003

Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased. The rules recognised the need to separate counsel’s practice from the area in which he sat. The threshold is only a real possibility of unconscious bias. One starts by identifying the circumstances which are said to give rise to bias. Would a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the given facts, conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. Mr Lawal has succeeded on the issue of principle raised by the Recorder objection.
Lord Steyn said: ‘Public perception of the possibility of unconscious bias is the key. It is unnecessary to delve into the characteristics to be attributed to the fair-minded and informed observer. What can confidently be said is that one is entitled to conclude that such an observer will adopt a balanced approach. This idea was succinctly expressed in Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488, 509, para 53, by Kirby J when he stated that ‘a reasonable member of the public is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious.’

Judges:

L Bingham of Cornhill, L. Millett, L. Nicholls of Birkenhead, L. Rodger of Earlsferry, L. Steyn

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856, [2004] 1 All ER 187

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
ApprovedPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedBelilos v Switzerland ECHR 29-Apr-1988
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (validity of declaration); Violation of Art. 6-1; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – . .
CitedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
CitedWettstein v Switzerland ECHR 21-Dec-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – national . .
CitedJohnson v Johnson 7-Sep-2000
(High Court of Australia) When looking to test whether a member of the public would perceive bias in a court, it is unnecessary to delve into the characteristics to be attributed to the fair-minded and informed observer. One is entitled to conclude . .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 19-Feb-2004
. .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Feb-1999
The appellant wished to pursue an appeal against the striking out of his claim, and objected that contrary to the Rules, a member of the board who had heard the pre-hearing review had also sat on the full hearing.
Held: The appeal should be . .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 6-Oct-1999
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal.
Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. . .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2001
. .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 15-Jan-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
. .
CitedLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 30-Oct-2002
. .

Cited by:

Appealed toAA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
CitedPD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Mahfouz v The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council CA 5-Mar-2004
The doctor requested members of the disciplinary tribunal to recuse themselves when, after the first day of the hearing they saw prejudicial material in newspapers which material was not in evidence. They had further declined to allow an adjournment . .
See AlsoLawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 19-Feb-2004
. .
CitedFeld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant . .
CitedAl-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 . .
CitedMeerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
CitedScrivens v Ethical Standards Officer Admn 11-Apr-2005
The councillor appealed an adjudication that he had failed adequately to declare an interest at a meeting of the council. The officer thought the duty to withdraw was entirely objective, the applicant that it was a matter for his honest judgment. At . .
CitedGillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
CitedMorrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .
CitedPort Regis School Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society Admn 5-Apr-2006
Complaint was made that the decision of a planning committee had been biased because of the presence on the committee of two freemasons, and where the interests of another Lodge were affected.
Held: The freemasonry interests had been declared. . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
CitedA, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
CitedMousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
CitedJL, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Justice Admn 7-Oct-2009
. .
CitedO’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
CitedAmeyaw v McGoldrick and Others QBD 6-Jul-2020
Recusal Refused – former Pupil Master
Request for recusal – the judge was said to have been a member of the same chambers as counsel for the claimant and had been his mentor.
Held: Refused: ‘It was untenable to contend that there was an appearance of bias in circumstances where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights, Legal Professions, Natural Justice

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.183695

Birse v HM Advocate: HCJ 28 Jun 2000

Where a magistrate had heard a proper description of the reasons for granting a search warrant, it was not an abuse of the suspect’s human rights to execute it, even though he had not had chance to make any representations about the search. The right to an effective remedy was not to be enshrined in UK law, and this came close to such a claim.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.78422

Vaditrans v Belgische Staat: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

Transport Transport Social Policy Fundamental Rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Road transport – Driver’s rest periods – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 8(6) and (8) – Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle – Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods

Citations:

C-102/16, [2017] EUECJ C-102/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights, Transport

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.602118

Ringeisen v Austria: ECHR 23 Jun 1973

(Interpretation)

Citations:

2614/65, [1973] ECHR 1

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See alsoRingeisen v Austria ECHR 16-Jul-1971
The Austrian District and Regional Real Property Transactions Commission refused to approve the sale of a number of plots of land. The applicant challenged the refusal alleging bias and contending that his article 6 rights were violated for that . .
See AlsoRingeisen v Austria ECHR 22-Jun-1972
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.164865

Tymoshenko v Ukraine: ECHR 30 Apr 2013

Citations:

49872/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See AlsoTymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 31-May-2012
. .
See AlsoTymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 3-Jul-2012
. .
Legal SummaryTymoshenko v Ukraine (Legal Summary) ECHR 30-Apr-2013
ECHR Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Pre-trial detention for allegedly contemptuous behaviour to trial court: violation
Article 18
Restrictions for unauthorised purposes
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491929

Keena And Kennedy v Ireland (Dec): ECHR 30 Sep 2014

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Freedom to receive information
Award of costs against journalists for destroying evidence in order to protect their sources: inadmissible
Facts – The first applicant was a correspondent on and the second applicant the editor of the Irish Times. In 2006 the newspaper published an article containing references to a confidential letter that had been sent to a third party by a tribunal of inquiry set up to investigate alleged corruption. The tribunal ordered the applicants to produce and hand over the documents on which the article was based, but the second applicant replied that they had been destroyed to protect the newspaper’s sources. The tribunal then brought proceedings in the Irish courts for orders compelling the applicants to comply with the tribunal’s order and to appear before the tribunal to answer its questions concerning the source and whereabouts of the documents. Although the Supreme Court ultimately found in the applicants’ favour, it nevertheless ordered them to pay the costs of the proceedings on the grounds that by deliberately destroying the evidence they had deprived the courts of any power to give effect to the tribunal’s order.
In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained that the costs award had interfered with their right to protect their journalistic sources.
Law – Article 10: The Supreme Court’s ruling on costs was not to be characterised as an interference with the applicants’ right to protect the secrecy of their journalistic sources. The issue whether the tribunal had an interest in ascertaining the source of the leak would have involved the balancing of competing public interests and was for the domestic courts to resolve in the first place, guided by the relevant Convention case-law. The domestic courts would have been in a position to do so had the applicants not destroyed the documents. Where competing public interests were in issue, the correct course would have been to allow for a proper judicial determination of the matter in its entirety. Permitting the High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, to adjudicate the matter in full would have been fully consonant not only with Article 10, but also with the rule of law, a fundamental principle of the Convention as a whole.
The course of action adopted by the applicants in the instant case was not a legitimate exercise of their right under Article 10 to refuse to disclose their source. The protection of the courts had been available to them in order to vindicate their rights. The Convention did not confer on individuals the right to take upon themselves a role properly reserved to the courts. As the domestic courts had underscored, this was, effectively, what the applicants had done through the deliberate destruction of the very documents that were at the core of the Tribunal’s inquiry.
The Court did not accept that the order for costs was liable to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. As a general principle, costs were a matter for the discretion of the domestic courts. Furthermore, the order for costs in the circumstances of the applicants’ case could have no impact on public interest journalists who vehemently protected their sources yet recognised and respected the rule of law. The Court could discern nothing in the costs ruling to restrict publication of a public interest story, to compel disclosure of sources or to interfere in any other way with the work of journalism. What the ruling signified was that all persons must respect the role of the courts, and that nobody, journalists included, could usurp the judicial function. The true purport of the Supreme Court’s ruling was to signal that no party was above the law or beyond the lawful jurisdiction of the courts.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Citations:

29804/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1284

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.538919

British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 21 Dec 2011

The claimant challenged a production order made by the magistrates in respect of journalists’ material. They complained that the application had used secret evidence not disclosed to it, and that the judge had not given adequate reasons to support the decision. The poice were investigating an offence under the 1989 Act.
Held: It was common ground that neither the Civil nor the Criminal Procedure Rules contain any provisions governing an application under section 9 and schedule 1 of PACE. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 requires the hearing to be conducted inter partes, but apart from that the only procedural requirement is that they be conducted in accordance with common law principles of fairness and the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR.
The procedure adopted in this case was unlawful: ‘there was a failure to observe a fundamental principle of law bearing directly on the fairness of the proceedings, a matter which the court should be very slow to condone. Moreover, however carefully the judge considered the secret evidence, that can be no substitute for allowing B Sky B to challenge it, for the reasons given by Lord Kerr in Al Rawi.’

Judges:

Moore-Bick LJ, Bean J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3451 (Admin), [2012] 3 WLR 78, 2012 GWD 21-432, 2012 SCL 635, 2012 SCCR 562, [2012] 4 All ER 600, [2012] QB 785, [2012] HRLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Official Secrets Act 1989 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMalik v Manchester Crown Court and others; Re A Admn 19-Jun-2008
The claimant was a journalist writing about terrorism. He had interviewed a man with past connections with Al-Qaeda, and he now objected to a production order for documents obtained by him in connecion with his writings. The court had acted on . .
CitedRegina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger QBD 21-Jul-2000
An order was made for a journalist to disclose to the police material disclosed to him in connection with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. The journalist appealed the order, on the basis that it was in effect an order that he . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBritish Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Media, Magistrates, Human Rights, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.459730

Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another: Admn 20 Nov 2002

The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting the warrant.
Held: Where the information laid was itself sufficient to account for the warrant a magistrate could be assumed to have acted upon it, and no further reasons were required to be noted. Warrants were often issued under conditions where such a requirement would be unreasonable. Here the magistrate would only have repeated the contents of the information. Where a magistrate elicited further information from the officer which affected the decision, it was necessary for that to be recorded.
Lord Woolf CJ said: ‘Information may contain details of an informer which it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal. The information may also contain other statements to which public interest immunity might apply. But, subject to that, if a person who is in the position of this claimant asks perfectly sensibly for a copy of the information, then speaking for myself I can see no objection to a copy of that information being provided. The citizen, in my judgment, should be entitled to be able to assess whether an information contains the material which justifies the issue of a warrant. This information contained the necessary evidence to justify issuing the warrant.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Hallett, Stanley Burnton JJ

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2568 (Admin), [2003] 1 WLR 752

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(3), European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 15 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
CitedHaralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.402518

Regina v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd: QBD 9 Dec 1992

An injunction was not granted to restrain the publication of a decision of the ASA pending the result of a challenge by way of Judicial Review. There is a general principle in our law that the expression of opinion and the conveyance of information will not be restrained by the courts save on pressing grounds. Freedom of expression is as much a sinew of the common law as it is of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Laws J said: ‘If a private individual will not be restrained from expressing his opinion save on pressing grounds I see no reason why a public body having a duty, other things being equal, to express its opinion should be subject to any less rigid rules. It seems to me that the case is, if anything, analogous to one where an administrative body has an adjudicative function and in the course of its duties publishes a ruling criticising some affected person and the ruling is later disturbed or reversed by an appropriate appellate process. There are many such instances and many of them involve the criticism of members of the public, corporate or natural.
I do not know of an instance in which a public body of that kind would fall to be restrained from carrying out what is no more nor less than its ordinary, but important, everyday duties simply upon the grounds that the intended publication contains material which is subject to legal challenge as being vitiated by some error of law. If the application for judicial review here is successful I cannot think but that there are ample means at the applicant’s disposal to correct any adverse impression which what, ex hypothesi, would be an unlawful report may have given to the public. Indeed, though it has not been canvassed in argument, I know of no reason why the fact that they have obtained leave should not itself be disseminated if they wish to take any steps in that direction since this is an attempt to prevent the public and indeed, in fairness to the applicant, its fellow advertisers and others in the trade to which it belongs from seeing that the authority has reached those conclusions. I do not consider that the effects of that publication are damaging to the applicant in a manner which would be so irreparable, so past recall as to amount to a pressing ground, in the language of Strasbourg, a pressing social need, to restrain this public body from carrying out its function in the ordinary way.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Gazette 09-Dec-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1289, [1993] 2 All ER 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDouglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
CitedRegina v Advertising Standards Authority Limited ex parte Direct Line Financial Services Limited Admn 8-Aug-1997
An ex parte application was made to quash a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority upholding a complaint that the applicants in that case were in breach of the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, and an injunction to prevent . .
CitedDebt Free Direct Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Admn 15-May-2007
The claimant sought continuation of a without notice interim injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing its findings on a complaint against the claimant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.86039

O’Connor v Bar Standards Board: SC 6 Dec 2017

The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time having begun on the initial ruling against her.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Appellant’s challenge was to the disciplinary proceedings against her, not to an alleged state of affairs in which BME lawyers were more likely to be the subject of such proceedings. Therefore, the bringing and pursuit of the disciplinary proceedings must be the focus of the investigation in terms of section 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act. That section must not be read narrowly and must be allowed to provide an affective and workable remedy, particularly where what was complained of was a course of conduct. Here, there had been a single and continuing action. It had not been Parliament’s intention to have limitation calculated individually from each element of the process. The period ran from when the process ceased, not from when it began, and in this case it was from the time when the Visitors eventually allowed her appeal.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 78, [2018] 2 All ER 779, [2017] WLR(D) 813, [2017] 1 WLR 4833, [2018] HRLR 2, UKSC 2016/0174

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Videos Summary, SC 2017 Oct 04 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 04 pm Video

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At QBDO’Connor v Bar Standards Board QBD 18-Dec-2014
Appeal against an order of Deputy Master Eyre by which he struck out the appellant’s statements of case and dismissed the action with judgment for the defendant with costs. The claimant said that the procedures adopted by the Board in disciplinary . .
Appeal fromO’Connor v Bar Standards Board CA 25-Jul-2016
The appellant said that the Board had infringed her human rights in its approach to disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared and now sought a remedy. The Board successfully argued that her claims were out of time.
CitedDH v Czech Republic ECHR 13-Nov-2007
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that their children had been moved to special schools which did not reflect their needs from ordinary schools without them being consulted.
Held: The Court noted that, at the relevant time, the . .
CitedRehman v The Bar Standards Board Admn 29-Jul-2016
The barrister appealed against two findingd of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court. . .
CitedLincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
CitedIn re S (A Barrister) 1970
(Inns of Court) The regulation of barristers has been delegated by the judges to the Inns of Court. Five judges sitting as Visitors of the Inns of Court stated that ‘the judges as visitors have always had supervisory powers and their decision, upon . .
CitedDelcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .
CitedSampanis and Others v Greece ECHR 8-Aug-2011
Resolution as to execution of judgment . .
CitedOrsus And Others v Croatia ECHR 16-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) Fifteen Croatians of Roma origin complained that they were victims of racial discrimination in that they were segregated into Roma-only classes and consequently suffered educational, psychological and emotional damage.
Held: . .
CitedEckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
CitedRegina v Visitors to the Inns of Court ex parte Calder CA 1993
Two barristers had been struck off for disciplinary offences. Their appeals were heard by three High Court judges sitting as Visitors, who dismissed the appeals. The barristers now sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Justices . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Human Rights, Discrimination, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.599756

Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 19 Dec 2017

The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed. Parliament must be assumed to have intended that the Crown be not bound by the 2006 Act. It would have required express provision. This is a question of statutory interpretation, and not of allowing an exemption.
The classic rule is that a statutory provision is not binding on the Crown without express words or ‘necessary implication’ Many statutes have been drafted and
passed on this basis. An amendment to this by the Court would have retrospective effect with substantial and unforeseeable consequences, though it might profitably be examined by the Law Commission. Other health and safety statutes made such express provision, and indeed other parts of the 2006 Act made such provision.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 81, (2018) 160 BMLR 1, [2018] 2 WLR 123, [2018] 2 All ER 212, [2018] AC 215, UKSC 2016/0070

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 31 Oct 2017 am Video, SC 31 Oct 2017 pm Video, SC 1 Nov 2017 am Video

Statutes:

Health Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe Province of Bombay v The Municipal Corporation of The City of Bombay and Another PC 10-Oct-1946
(Bombay) The Board considered whether the Crown was bound by section 222(1) and section 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act 1888, which in effect gave the Municipality power to carry water mains for the purposes of water supply through, across . .
CitedRevenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool Admn 21-May-2014
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the . .
CitedThe British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 5-Mar-1964
The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory . .
At AdmnBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Appeal fromSecretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
CitedGorton Local Board v Prison Comrs (Note) 1887
The Prison Commissioners were not bound by local by-laws made under the Public Health Act 1875, requiring the local authority to certify that newly built houses were fit for human habitation. . .
CitedCooper v Hawkins 1904
Vehicles driven by Crown servants on Crown business were not subject to the speed limits laid down by the local authority under the Locomotives Act 1865. . .
CitedLord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .
CitedAttorney General v Hancock 1940
The Crown could enforce a debt for unpaid income tax without the leave of the court, not being bound by the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1939, which prohibited enforcement without leave. . .
CitedMadras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland House of Lords HL 11-Mar-1955
Income Tax, Schedule D – Balancing charge – Succession by Crown – Whether cessation provisions apply – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 11 ; Finance Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V, c. 22), Section 32.
CitedMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins CA 1963
The Crown was not bound by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 to get planning permission for the afforestation of its land, though its tenants are so bound.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Looking at the whole of the Town and Country Planning Act, . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedN, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 24-Jul-2009
A challenge was made to the ban on smoking at a secure hospital. . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.601507

O’Connor v Bar Standards Board: CA 25 Jul 2016

The appellant said that the Board had infringed her human rights in its approach to disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared and now sought a remedy. The Board successfully argued that her claims were out of time.
Held: the limitation period under section 7(5)(a) had started to run when the Disciplinary Tribunal had found the charges against the Appellant proved and so had expired before she had issued her claim. She now appealed against that decision.
Held: The appeal failed. The one year time limit under section 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act had started to run when the Disciplinary Tribunal had found the charges against the claimant proved and so had expired before she had issued her claim. The Court of Appeal refused a renewed application for permission to appeal on the ground that the limitation period should have been extended pursuant to section 7(5)(b) of the 1998 Act.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Elias, Sharp LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 775, [2016] WLR(D) 421, [2016] 1 WLR 4085

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14, Human Rights Act 1998 7(5)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instanceO’Connor v Bar Standards Board QBD 18-Dec-2014
Appeal against an order of Deputy Master Eyre by which he struck out the appellant’s statements of case and dismissed the action with judgment for the defendant with costs. The claimant said that the procedures adopted by the Board in disciplinary . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromO’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Legal Professions

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.567507

Revenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool: Admn 21 May 2014

The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the deceased for the purpose of investigating whether he had died as a result of an industrial disease. The Commissioner sought judicial review of the decision to issue those notices and asserted that the 2009 Act, which did not expressly bind the Crown, did not do so by necessary implication either. The Revenue said that compliance with the notice would pt them in breach of their own duties of confidentiality under the 2005 Act.
Held: Schedule 5 to the CJA 2009 binds the Crown by necessary implication. It follows that the Notices constituted an ‘order of court’ within s.18(2)(e), CRCA 2005, binding on HMRC. It follows further that the duty of confidentiality flowing from s.18(1), CRCA 2005 was displaced and HMRC was entitled to comply with the Notices.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Burnett J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin), [2015] 1 QB 481, [2014] 3 WLR 1660, [2014] WLR(D) 226

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, European Convention of Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dictum adoptedThe British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 5-Mar-1964
The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory . .

Cited by:

CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Taxes Management, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.526075

Maznev And Others v Russia: ECHR 22 Jun 2017

ECHR Judgment : Violation of Article 3 – Prohibition of torture Article 3 – Degrading treatment Substantive aspect Violation of Article 5
ECHR Judgment : Struck out of the list : Third Section Committee

Citations:

48826/08, [2017] ECHR 579, [2020] ECHR 263

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.607682

Cumhuriyetci Egitim Ve Kultur Merkezi Vakfi v Turkey: ECHR 20 Jun 2017

ECHR Judgment : Respondent State to take measures of a general character Article 46 – General measures Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
ECHR Judgment : Revision rejected : Second Section

Citations:

32093/10, [2017] ECHR 574, [2019] ECHR 162

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.607640

Frette v France: ECHR 2002

There are certain grounds of factual difference which by common accord are not acceptable, without more, as a basis for different legal treatment, including sexual orientation: ‘. . the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law. The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background; in this respect, one of the relevant factors may be the existence or non-existence of common ground between the laws of Contracting States.’

Citations:

(2003) 2 FLR 9, (2002) 38 EHRR 438

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See AlsoFrette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198489

JR38, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland): SC 1 Jul 2015

The appellant was now 18 years old. In July 2010 two newspapers published an image of him. He was at that time barely 14 years old. These photographs had been published by the newspapers at the request of the police. The publication of the appellant’s photographs and those of others who had been involved in public disorder in Londonderry was part of a police campaign known as ‘Operation Exposure’ which was designed to counteract sectarian rioting at what are called ‘interface areas’ in parts of Derry. Interface areas are situated at the boundaries of parts of the city which are predominantly inhabited by one or other of the two main communities.
The appellant argues that publication of photographs of him constituted a violation of his article 8 rights. ‘
Held: The appeal failed. The publication of his photograph was not an infringement of the applicant’s human rights.
There was, per Lords Kerr and Wilson, in interference in his rights, but that interference was proportionate and justified.
Lords Toulson, Clarke, and Hodge did not think that there had been an interference with the appellant’s human rights, because in the circumstances there had been no expectation of privacy.
Lord Toulson JSC said: ‘ In Campbell’s case Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said at para 21 that ‘Essentially the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy’. He also warned that courts need to be on guard against using as a touchstone a test which brings into account considerations which should more properly be considered at the later stage of proportionality. Applying Campbell’s case, Sir Anthony Clarke MR said in Murray’s case at para 35 that ‘The first question is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy’. He said at para 36 that the question is a broad one which takes account of all the circumstances of the case, including the attributes of the claimant, the nature of the activity in which the claimant was involved, the place at which it was happening, and the nature and purpose of the intrusion. The principled reason for the ‘touchstone’ is that it focuses on the sensibilities of a reasonable person in the position of the person who is the subject of the conduct complained about in considering whether the conduct falls within the sphere of article 8 . If there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy, or legitimate expectation of protection, it is hard to see how there could nevertheless be a lack of respect for their article 8 rights.”

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] HRLR 13, [2015] UKSC 42, [2015] WLR(D) 280, [2016] AC 1131, [2015] 3 WLR 155, [2015] EMLR 25, [2015] 4 All ER 90, UKSC 2013/0181

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal fromJR 38, Re Judicial Review QBNI 21-Mar-2013
Application for judicial review of a decision by the PSNI to release to local newspapers for publication images of persons suspected of being involved in sectarian rioting and violent offending at an interface area at Fountain Street/Bishop Street . .
CitedX v Iceland ECHR 18-May-1976
The right to respect for private life was held to ‘comprise also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings’. . .
CitedNiemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
CitedRotaru v Romania ECHR 4-May-2000
Grand Chamber – The applicant, a lawyer, complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the use against him by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file which contained information about his conviction for . .
CitedPG and JH v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-2001
The use of covert listening devices within a police station was an infringement of the right to privacy, since there was no system of law regulating such practices. That need not affect the right to a fair trial. The prosecution had a duty to . .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedSidabras And Dziautas v Lithuania ECHR 27-Jul-2004
Former KGB officers complained that they were banned, not only from public sector employment, but also from many private sector posts. This ‘affected [their] ability to develop relationships with the outside world to a very significant degree, and . .
CitedSciacca v Italy ECHR 11-Jan-2005
The court was asked whether the applicant’s rights under Article 8 had been infringed by the release to the press of an identity photograph taken of her by the Italian Revenue Police while she was under arrest and investigation for various criminal . .
CitedCemalettin Canli v Turkey ECHR 18-Nov-2008
The Court found interference in the applicant’s right to respect of his private life in that the police prepared and submitted to a domestic court an inaccurate report in the context of criminal proceedings against him. . .
CitedReklos and Davourlis v Greece ECHR 15-Jan-2009
(Press release) The court considered the rights when photographs were taken in public: ‘the court finds that it is not insignificant that the photographer was able to keep the negatives of the offending photographs, in spite of the express request . .
CitedWood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-May-2009
The appellant had been ostentatiously photographed by the police as he left a company general meeting. He was a peaceful and lawful objector to the Arms Trade. He appealed against refusal of an order for the records to be destroyed. The police had . .

Cited by:

CitedWeller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Nov-2015
The three children of a musician complained of the publication of photographs taken of them in a public place in California. . .
CitedNT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
CitedRichard v The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 18-Jul-2018
Police suspect has outweighable Art 8 rights
Police (the second defendant) had searched the claimant’s home in his absence in the course of investigating allegations of historic sexual assault. The raid was filmed and broadcast widely by the first defendant. No charges were brought against the . .
CitedZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Police, Human Rights, Family

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.549907

Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another: IPT 12 Feb 2016

‘hearing in respect of the claim by Privacy International, the well known NGO, and seven internet service providers, of which Greennet Limited carries on operations in this country and the other Claimants have customers in this country, though their main operations are based abroad. The hearing has been of preliminary issues of law, whose purpose is to establish whether, if the Second Respondent (‘GCHQ’) carries on the activity which is described as CNE (Computer Network Exploitation), which may have affected the Claimants, it has been lawful.’

Judges:

Burton P, Mitting VP JJ

Citations:

[2016] UKIPTrib 14 – 85-CH

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Intelligence Services Act 1994, Computer Misuse Act 1990 1 3 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedLiberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 5-Dec-2014
The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret . .
CitedRE v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.564196

Holmes v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Feb 2009

The applicant complained under Article 6 – 1 of the Convention that the ancillary relief proceedings were not dealt with within a reasonable time, that he was not given a real opportunity to present his case and that some of the judges involved in the proceedings were not impartial.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

5787/06, [2009] ECHR 429

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Family

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.317935

Kennedy v United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Nov 2008

Citations:

26839/05, [2008] ECHR 1575

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See AlsoKennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.278455

H and H v The Police Federation of Great Britain: IPT 28 Feb 2005

IPT The Tribunal found that a police force’s use of covert surveillance against a police officer breached his Article 8 rights as it had no lawful authority for the surveillance activities it undertook (but its decision is overtaken by C v The Police (IPT/03/32) in 2006)

Citations:

[2005] UKIPTrib 03 – 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.525994