Citations:
27436/95, [1997] ECHR 180
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346584
27436/95, [1997] ECHR 180
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346584
74912/01, [2004] ECHR 728
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346563
42985/02, [2008] ECHR 1700
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.341294
3249/03, [2008] ECHR 1704
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.341291
38703/06, [2008] ECHR 1612
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.341292
27869/05, [2008] ECHR 1703
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.341265
The claimants appealed refusal of a judicial review of the defendant’s decision to enter into the war in Iraq. The claimants were parents of troops who had died in the war. They said that the legal advice given to the government was incorrect.
Held: Human Rights law requires a proper investigation into deaths, but that requirement was satisfied by the coroners sysem, and did not require or allow a further investigation of the basis of the military action. Outside human rights law, the applications are unjusticiable: ‘The question whether the United Kingdom acted unlawfully in sending its armed forces to Iraq is not justiciable for one or both of two reasons, namely that it would involve a consideration of at least two international instruments, viz Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441, and that it would involve a detailed consideration of decisions of policy made in the areas of foreign affairs and defence which are the exclusive responsibility of the executive government.’
Sir Anthny Clarke MR, Sir Igor Judge President, Dyson LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1690, Times 01-Jan-2007
European Convention on Human Rights 2.1
England and Wales
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1981
In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .
Cited – JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1989
An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Cited – Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – Regina v Foreign Secretary ex parte Everett CA 20-Oct-1988
A decision taken under the royal prerogative whether or not to issue a passport was subject to judicial review, although relief was refused on the facts of the particular case.
Taylor LJ summarised the effect of the GCHQ case as making clear . .
Cited – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) v Prime Minister and others Admn 17-Dec-2002
CND sought an advisory declaration as to the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which had given Iraq ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ and whether the resolution authorised states to take military action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.246968
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 3 as regards nine applicants; Violation of Art. 13 as regards nine applicants; No violation of Art. 3 and 13 as regards one applicant; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award.
53147/99, [2005] ECHR 61
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.227583
19301/92, [2001] ECHR 263, [2001] ECHR 266
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.212312
67114/01, [2004] ECHR 129
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.211496
3189/07 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 470
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564862
12030/03 (Judgment (Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 466
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564866
69735/11 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)), [2016] ECHR 463
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564865
37242/14 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)), [2016] ECHR 465
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564864
20184/06 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 469
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564863
38010/05 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 468
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564861
44062/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 473
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564860
32163/13 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 475
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564858
16270/12 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 472
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564855
55835/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 474
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564852
2430/06 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)), [2016] ECHR 461
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564857
37203/05 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 467
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564859
36286/14 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 476
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564854
Where the court cited article 12 of the Convention (para 69) and held that where a measure of protection is necessary, it should be proportionate to the degree of incapacity and tailored to the individual’s circumstances and needs
17280/08 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)), [2016] ECHR 462, [2017] MHLR 38, (2017) 65 EHRR 23
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – N v ACCG and Others SC 22-Mar-2017
The local authority and a young man’s parents disputed his continued care, he having substantial incapacities. The parents wanted assistance caring for him on visits home. The LA declined to fund that support. The LA now argued that the CoP had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564851
40952/07 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) French Text, [2016] ECHR 471
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564856
11167/12 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)), [2016] ECHR 464
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.564853
35232/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 497
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.525824
Decisions about the allocation of limited resources may well be justified as necessary in the interests of the economic well-being of the country.
Ineta Ziemele, P
4241/12 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 492, 37 BHRC 130, (2015) 60 EHRR 1, (2014) 17 CCL Rep 187
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – N v ACCG and Others SC 22-Mar-2017
The local authority and a young man’s parents disputed his continued care, he having substantial incapacities. The parents wanted assistance caring for him on visits home. The LA declined to fund that support. The LA now argued that the CoP had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.525819
47922/08 – Committee Judgment, [2014] ECHR 498
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.525820
11828/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 494
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.525821
26771/07 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 807
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.515150
36144/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 806
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.515145
15762/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 805
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.515146
30677/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 804
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.515148
The newspaper said that a finding against it of contempt of court for publishing material derived from a jury’s deliberations infringed its rights of free speech.
Held: The complaint was declared inadmissible. ‘The Commission agrees with the applicants that the fines imposed in the present case amounted to an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, and also agrees that the interference was ‘prescribed by law’. In connection with the question whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Commission finds, as indeed the applicants accept, that the aim was to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. It would add that the term ‘judiciary’ comprises the entire machinery of justice, including the proper functioning of the jury system (cf., Euro. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 34, para. 55). It is an important element of that system that jurors should express themselves freely in the jury room without fear of outside disclosure of their views and opinions. To this extent the law may also serve to protect the rights of individual jurors themselves.
. . In connection with the legislation as such [the 1981 Act], the Commission notes that the jury system in the United Kingdom is founded on the premise that jurors will express themselves freely in the jury room in the knowledge that what they say will not be used outside. If a juror thought that what he said could subsequently be made public, it is possible that he would bear in mind the future use to which his words might be put, and not just the case in hand. The unlimited prohibition on disclosure is then seen to be an inevitable protection for jurors and can therefore be regarded as ‘necessary’ in a democratic society which has decided to retain this particular form of jury trial.’,br />The Commission added that it was not called on to assess the compatibility of section 8 with article 10 in circumstances involving a conviction for research into jury methods as such, and stated: ‘The present case relates rather to revelations of the jury’s deliberations in one specific case of considerable public interest, including statements by the jurors concerned about the opinions and attitudes of other members of the jury. The applicants were well aware that the information they published was sensitive, and should have been aware that its disclosure could put other individual jurors in an invidious position.
The Commission finds, in the circumstances of the present case, that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression did not take the State beyond the margin of appreciation which it enjoyed.’
Mm A Weizel P
24770/94, [1994] ECHR 58
Appeal from – HM Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 4-Feb-1994
Following the acquittal of a prominent politician on a charge of conspiracy to murder, the New Statesman magazine published an article, based on an interview with one of the jurors, which gave an account of significant parts of the jury’s . .
At First Instance – HM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others QBD 9-Dec-1992
A newspaper was held to have been in contempt of court for publishing details of the deliberations of a jury, even though it had not solicited the information. Beldam LJ said of the word ‘disclosure’: ‘It is a word wide enough to encompass the . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd Admn 13-May-2009
The first defendant had been foreman of a jury in a criminal trial. He was accused of disclosing details of the jury’s votes and their considerations with concerns about the expert witnesses to the second defendant. The parties disputed the extent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343072
A party who was in contempt of court should not be debarred from continuing to take a proper part in a court action unless that contempt was serious enough seriously to interfere with the fair conduct of the trial. ‘The courts need powers of punishment with which to enforce their orders. The ones they have at present are adequate. They ‘do not need a power which deprives the litigant of his right to litigate. Indeed it seems to me that were the courts to refuse to allow those in contempt access to the courts simply on the grounds that they are in contempt, they could well be acting in breach of the provisions of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights which entitles everyone to the determination of his civil rights by means of a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The ‘everyone’ in that Article is not subject to an exception in respect of people who are guilty of serious offences or contempt of court.’ and ‘Sir Robert Megarry’s Miscellany-at-Law records that in 1631 a litigant who threw a brickbat at a judge, but missed, had his right hand chopped off and nailed to the gibbet on which he was thereafter hanged in the presence of the court. I am not sure what would have happened to him had his aim been better.’
Laddie J
Times 17-Aug-1998, Gazette 23-Sep-1998, [1998] All ER (D) 407
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
England and Wales
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited CA 11-Nov-2003
The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order.
Held: There was no absolute . .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.82214
(2009) 49 EHRR SE8, 38165/07, [2009] ECHR 765
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342979
12947/04, [2009] ECHR 692
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341939
1454/02, [2009] ECHR 720
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341945
10825/02, [2009] ECHR 650
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341921
27234/04, [2009] ECHR 636
European Convention on Human Rights
Opinion – Tamara Sergeyevna Bratchenko v Ukraine ECHR 18-Nov-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341925
6039/07, [2009] ECHR 721
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342003
23310/04, [2009] ECHR 724
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341955
40795/04, [2009] ECHR 638, [2010] ECHR 2253
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341920
44537/05, [2009] ECHR 707
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Klimkiewicz v Poland ECHR 21-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341969
[2009] ECHR 649
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341923
16812/06, [2009] ECHR 646
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341913
23980/07, [2009] ECHR 697
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342002
37927/04, [2009] ECHR 637, [2011] ECHR 61
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341932
17799/03, [2008] ECHR 1641
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341463
14470/04, [2008] ECHR 1815
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341461
5047/02, [2008] ECHR 1645
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341476
Claim to bereavment allowance for widow.
Lech Garlicki, P
28071/02, [2008] ECHR 1652
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341481
6909/07, [2008] ECHR 1816
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341462
38751/05, [2008] ECHR 1864
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341468
19245/03, [2008] ECHR 1655
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341504
5422/04, [2008] ECHR 1656
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341515
2210/04, [2008] ECHR 1786
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341516
19504/06, [2008] ECHR 1760, [2009] ECHR 1723
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341509
29361/07, [2008] ECHR 1828
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341471
23968/05, [2008] ECHR 1769
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Mirsad Halilovic v Bosnia And Herzegovina ECHR 24-Nov-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341439
23883/06, [2008] ECHR 1710
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v Sweden ECHR 8-Jun-2011
The Strasbourg court considered a claim by applicants who had been evicted by a court order at the suit of their landlords, who had determined their tenancy for installing a satellite dish in breach of covenant.
Held: This infringed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341409
45374/04, [2008] ECHR 1825
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341431
10799/06, [2008] ECHR 1827
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341363
33102/04, [2008] ECHR 1860, [2010] ECHR 417
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341354
15670/04, [2008] ECHR 1649
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341347
14850/03, [2008] ECHR 1640
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341430
17462/03, [2008] ECHR 1826
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341442
26893/02, [2008] ECHR 1718
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341351
7352/04, [2008] ECHR 1875
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341365
28971/05, [2008] ECHR 1658
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341415
25666/02, [2008] ECHR 1814
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341419
20751/05, [2008] ECHR 1855
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341385
9075/08, [2008] ECHR 1844
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341348
37470/06, [2008] ECHR 1647
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341355
2886/05, [2008] ECHR 1657
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341352
33852/04, [2008] ECHR 1616
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341331
2604/05, [2008] ECHR 1619
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341296
Lech Garlicki, P
43371/05, [2008] ECHR 1663
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Thomson v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Oct-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341315
40056/04, [2008] ECHR 1859
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341335
3083/07, [2008] ECHR 1706
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341267
10456/04, [2008] ECHR 1879
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341258
6881/03, [2009] ECHR 597
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.334581
36003/06, [2009] ECHR 553
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331039
1449/05, [2009] ECHR 548
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331046
2010/06, [2007] ECHR 580, [2008] ECHR 528
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.258214
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and disproportionate. Different signatory countries had applied different standards. The UK law made a great distinction between different categories of offender or crime, but did not apply the same rules to prisoners on remand or imprisoned for non-payment of fines or contempt. There was no evidence of the issues having been considered by parliament in a way which took account of the issues of human rights.
74025/01, Times 08-Apr-2004, (2004) 38 EHRR 825, [2004] ECHR 122
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights A3-1
Human Rights
Appeal from – Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General QBD 17-Apr-2001
A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the . .
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. . .
At Commission – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
At Commission – Hirst v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Dec-2009
(Resolutions) The court noted the long delay in the respondent in implementing the judgment of the court and giving prisoners voting rights, the present consultation and adjourned until March 2011 for further information. . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.195514
The applicants sought, by means of the Human Rights Act to challenge the way in which the decision had been made that they should be prosecuted under the 1989 Act, arguing that section 6(2) was inconsistent with the new Act.
Held: The Act contravened the Convention insofar as it made evidential presumptions which were incompatible with the presumption of innocence. An English court is able to apply the Convention anticipating the coming into force of the Act in the UK.
Lord Bingham CJ stated: ‘Statements by ministers concerning the future conduct of themselves and their officials can found no legitimate expectation concerning the future decisions of the Director since he, like the law officers, acts wholly independently of the executive when making decisions on the conduct of criminal proceedings. It is his public duty and responsibility to exercise his own independent judgement. He cannot be bound by any statement made on behalf of the executive, and no reasonable person alert to his constitutional role could expect him to be so bound.’
It was appropriate for the Court to review the soundness of the legal advice on which the DPP acted. The Lord Chief Justice explained: ‘Where the grant of leave to move for judicial review would delay or obstruct the conduct of criminal proceedings which ought, in the public interest, to be resolved with all appropriate expedition, the court will always scrutinise the application with the greatest care, both to satisfy itself that there are sound reasons for making the application and to satisfy itself that there are no discretionary grounds (such as delay or the availability of alternative remedies or vexatious conduct by the applicant) which should lead it to refuse leave. The court will be very slow to intervene where the applicant’s complaint is one that can be met by appropriate orders or directions in the criminal proceedings. If, however, strongly arguable grounds for making application are shown, as the single judge rightly held were shown here, and if there are no discretionary grounds for refusing relief, leave to move may properly be granted; and if on full argument grounds for granting relief are established and no discretionary grounds shown for refusing it, such relief may properly be granted even though the consequence is a delay in the resolution of criminal proceedings. Such was, no doubt, the consequence of quashing the applicant’s committal in Reg. v. Bedwellty Justices, Ex parte Williams [1997] A.C. 225. In the present case I see no discretionary reasons for refusing relief if the applicants establish a ground for granting it’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Laws LJ, Sullivan J
Times 31-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 277, [1999] 3 WLR 175
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 6(2), European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Appeal from – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.139542
56344/07, [2009] ECHR 500
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324736
8327/06, [2009] ECHR 495
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324746
40864/06, [2009] ECHR 497
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324727
35488/08, [2009] ECHR 499
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324739
13636/02, [2009] ECHR 494
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324754
72912/01, [2009] ECHR 503
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324731
19054/03, [2009] ECHR 505
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324741
40125/06, [2009] ECHR 501
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324726
40097/07, [2009] ECHR 434
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317924
21415/02, [2009] ECHR 392
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316659
36458/02, [2009] ECHR 393
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316660