Sculer-Zgragen v Switzerland: ECHR 21 Oct 1993

Assuming that a woman won’t return to work after her child’s birth is discriminatory.

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-1993

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89072

Regina v Tagg: CACD 14 Jun 2001

The idea of what was ‘drunkenness’ was sufficiently clear, and not capable of being challenged under the Human Rights Act. The order which made it a criminal offence to be drunk on board an aircraft were not ultra vires, since the Act gave power to regulate for safety and that was the intention of the order.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970), Civil Aviation Act 1982

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88686

Regina v Smethurst: CACD 13 Apr 2001

As regards the offence of making indecent photographs of children, any intention of the defendant was irrelevant as to whether the photographs themselves were indecent. The defendant said he had obtained the images without any indecent intent, but only because they had a high photographic quality. The situation was different from that which obtained on a question of indecent assault. The jury’s conclusion that the images were indecent and of children under 16 was all that was required. Indecency was a subjective assessment. Once the photographs came into existence the harm might already be done. Article 10.2 covered this case, the offence was sufficiently certain, and the Act was compliant.

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-2001, [2002] 1 Cr App R 50

Statutes:

Protection of Children Act 1978 1(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 10.2

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Collier CACD 11-Jun-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of indecent pseudo-photographs of children. He said that he had not seen the image, and that though he had reason to know the images were indecent, he had no reason to know that they were of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88669

Regina v Calum I MacLeod: CACD 29 Nov 2000

The defendant had approached a prosecution witness after she had completed her evidence, but before she left, and challenged her on the basis that she had been lying. On the following day the judge considered whether his behaviour was a contempt of court, and having found it proved, and sentenced him. In this case, and the judge was not himself a witness to what had happened, and it was appropriate for him to act as an independent tribunal, and it was also necessary to act quickly and decisively. The Article 6 right to a fair trial did not add, in these circumstances, to the requirements which already applied to an English courts. The judge should, however, have requested prosecuting counsel to lead the witness through her evidence.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court, Crime

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88549

Regina v Offen; Regina v McGuillard; Regina v McKeown; Regina v Okwuegbunam; Regina v Saunders (Stephen): CACD 15 Nov 2000

For the purposes of the Act, where a defendant faced a compulsory life sentence following two convictions for certain offences, a finding by the judge that the defendant did not pose a serious risk to society, could be an exceptional circumstance justifying not imposing the sentence. Such a finding might be based upon there being a long time between offences, or the offences being of a different nature. Nevertheless, where the defendant did pose a risk to society, such a sentence would not be a breach of the defendant’s human right to a fair trial.
CS Kennedy LJ: ‘[T]here is nothing offensive or contrary to Convention law about Parliament reminding the courts of the risks normally attendant upon the grant of bail to those to whom section 25 applies. A reminder can properly be given by creating a statutory presumption against the grant of bail, but if judicial control is to be effective courts must be left free to examine all of the relevant circumstances and, in an appropriate case, to override the presumption.’ and
‘[Section 25 (1)] establishes a norm. The norm is that those to whom it applies if granted bail are so likely to fail to surrender to custody, or offend, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice that bail should not be granted. If in fact, taking into account all the circumstances relating to a particular alleged offence and offender he does not create an unacceptable risk of that kind he is an exception to the norm, and in accordance with his individual right to liberty he should be granted bail.
. . . the fact that section 25 overrides section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 will not be a matter of any great moment, because section 25 will merely assist the court to adopt a proper approach in relation to the question of bail, and the approach will be in conformity with the requirements of article 5.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Hooper J

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 05-Jan-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 253

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997

Cited by:

Approved – Regina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88576

Regina v Greater Belfast Coroner, ex parte Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: CANI 11 May 2001

The Commission was a creation of statute, and had not been given power to intervene in judicial proceedings. The coroner was investigating deaths at Omagh from a terrorist bombing, and the Commission sought to intervene. The Act should not be read restrictively, but nor could provisions be read into it which did not exist at will. The Commission had its own powers to commence investigations. When it might become involved in proceedings, either it sought to influence the outcome or it did not. If it did not, it was an improper distraction, and if it did it would be an improper intrusion, threatening the appearance of independence of the judiciary. In either case costs would be increased and have to be paid, and new issues of equality of arms would arise.

Citations:

Times 11-May-2001

Statutes:

Northern Ireland Act 1998

Human Rights, Coroners, Constitutional, Northern Ireland

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88484

Regina v Alden; Regina v Wright: CACD 27 Feb 2001

The human rights legislation, and in particular article 7, implied nothing to change the basis of sentencing for the offence of buggery. The defendants could not assert that the levels of sentencing had increased between the time when the offences had taken place and the time when they were sentenced. R v Willis remained good guidance.

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-2001

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88369

Regina v Nangle: CACD 23 Nov 2000

The test of whether the defence conducted on behalf of the defendant, was so incompetent that his trial could not be described as fair, may now, because of the Human Rights Convention be less than the ‘flagrant incompetence’ formerly required. If the incompetence did reach such a level as to have denied him a fair trial, then his right might have been reached. The case before the court involving various allegations was not such as to make the trial not fair, and in this case there was no need to decide in detail what that standard might be.
The provisions of the Human Rights Act may have made inappropriate the old standard for judging the need for a retrial in a criminal matter where incompetence was alleged against counsel, but the case before the court involving various allegations was not such as to make the trial not fair, and in this case there was no need to decide in detail what that standard might be.

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2001, Gazette 23-Nov-2000

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87411

Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A: QBD 24 Aug 1993

It was unlawful to detain a psychopath for treatment where in fact his condition was untreatable.

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1993, Independent 01-Sep-1993

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 3(2)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A CA 2-Mar-1994
It was not unlawful for a patient to be detained for treatment, even though he was untreatable, and unwilling to be treated. A Mental Health tribunal appeal was to be allowed where patient was re-admitted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86291

Regina v B (Extradition: Abuse of Process): CACD 17 Oct 2000

An allegation of abuse of process did not constitute a special category of extradition to allow a judicial review of a decision not to grant a stay of those extradition proceedings. Article 8 could not be used to restrict such decisions. In any event the issues relating to the way in which the applicant had come to be brought within the jurisdiction, and the non-disclosure he alleged had been fully argued and considered on appeal already and rejected.

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000

Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86080

Regina (Mcneil) v Parole Board: CACD 17 May 2001

The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two years. The earlier case had expressly stated that no maximum interval was being set.

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85987

Regina (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (Q) v Same: QBD 1 Jun 2001

The Prison Service’s policy of refusing to allow children over the age of eighteen months to stay with their mother in prison was lawful. The impairment of family life was an inevitable and inherent part of the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. The policy was to designed allow for the protection of children’s interests so far as possible. The use of a fixed age allowed proper preparation, and consistency of facilities, and there was nothing in the policy to prevent consideration of the individual circumstances in particular cases. There were arguments both for lowering the age so as to minimise the damage by occasioning it when the bond between mother and child was less, and otherwise.

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] 3 FCR 416, [2001] FLR 1122

Statutes:

Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728), Children Act 1989 1, Prison Act 1952

Cited by:

Cited – C and Another v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council FD 18-Jul-2002
Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it . .
Cited – C and Another v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council FD 18-Jul-2002
Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it . .
Cited – Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85996

Re Maychell: QBD 26 Feb 1993

Military detention for 75 days may be justified for a serious offence.

Citations:

Independent 26-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Official Secrets Act 1989 1

Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85835

Regina v X; R v Y; R v Z: CACD 23 May 2000

A telephone intercept obtained abroad in accordance with the applicable national laws would be admissible as evidence in England even though the method and circumstances of the interception would have been unlawful in this country. There is no rule of public policy which could make admission of such intercepts inappropriate here.

Citations:

Times 23-May-2000

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85621

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Al-Fayed: QBD 16 Nov 1999

When considering whether the Human Rights of a citizen had been infringed, the doctrine of proportionality was not to be extended to extend in turn such rights. At present the doctrine is part of European law, but not part of domestic English administrative law, and could not be called in aid to support an application for nationality.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 Sch 1 (1) (b)

Human Rights, European, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85528

Regina v Perry: CACD 28 Apr 2000

The over frequent reference to Human Rights legislation when challenging identification evidence procedures, was capable of bringing disrepute on that branch of law. The case could be disposed of entirely within national law. Breaches of the Codes of Practice on the conduct of Identification Procedures did not prevent the resulting evidence of identification being admitted.

Citations:

Times 28-Apr-2000

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85443

Regina v Malik: CACD 30 May 2000

It was not a breach of a prisoner’s human rights to impose a sentence of imprisonment on a failure to comply with a confiscation order made in a drugs case. The transfer of the burden onto the defendant was not in breach of the equality of arms provisions in the convention, nor of the imposition of heavier penalties under article 7.

Citations:

Times 30-May-2000

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 and 7

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85385

Regina v Lambert; Regina v Ali; Regina v Jordan: CACD 14 Sep 2000

Each defendant was charged under a statute which provided a defence if they could prove a certain element. They complained that this was a breach of their human rights. The complaint was rejected. It would be wrong to impose a burden of proof on a defendant as regards a main element of a crime, but this may be permissible, where the burden lay on the defendant to establish some element of a special defence or exception. The courts should defer to the intention of Parliament. Such provisions could be justified objectively by reference to the particular nature of the offence. Woolf LCJ said: ‘it is important to start with the structure of the offences. If the defendant is being required to prove an essential element of the offence this will be more difficult to justify. If, however, what the defendant is required to do is establish a special defence or exception this will be less objectionable. The extent of the inroad on the general principle is also important. Here it is important to have in mind that article 6(2) is specifically directed to the application of the presumption of innocence of the ‘criminal offence’ charged. It is also important to have in mind that legislation is passed by a democratically elected Parliament and therefore the courts under the Convention are entitled to and should, as a matter of constitutional principle, pay a degree of deference to the view of Parliament as to what is in the interest of the public generally when upholding the rights of the individual under the Convention. The courts are required to balance the competing interests involved.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ

Citations:

Gazette 14-Sep-2000, [2001] 2 WLR 211

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Homicide Act 1957, Human Rights Act 1998

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Nov-2001
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85353

Regina v HM Advocate: HCJ 14 Apr 2000

Where the prosecution had delayed nearly four years between interview and charge, that delay was so unreasonable as to render a continuation of the prosecution a breach of the defendant’s human rights to a fair trial. The period to be considered not when the police first heard of the allegation and began to investigate, but the substitution of formal proceedings. The convention gave him the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The prosecution could have proceeded several years earlier.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

Scotland, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85309

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex Parte Banque Internationale A Luxembourg Sa: QBD 27 Jul 2000

The commissioners obtained court orders directing the applicant bank to disclose confidential information in their possession. The bank resisted on the ground that the demand breached their rights to confidentiality and to privacy. Although the orders did infringe the Bank’s article 8 rights, the notices were valid because the interference was justified under article 8(2). The notices were served in accordance with law, and were justified in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic system for protecting the taxation system.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Taxes Management Act 1970, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Corporation Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85321

Practice Direction (Justices Clerk to Couty): QBD 11 Oct 2000

The direction set out in detail the duties of justices’ clerks and legal advisers to the magistrates and the court, in respect of the application of the Act, and generally by restating duties to provide legal advice and assistance with appropriate procedures for allowing representations by those appearing before the court, and also restating and clarifying the limits of a justices’ clerk’s advice on issues of fact and evidence.

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2000

Magistrates, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84896

Ot Africa Line Ltd v Fayad Hijazy and Another; Same v Fayad Hijazy and Others: QBD 28 Nov 2000

The human right to a fair trial did not amount to a right to an unfettered choice of tribunal. Contracts said that they were exclusively governed by English law and to be decided in England. Proceedings between the parties having already commenced in England some of the defendants were enjoined from continuing another action they had begun in Belgium arising from the same contract.

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 art 17

Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84487

Opinion No 2/94: ECJ 16 Apr 1996

The European Union has no power to accede to the Human Rights Convention.

Citations:

Times 16-Apr-1996

Statutes:

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969)

Human Rights, European

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84467

Nottingham City Council v Amin: QBD 2 Dec 1999

Where a plain clothes officers had invited a taxi driver to take them to a destination in breach of his licence without disclosing their identity, and he did so willingly, their evidence was not to be excluded as that of an agent provocateur. Despite the Human Rights Convention and Act, the position in England remains substantially the same, as to the presence or otherwise of pressure on the defendant to commit the act, and the effect on the fairness of the hearing by the admission or exclusion of evidence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ suggested the test as: ‘On the one hand it has been recognised as deeply offensive to ordinary notions of fairness if a defendant were to be convicted and punished for committing a crime which he only committed because he had been incited, instigated, persuaded, pressurised or wheedled into committing it by a law enforcement officer. On the other hand it has been recognised that law enforcement agencies have a general duty to the public to enforce the law and it has been regarded as unobjectionable if a law enforcement officer gives a defendant an opportunity to break the law, of which the defendant freely takes advantage, in circumstances where it appears that the defendant would have behaved in the same way if the opportunity had been offered by anyone else.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 1071

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
Cited – Regina v Moon CACD 10-Nov-2004
The defendant, a heroin addict said that the encouragement of a police officer to supply her with a small quantity of heroin amounted to entrapment and that her prosecution should have been stayed as an abuse of process. The officer had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84372

Nhs Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H: FD 29 Nov 2000

A decision made according to established principles to withdraw life support treatment when a patient was in a persistent vegetative state, was not a breach of the patient’s human rights. In the absence of a duty on the state to continue to provide treatment, a duty which was not recognised in other jurisdictions, it was in accordance with democratic principles. Whilst the family context was important, such a decision was not an interference with the right to family life, and since the patient was insensate, there was no element of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2000

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84291

McDaid v United Kingdom; Ward v United Kingdom; Giles v UK; Leece v UK; Shorters v UK; Thwaites v UK: ECHR 17 Oct 2000

The court had previously found that the applicants’ rights to a fair trial had been infringed in the UK martial courts, in particular through the role of the convening officer. The court hearing that a friendly settlement had been reached with the applicants, struck out the proceedings.

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000, 34822/97, 34957/97, 34988/97, 35575/97, 35576/97, 35578/97, [2000] ECHR 463

Links:

Worldlii

Citing:

See Also – McDaid And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Oct-2000
. .
See Also – McDaid v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
(Commission) Decision on admissibility. Residents of Derry applied alleging inter alia that there had been a breach of the procedural obligation under article 2 to hold a full investigation into the ‘Bloody Sunday’ killings in 1972. They alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83517

Mcginley and Egan v United Kingdom: ECHR 9 Jun 1998

Failure to disclose medical records of damages applicants and military records did not amount to a denial of access to justice nor breach of right of privacy.
Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) (Art. 6-1); No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) (Art. 8); Not necessary to examine Art. 13

Citations:

Times 15-Jun-1998, [1998] ECHR 51, 23414/94, 21825/93

Links:

Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, 8

Cited by:

See Also – McGinley and Egan v The United Kingdom (Revision) ECHR 28-Jan-2000
. .
Cited – Roche v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been exposed to harmful chemicals whilst in the Army at Porton Down in 1953. He had wished to claim a service pension on the basis of the ensuing personal injury, but had been frustrated by many years of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83540

Mcintosh v HM Advocate: HCJ 31 Oct 2000

An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated that presumption of innocence. The section required nothing of the Crown to even suggest any justified grounds of suspicion. The absence of any charge or similar procedure would make it even more necessary to provide the person subject to the application with the right to a fair trial.

Citations:

Times 31-Oct-2000, [2000] DRA 12

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Citing:

Appealed to – Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another v Mcintosh PC 5-Feb-2001
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another v Mcintosh PC 5-Feb-2001
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with . .
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Scotland

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83548

Kunnath v the State: PC 30 Jul 1993

The requirement that a trial must take place in the presence of the defendant is not limited to physical presence, but also requires a defendant to have available as necessary adequate interpretation. Unless he understood what was going on, he could not be said to have had a fair trial. It is the judge’s duty to ensure effective use of an interpreter. The defendant had made it clear that he had not understood the proceedings, but the Judge had continued. The conviction was quashed.

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-1993, Gazette 13-Oct-1993

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82856

Jones and Others v Attorney General of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: PC 24 May 1995

The death penalty was properly imposed for murder since it was a requirement of the constitution.

Citations:

Gazette 24-May-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 891

Cited by:

Cited – Trevor Nathaniel Fisher v The Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others PC 16-Dec-1997
(The Bahamas) The extent of a delay before a trial is not relevant when considering whether a subsequent delay in carrying out an execution is cruel and inhuman punishment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82595

Informationsverein Lentia Etal v Austria: ECHR 1 Dec 1993

A prohibition on the setting up and operating of a broadcasting station is capable of being violation.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings 13914/88; 15041/89; 15717/89; 15779/89; 17207/90

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-1993, 13914/88, 15041/89, (1993) 17 EHRR 93

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Cited by:

Cited – Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla PC 14-Feb-2001
PC (Anguilla) A first non-religious radio station had been formed, but came to include much criticism of the government. One programme was suspended by the government. The programme makers complained that this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82328

In Re F (Minors) (Care Proceedings): Contact): FD 22 Jun 2000

The powers given to local authorities over children in care and the arrangements for contact are compliant with the human rights act. The balancing act between the child’s best interests and those of the mother had been correctly applied.

Citations:

Times 22-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Children, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81879

Hood v United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Mar 1999

The English system of courts martial was unlawful in not allowing a fair trial, because of the role of the convening officer who both prosecuted and could at any time intervene effectively to vacate the trial and start again.

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, 17267/95

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 and 6

Human Rights

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81462

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 revealing of the secrets of the jury room by a juryman to his friend or neighbour as well as the opening up of such knowledge to the public as a whole by someone to whom it has been revealed. And in the light of the background to which we have referred, we see every reason why Parliament should have intended the word ‘disclose’ to cover both situations. Nor do we regard it as significant that the secrets came into the hands of the newspaper indirectly. The existence of a market for the transcript of interviews with jurors containing prohibited details of their deliberations is as inimical to the interests of justice as the direct solicitation for money which occurred in this case. Section 8 is aimed at keeping the secrets of the jury room inviolate in the interests of justice. We believe that it would only be by giving it an interpretation which would emasculate Parliament’s purpose that it could be held that the widespread disclosure in this case did not infringe the section.’
Beldam LJ pointed out that if disclosures were allowed, jurors may come under pressure to make disclosures: ‘It was against this background that Parliament enacted section 8 of the Act of 1981. If breaches of the secrecy of the jury room had escalated to a degree that Parliament deemed a statutory sanction to be necessary, then its duty was to define clearly the circumstances in which an offence would be committed so that criminal sanctions were restricted to those offences which, in Lord Diplock’s words in Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1994] AC 440, 449: ‘involve an interference with the due administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.” and ‘Thus, we believe, the law has long recognised the importance of complete freedom of discussion in the jury room. If a juror were to be deterred from expressing his doubt of the accused’s guilt because he feared subsequent recrimination or ridicule, the accused might be deprived of a persuasive voice in his favour. So, too, a jury deciding a plaintiff’s claim to damages for libel ought not to be exposed to interrogation by the erstwhile defendants or others who share an interest in avoiding liability for, or reducing the consequences of, defamatory publication. We consider that the free, uninhibited and unfettered discussion by the jury in the course of their deliberations is essential to the proper administration of a system of justice which includes trial by jury. The enacted provisions designed to maintain such discussion are confined to soliciting, disclosing or publishing the particular aspects of the discussion in the jury room identified in the section. To that extent only do they restrain freedom expression. There is no restriction, as Mr Pannick [counsel for the newspaper] suggested, on the freedom to express opinions, advance arguments, advocate changes or promote reform on the many aspects of jury trial which have already been the subject of public debate and which are, and remain, proper objects of public concern and interest. In due course the European Court of Human Rights may be called upon to decide whether the measures enacted by Parliament are disproportionate to the restriction imposed on freedom of expression. When it does so, it will surely take full account of Parliament’s experience of trial by jury as an instrument of justice in the United Kingdom and its appreciation of the need today to protect the secrecy of the jury room. We were invited to take these factors into account to guide our interpretation of section 8. To the extent that it is permissible for this purpose, we have considered them.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

Gazette 09-Dec-1992

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Contempt of Court Act 1981 8(1)

Citing:

Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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 . .
At First Instance – Associated Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom ECHR 30-Nov-1994
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media, Contempt of Court

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81405

Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: QBD 13 Jan 1995

The police were asked by shopkeepers concerned about shoplifting, for photographs of thieves so that the staff would recognise them. The police provided photographs including one of the claimant taken in custody. The traders were told only to show them to staff.
Held: A duty of confidence could arise when the police photographed a suspect without his consent, but the photograph could be published if reasonably required for the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of alleged offences, or the apprehension of suspects unlawfully at large. The police could rely on the public interest defence to any action for breach of confidence. The police in disclosing the photograph acted entirely in good faith for the prevention or detection of crime and had distributed it only to persons who had reasonable need to make use of it. However ‘the term ‘reasonable’ is fluid in its application and it is as impossible as it is undesirable to lay down anything like a lexicon of the circumstances that will amount to reasonable use.’ (Obiter:) ‘If someone with a telephoto lens were to take from a distance and with no authority a picture of another engaged in some private act, his subsequent disclosure of the photograph would, in my judgment, as surely amount to a breach of confidence as if he had found or stolen a letter or diary in which the act was recounted and proceeded to publish it. In such a case, the law would protect what might reasonably be called a right of privacy, although the name accorded to the cause of action would be breach of confidence. It is, of course, elementary that, in all such cases, a defence based on the public interest would be available.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-1995, Times 13-Jan-1995, [1995] 1WLR 804, [1995] 4 All ER 473

Citing:

Cited – Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Ellis) v The Chief Constable of Essex Police Admn 12-Jun-2003
An officer proposed to print the face of a convicted burglar on posters to be displayed in the town. The court considered the proposal. The probation service objected that the result would be to make it more difficult for him to avoid criminality on . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Cited – Campbell 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 . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Callaghan v Independent News and Media Ltd QBNI 7-Jan-2009
callaghan_inmQBNI2009
The claimant was convicted in 1987 of a callous sexual murder. He sought an order preventing the defendant newspaper publishing anything to allow his or his family’s identification and delay his release. The defendant acknowledged the need to avoid . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Police, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81310

Goldsmith and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 7 Jun 2001

The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and that, therefore, the reversal of the burden of proof was a breach of their right to a fair trial.
Held: The Act was clear that these were civil proceedings, and the consequences and associations of the proceedings did not have the characteristics of criminal proceedings, and therefore the reversal of the burden of proof was appropriate. The court considered whether forfeiture proceedings are criminal. Full weight must be given to the consequence of goods being forfeited, but reference also made to the fact that the legislation categorises the proceedings as civil, and that none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction follow from condemnation and forfeiture proceedings. There is no conviction or finding of guilt. Under domestic law the person concerned is not treated as having a conviction. The person concerned is not subject to any other penalty, apart from the consequences of the forfeiture and loss of the goods.

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 12-Jun-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1673

Statutes:

Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3, European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2003
The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid.
Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for . .
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80901

Nagy v HajduBihar Megyei Kormanyhivatal and Others: ECJ 10 Oct 2013

ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Implementation of EU law – Absence – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2013:703, [2013] EUECJ C-488/12