Tag: Human Rights

MLIA and Another v Chief Constable of Hampshire Police: QBD 24 Feb 2017

The claimants alleged that failures of the defendant adequately to investigate her allegations of domestic abuse and harassment had infringed her rights to a private life.

Judges:

Lavender J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 292 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

uropean Convention on Human Rights 3 8 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Human Rights

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577507

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children Foundation NHS Trust v NO and KK and Others: FD 14 Feb 2017

Application for a declaration that it would be lawful and in the best interests of the subject child MK for her a) not to receive or have given invasive or aggressive treatment in the form of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, inotropes, intubation and mechanical ventilation; and, b) not to have the insertion of intra-osseous needles, central venous-lines and further chest drains. Her parents the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not agree to this declaration being made.

Judges:

Russell J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 241 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Health Professions

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575294

Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernandez Martinez: ECJ 16 Feb 2017

(Judgment) Request for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Registrar – – Compulsory jurisdiction – Exercise of judicial functions – Independence – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:126, [2017] EUECJ C-503/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575270

Regina (A and Others) v Lord Saville of Newdigate and Others: QBD 16 Nov 2001

When making a decision which would interfere with the human rights of an individual, and even where the risks from which protections was sought, could be seen as small, it was the duty of the decision maker to justify the interference. The individual was not to be called upon to prove the risk. Here the respondent was holding a major public inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. Parties wanted soldiers involved in the incident to appear in person. The soldiers asserted that they were at personal risk if they attended. The respondent ordered them to attend. It was held that the order requiring them to attend was to be set aside. The Osman test did not apply. The risk was not fanciful, and the decision that they could be adequately protected by the Security Services was a procedural unfairness.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-2001, Gazette 14-Dec-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez v Government of Singapore HL 1971
Test for police protection need
The court considered the degree of risk to an individual which should give rise to a duty on the police to protect him under article 2.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, bearing in mind the relative gravity of the consequences of the court’s . .
See Also – A and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Lord Saville of Newdigate and others CA 28-Jul-1999
Former soldiers who had been involved in the events in Londonderry in 1972, and were to be called to give evidence before a tribunal of inquiry, still had cause to fear from their names being given, and so were entitled to anonymity when giving such . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (A and others) (Widgery Soldiers) v Lord Saville of Newdigate and Others CA 19-Dec-2001
The court would apply common sense in deciding whether soldier witnesses should be obliged to attend in person at an enquiry in Londonderry, where they claimed their lives would be at risk. It was not appropriate to seek to define what would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Administrative

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.166860

Staniszewski v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Dec 2016

(Excise Duty Appeals : Human Rights) EXCISE DUTY – Article 6 EHCR in relation to assessments to excise duty -no infringement – minimum penalties– strike-out application – no prospects of success in appeal – application granted

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 843 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Human Rights

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574007

D v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Procedure : Hearings In Private) PROCEDURE – application for hearing in private – rule 32 of Tribunal Rules – celebrity status of the appellant – deductibility of expenses against income – principle of open justice – whether the test of necessity for derogation met – whether anonymity strictly necessary – whether confidentiality of information at risk of breach – whether right to privacy infringed – Convention rights under Articles 6, 8 and 10 – Human Rights Act 1998 – proportionality – alternative measures under rule 14 and s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 – application refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 850 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573980

Hackett v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Nov 2016

PROCEDURE – personal liability notice – FA 2007, Sch 24, para 19 – application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – appellant’s application for a stay – whether HMRC’s decision to proceed by way of civil penalty an abuse of process – inability to obtain a representation order – whether standard of proof should be the criminal standard – HMRC’s application to strike out parts of appellant’s grounds of appeal for abuse of process in seeking to re-litigate matters the subject of earlier appeals by the company – application to admit into evidence a prior tribunal decision

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 781 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Taxes Management

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573949

Aalberts Industries v European Union: ECFI 1 Feb 2017

(Judgment) Non-contractual liability – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Reasonable time for judgment – Circumstances specific to the case – Issue of the dispute – Complexity of the dispute – Conduct of the parties and the occurrence of procedural incidents – No period of inactivity Unjustified

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:47, [2017] EUECJ T-725/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573825

SA and Aa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Dublin – Article 8 ECHR – Interim Relief) (IJR): UTIAC 12 Oct 2016

UTIAC (i) By virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeal in ZAT and Others the duty to admit a person to the United Kingdom under Article 8 ECHR without adherence to the initial procedural requirements of the Dublin Regulation requires an especially compelling case.
(ii) The question of whether the best interests of a child will be promoted by delay is an intensely fact sensitive one.
(iii) The grant of interim relief can be formulated in such a way as to respect the role and responsibilities of the relevant authorities of a foreign state.
(iv) Protection of the best interests of a child should not be outweighed by considerations of judicial comity.

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 507 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573723