Doughty Street - Human Rights Database

HRA Research Project - In collaboration with Doughty Street Human Rights Unit and the LSE Human Rights Centre

DATABASE OF CASES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

Claire O'Brien & Janet Arkinstall *

Please note that the Human Rights Act Research Project concluded its work in September 2002. Although correct at the time of writing, some of the information on these webpages (for example the database of cases under HRA 1998) is therefore historical and should not be considered as representing the present state of the law.

Search the HRA Research Project Database

Keyword(s):

Date range (dd/mm/yyyy):

Start: End:

ECHR Articles cited:

Claims upheld:

Claim	Yes	No
S3
S4
S6

Type of case:

Subject matter:

Displaying records 1 - 25 out of 424

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | > Next ]

Name Of Case	Date	Court	Judge(s)	Types Of Proceedings	Subject Matter	ECHR Articles cited	Law in issue	Outcome on ECHR/HRA issue

(1) Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline (2) HM Advocate General for Scotland v Brown LTL 6/12/2000 TLR 6/12/2000 ILR 5/2/2001 (2001) 2 WLR 817 (2001) 2 All ER 97 (2001) UKHRR 333 (2001) HRLR 9	12 May 2000	Privy Council	Lord Bingham , Lord Clyde , Lord Hope , Lord Kirkwood , Lord Steyn	Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (devolution issue)	Crime - evidence	Article 6	s57(2) Scotland Act 1998 ss5 & 172(2)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988	Leading evidence obtained under compulsion pursuant s172(2)(a) RTA 1988 not incompatible with privilege against self-incrimination in Art 6(1) because s172 constitutes a proportionate response to high toll of deaths and injuries caused by misuse of motor vehicles
Pardeepan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] INLR 447	05 October 2000	Immigration Appeals Tribunal	Collins J , Mr Ockleton , Mr Warr	Appeal against dismissal of asylum claim (preliminary issue)	Asylum	Other Article ECHR rights in general	s65 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Immigration; Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No 6 Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000	No entitlement to raise ECHR issues on appeal when special adjudicator�s decision made prior to 02.10.00. However Home Secretary assures that those whose appeals are refused will be given opportunity to raise human rights objections to removal if Home Secretary decides to remove
R v Plinio Bossino T.L.R. 18/10/2000	05 October 2000	Court of Appeal	Rose LJ , Astill J , Richards J	(1) Judicial review (substantive hearing) (2) Interlocutory appeal.	Extradition	Art 6(1)	s29(3) Supreme Court Act 1981	HRA does not affect position that there is no interlocutory appeal before CA in respect of order refusing to stay proceedings for abuse of process when not expressly envisaged in statute
R v (1) Governor of Her Majesty�s Prison Brixton (2) Government of the United States of America ex parte Kashamu LTL 12/12/2001 TLR 12/12/2001 (2002) 2 WLR 907	06 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Bell J , Pill LJ	Habeas corpus	Extradition	Article 5	Extradition Act 1989 common law principle that fairness not relevant for committal in extradition proceedings	In view of HRA, previous caselaw such as R v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Lee [1993] 1 WLR 1294 cannot stand insofar as it does not require procedural fairness
R (Covey) v Attorney-General	06 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Buxton LJ , Penry-Davey J	Attorney General�s application for all civil proceedings order under s.42 SCA 1981	Civil procedure - vexatious litigation	Article 6	Supreme Court Act 1981 s42 Jurisdiction to grant all civil proceedings order	All civil proceedings orders affirmed as in principle consistent with right to court access under Art 6, given sufficient prior inquiry into case-specific circumstances
Re: Darren Hayes in the Matter of an Application for Habeas Corpus	09 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Bell J , Pill LJ	Habeas corpus	Crime - procedure	Article 5, Article 6	s1 Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 sch1 Magistrates� Courts (Backing of Warrants) Rules 1965	BWA 1965 and Rules do not breach Art 5 because: i) detention lawful under domestic law, not arbitrary or disproportionate and BWA accessible; ii) possibility of applying for writ of habeas corpus constitutes sufficient judicial scrutiny of lawfulness of detention
R (on application of L) v Secretary of State for Health (2001) 1 F.L.R. 406 (2002) 1 F.C.R. 326 (2001) 58 B.M.L.R. 101 (2001) Fam. Law 101 TLR 26/10/2000	11 October 2000	High Court (QBD)	Scott Baker J	Judicial review (substantive hearing)	Family, Mental health	Article 8	Health Service Circular 1999/160	(i) Relationship between applicant and nephews does not amount to family life within Art 8 on consideration of facts; (ii) if amounts to family life, interference in HSC 1999/160 necessary in a democratic society
Alliance & Leicester Plc v Slayford and another LTL 12/10/2000 (2000) EGCS 113 TLR 19/12/2000	12 October 2000	Court of Appeal	GIbson LJ , Latham J , Mummery LJ	Appeal against order striking out amendment to statement of claim; application to set aside extension of time	Civil procedure	Article 6	Court�s regard for Art 6(1) in private law proceedings	(i) Court can be required via s6 HRA to respect rights of parties; (ii) delay did not disentitle the Bank from obtaining judgement on whole or part of arrears
R(Sunspell Ltd) v Association of British Travel Agents (2001) ACD 88	12 October 2000	High Court (Administrative)	Keene J	Judicial review (substantive hearing)	Civil procedure	Article 6	Relationship between status as public authority under s6(3)(b) HRA and amenability to judicial review	Art 6 applies to public and private-law proceedings; however, a body not otherwise amenable to judicial review (although within definition of �public authority� under HRA) is not rendered amenable to judicial review by the applicability of Art 6 to its disciplinary proceedings
Re S (A Child) (2001) 1 FLR 302	16 October 2000	Court of Appeal	Thorpe LJ , Butler-Sloss P	Appeal against procedural order	Family - adoption	Article 6, Article 8	s6 Adoption Act 1976 Rule 15(3) Adoption Rules 1984	In combination, Arts 6 & 8 ECHR and s6 AA 1976 may require that the biological father should be notified of, and joined to, adoption proceedings
Director of Public Prosecutions v West LTL 20/10/2000	17 October 2000	High Court (Administrative Division)	Pill LJ , Bell J	Appeal by way of case stated	Crime - procedure	Article 6	s3(2) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 Reg 3 Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986	Art 6 requires that rules governing the award of costs should not operate arbitrarily; s3(1) HRA accordingly requires construction of municipal costs rules so as to give effect to Art 6
R (Pelling) v Bow County Court [2001] UKHRR 165	19 October 2000	High Court (Administrative)	Buxton LJ , Penry-Davey J	Judicial review (substantive hearing)	Civil procedure	Art 6(1)	R.39 Civil Procedure Rules	That r.39 allows for closed courts with no public access not incompatible with: i) Art 6(1), object of which is preventing administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny (for security reasons, some possession hearings were held in locked court room, though public could request access); or ii) Art 10, as right to receive information is not absolute and r39 does not constitute complete ban
R v Denton LTL 22/11/2000 TLR 22/11/2000 (2001) Crim LR 225 (2001) 1 CAR 227	19 October 2000	Court of Appeal	Rose LJ , Astill J , Richard J	Appeal against conviction	Crime - procedure	Article 6	Duty to give reasons	Art 6 gives added emphasis to position in English law that judge should give reasons for exercising discretion. Yet on facts, trial is fair despite failure to give reasons
David Shields Montgomery v (1) HM Advocate (2) The Advocate General for Scotland; Andrew Alexander Marshall Coulter v (1) HM Advocate (2) The Advocate General for Scotland LTL 25/10/2000 TLR 6/12/2000 (2001) 2 WLR 779 (2000) UKHRR 124	19 October 2000	Privy Council	Lord Hope , Lord Nicholls , Lord Clyde , Lord Hoffman , Lord Slynn	Appeals from High Court of Justiciary (devolution issue)	Crime - independent and impartial tribunal	Article 6	s57(2) Scotland Act 1998 common law test of oppression	(1)Common law test in Sturmann v H.M. Advocate 1980 JC 111 can be applied to assess compatibility with Art 6(1) so long as no balancing exercise between the individual�s right and the public interest is carried out, as right to fair trial is unqualified; (2) judge�s directions to jury sufficient to dispel doubts about effect of pre-trial publicity on jury�s impartiality
R v Wirral Magistrates� Court ex parte Jermyn 2001 Crim LR 45	20 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Buxton LJ , Penry-Davey J	Judicial review (substantive hearing)	Crime - procedure	Art 6(1), Art 6(3)	s38 Magistrates Court Act 1980 Duty to give reasons; committal for sentence	Art 6 does not require magistrates to give reasons for a decision to commit for sentence as full representations can be made to the sentencing court as to penalty
R (R) v Chief Immigration Officer TLR 29/11/2000 LTL 8/2/2001	24 October 2000	High Court (Administrative Court)	Gage J	Judicial review (substantive hearing)	Immigration	Article 2, Article 3, Article 8	Violation of Arts 2,3,8 by decision to remove; standard of judicial review where ECHR engaged	On facts: No violation of Arts 2 or 3 (adequate treatment for HIV available in Colombia); Art 8 violated by removal prior to final determination of wife�s application to remain deportation on grounds of criminal convictions alone would be disproportionate
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd & Others ILR 4/12/2000 LTL 15/1/2001	24 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Gray J	Defendants� applications to strike-out/stay libel action	Civil procedure, Defamation	Article 6	Parts 1 and 3 of Civil Procedure Rules (whether CPR allow i) strike out of properly constituted action with reasonable prospect of success on grounds only nominal damages likely; ii) stay, pending outcome of challenge to a UK exclusion order) Discretion to grant stay of proceedings	i) CPR Part 3 case management powers do not permit such strike out: seeking to vindicate reputation is a legitimate objective in itself which claimant has legal right to pursue ii) Art 6(1) does not permit displacement on basis of executive ipse dixit of right to submit dispute to court for determination: Tinnely v UK (1999) 27 EHRR 249
NHS Trust �A� v M; NHS Trust �B� v H LTL 25/10/2000 TLR 29/11/2000 (2001) 1 All ER 801 (2001) Lloyd's Rep Med 28 (2001) 2 WLR 942 (2001) 58 BMLR 87 (2001) 2 FLR 367 (2001) HRLR 1	25 October 2000	High Court (Family Division)	Dame Butler-Sloss P	Application for a declaration to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.	Right to life	Article 2, Article 3, Article 8	Common law principles on PVS	Test in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 compatible with ECHR; domestic law constitutes a higher test as a consequence of the High Court�s declaratory jurisdiction
Lloyds Bank Plc v Dix	26 October 2000	Court of Appeal	Laws LJ , Lord Phillips MR , May LJ	Appeal against possession order	Civil procedure	Article 6	Applications to adjourn; CPR SI 1998/3132	Where some procedural unfairness has occurred during proceedings, a court is not obliged by either CPR or Art 6 to grant an adjournment if no procedural guarantees could save a party from an inevitable conclusion on the merits that her case was truly hopeless
OT Africa Line Ltd v Fayad Hijazy v Another TLR 28/11/2000	27 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Aikens J	Application for anti-suit injunction	Access to justice, Shipping	Article 6	s37 Supreme Court Act 1981	i) Art 6 does not confer an unfettered choice of tribunal (so long as a determination of civil rights according to Art 6 was somewhere available); ii) if the parties have agreed to determine their rights exclusively in the courts of a particular country (that is a contracting party to ECHR) Art 6 is prima facie upheld.
Crown Prosecution Service v K T.L.R. 07/11/2000	31 October 2000	Court of Appeal	Roch LJ , Gray J , Rougier J	Appeal by Crown	Crime - evidence	Article 6	s14 Sexual Offences Act 1956	Offence excluding defence of genuine belief does not violate presumption of innocence because ECHR allows existence of presumptions of fact or law within reasonable limits
Brabazon-Drenning v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting LTL 4/1/2001 (2001) HRLR 6	31 October 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Elias J , Rose LJ	Appeal against order by Professional Conduct Committee (PCC)	Professions	Article 6	Findings pursuant disciplinary proceedings in absence of defendant	Breach of Art 6(1) and of natural justice principles when PCC fails to adjourn proceedings to strike off Nurses� Register in view of the defendant�s impossibility to attend
R v Nangle LTL 4/12/2000 ILR 18/12/2000 TLR 9/1/2001 (2001) Crim LR 506	01 November 2000	Court of Appeal	Turner J , Pitchford J , Roch LJ	Appeal against conviction	Crime - fair hearing	Article 6	Effect of legal advisers� incompetence on safety of conviction	Incompetence by defendant's legal advisors may not need to be 'flagrant' before appeal court is compelled to intervene, in view of art 6
Bhai & Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Limited (2001) 2 All ER 865	02 November 2000	Court of Appeal	Jonathan Parker LJ , Kennedy LJ	Appeal against decision of county court	Housing	Protocol 1 Article 1	Housing Act 1985 Part V	Art 1 of the 1st Protocol had no application to the issue arising on appeal (the true meaning and effect of a provision of the housing legislation).
R (on the application of Keith Burgess) v Secretary of State for the Home Department	03 November 2000	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)	Rose LJ , Elias J	Judicial review (substantive hearing)	Prisoners	Article 5	Factors considered by Home Secretary in refusing prisoners� recategorisation	Art 5(4) does not apply to Home Secretary�s decision to reject parole board�s recommendation to recategorise prisoner, because not a decision to prolong detention, but relates only to conditions under which to serve sentence

Commentary on case-law developments under HRA 1998

Commentary (EHRLR [2001] Issue 6)

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | > Next ]

This database of cases compiles the series of Tables of Cases produced by HRA Research Project and published in the European Human Rights Law Review. The tables include cases reported in LAWTEL Human Rights interactive and Butterworths Human Rights Direct from case transcripts available since 2 October 2000. The table does not include cases from Northern Ireland or from Scotland, except judgments before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which are likely to have general effect.

* This table was also contributed to by Elena Martin Salgado

HRARP Associates login