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.

Matthews v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
2001 EWHC Admin 815

10 October 2001

High Court (Administrative)

Sullivan J

Application to challenge planning inspector decision

Planning

Art 6(1),  Article 8,  Protocol 1 Article 1

s 288 (3) Town and Country Planning Act 1990

1) Six week limit to appeal against inspector’s decision not incompatible with Art 6 (1) right of access to court. 2) Lack of ability to extend time necessary to ensure certainty and finality in planning context

R v Allen
2001 UKHL 45 [2001] 3 WLR 843 (2002) HRLR 4

11 October 2001

House of Lords

Lord Hutton ,  Lord Bingham ,  Lord Nicholls ,  Lord Scott ,  Lord Steyn

Appeal against conviction

Crime

Art 6(1)

ss 20(1) & 98(1) Taxes Management Act 1970

Prosecution for delivering false schedule of assets in response to s 20 TMA 1970 demand not breach of right against self-incrimination: state entitled to require information as to income for taxation purposes, and to enforce penalties for failure to comply

R v Dimsey
2001 UKHL 46 [2001] 3 WLR 843 (2002) HRLR 5

11 October 2001

House of Lords

Lord Scott ,  Lord Bingham ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Nicholls ,  Lord Steyn

Appeal against conviction

Crime

Protocol 1 Article 1

ss 739 – 743 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

State enjoys wide margin of appreciation in combating tax avoidance so that Art 1 Prot 1 not breached by interpretation of legislation that maintained tax liability of off-shore transferee while also deeming on-shore transferor to be liable, even if considered double taxation

Director of Public Prosecutions v Avery
2001 EWCA Admin 748 TLR 8/11/01 (2002) Crim LR 142

11 October 2001

High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Newman J ,  Brooke LJ

case stated by justices after acquittal

Police

Article 5,  Article 8

s 60 (4A) Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

When exercising power under s 60(4A) CJPOA 1994 to require person to remove an item worn to conceal identity, police need not comply with i) search requirement under ss 2 & 3 of PACE (officer to state name, station and reason for personal search) because s 60(4A) power does not involve ‘search’; ii) Art 5(2), because power does not involve as restraint on liberty

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman
2001 UKHL 47

11 October 2001

House of Lords

Lord Hoffmann ,  Lord Slynn ,  Lord Clyde ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Steyn

Appeal

Immigration

Article 10,  Article 11,  Article 8

s 2 (1) (c), s 4 Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 s 3(5) Immigration Act 1971

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998

No effect on outcome but Lord Steyn suggests that courts may have more role in considering issues of national security than had previously been the case as result HRA

South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter & others
LTL 12/10/2001 TLR 9/11/2001 (2002) 1 All ER 425

12 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Simon Brown LJ ,  Peter Gibson LJ ,  Tuckey LJ

Appeal (County Court)

Planning

Article 8

s187B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (court's power on application by local planning authority to gratn an injunction to restrain a breach of planning control)

In exercising discretion under s187B TCPA 1990 to grant injunctive relief, court i) to reach own determination as to proportionality of interference under Art 8; ii) ensure injunction does not impose excessive burden on individual’s private interests, including private life, home & retention of ethnic identity

Brazil v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & the Regions
2001 EWHC Admin 991

12 October 2001

High Court (Administrative)

Scott Baker J

Planning appeal (s 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990)

Planning

Article 8

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Planning inspector took art 8 considerations and balancing exercise into account in appropriate way.

R v Bowes
2001 EWCA Crim 2170

15 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Rose LJ ,  Goldring J ,  Hooper J

Criminal

Crime - other

Art 6(1)

Obiter, a delay of three and a half years between the grant of leave to appeal and the hearing was a breach of art 6 requirement for trial within a reasonable time, but did not automatically render the conviction unsafe. Conviction overturned on other ground.

Friends Provident Life Office v (1) Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions & (2) Norwich City Council (3) Lend Lease Norwich Ltd (Interested Parties)
LTL 1/11/2001

16 October 2001

High Court

Forbes J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Planning

Article 6

s 77 Town & Country Planning Act 1990

No infringement of claimant’s rights under Art 6(1) ECHR where Secretary of State’s refused to call in planning application: local planning authority’s procedures, taken in combination with High Court’s power of review, complied with Art 6 requirement for independent & impartial tribunal

McClellan v (1) Bracknell Forest District Council (2) Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Interested Party) & others
2001 EWCA Civ 1510 LTL 16/10/2001 TLR 3/12/2001 (2002) UKHRR 45 (2002) 1 All ER 899 (2002) HRLR 12

16 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Waller LJ ,  Kay LJ ,  Latham LJ

Appeal (High Court)

Housing

Article 14,  Article 6,  Article 8

Housing Act 1996, Schedule 2, Chapter 1 of Part V

1) Scheme for introductory tenancies in the public housing sector under HA 1996 compatible with Arts 6 & 8 ECHR: although Arts 6/8 engaged, combination of i) housing authority internal review procedure and ii) possibility of judicial review (scope of which not “set in stone”) provides sufficient guarantee of tenant’s Convention rights; 2) Art 14 not engaged

R (McGowan) v Brent Justices
2001 EWHC Admin 814

17 October 2001

High Court (Administrative)

Silber J ,  Tuckey LJ

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Crime - fair hearing

Art 6(1)

s 1 (3A) Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Sufficiency of justices’ reasons dependant on nature of decision – essence of exercise is to inform defendant why finding of guilt made

R (Abacha & Bagudu) v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Federal Republic of Nigeria (Interested Party)
2001 EWHC Admin 787 LTL 18/10/2001

18 October 2001

High Court (Divisional Court)

Silber J ,  Tuckey LJ

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Crime - procedure

Article 8

s 4(2A) Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

Any interference with private (including business) life in Home Secretary’s decision to transmit and accede to requests for disclosure from foreign state authorities justified, on facts, as necessary to prevent crime/protect rights of others

R (Pretty) v DPP & another, Medical Ethics Alliance & Others, Interveners (for appeal, see R(on the application of Pretty) v DPP & Secretary of State for Home Department (Interested Party) 29.11.2001)
2001 EWHC Admin 788

18 October 2001

High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Hale LJ ,  Silber J ,  Tuckey LJ

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Health,  Right to life

Article 14,  Article 2,  Article 3,  Article 9

Suicide Act 1961, s2(1)

Suicide Act s2(1) not incompatible with ECHR, did not require interpretation under s3 HRA 1988

R (Saadi & others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2001 EWCA Civ 1512 TLR 22/10/2001 (2001) 4 All ER 961 (2002) 1 WLR 356

19 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Lord Phillips MR ,  Schiemann LJ ,  Waller LJ

Appeal (High Court QBD)

Asylum,  Other

Article 5

Asylum & Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 2 paras. 16(1) & 16(2)

Home Secretary’s policy under IAA 1971 of providing “fast-track” facility at Oakington for detention of certain asylum seekers for processing of applications within period of about 7 days, and detention itself, lawful, under both law as was pre-HRA 1998, and Art 5(1)(f) ECHR; in this context proportionality relevant only in relation to length of detention, and not to statutory provision for detention in itself

Financial Services Authority v Rourke
LTL 19/10/2001 extempore TLR 1/2/2000

19 October 2001

High Court (Chancery Division)

Neuberger J

Application for summary judgment

Other

Article 6

Banking Act 1987

R. 40.20 Civil Procedure Rules

Neither Art 6(2) nor Art 6(3) engaged in court’s grant of application for summary judgment for declaration that defendant had contravened provisions of BA 1987, notwithstanding that same facts could give rise to criminal liability: i) Art 6(2) applies only to criminal proceedings; ii) Art 6(3) not an absolute right, otherwise would prohibit all summary procedures

R (SR) v Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
2001 EWHC Admin 802

19 October 2001

High Court (Administrative)

Brooke LJ ,  Newman J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Crime - sentencing

Article 14,  Article 5,  Article 8

s 23(4) – (5A) Children and Young Persons Act 1969

Art 14, in conjunction with 5 and 8, not breached by legislation that allows 15 & 16 year old boys to be remanded to young offender institutions, while 15 & 16 year old girls may only be remanded to local authority secure accommodation units: any discrimination pursued legitimate aim (accommodation of all juvenile detainees most appropriately close to homes) and was proportionate

Silverton v Gravett

19 October 2001

High Court (Quenn's Bench Division)

Bentley QC

Application for injunction

Public order

Article 10,  Article 11

s 1 Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Restriction of animal-rights protestors’ rights under Arts 10 and 11 by court’s injunction under PHA 1997 held justified to protect rights of others

R (Wilkinson) v (1) Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital (2) Mental Health Act Commission Second Opinion Doctor, & Secretary of State for Health (Interested Party)
TLR 2/11/2001 (2002) 1 WLR 419

22 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Simon Brown LJ ,  Brooke LJ ,  Hale LJ

Appeal (High Court)

Crime - evidence

Article 14,  Article 2,  Article 3,  Article 6,  Article 8

Mental Health Act 1983, Part IV

On application for judicial review, by detained mental health patient who has mental capacity, of his doctors’ decision to administer medical treatment without his consent, court required under HRA 1998 to reach its own independent view of merits of the medical decision and whether it infringed patients human rights, so that patient entitled to require attendance of medical witnesses for cross examination

R (Harris) v Official Solicitor
2001 EWHC Admin 798

22 October 2001

High Court (Administrative)

Munby J

Judicial Review (application for permission)

Family

Article 5,  Article 6,  Article 8,  Other Article

Article 13

Lord Chancellor’s Direction - Role of Official Solicitor 1963

Application of ss 22(4) and 7 (1)(b) to prevent retrospectivity in proceedings taken by applicant

R v Taylor
2001 EWCA Crim 2263

23 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Rose LJ ,  Davis LJ ,  Sir Richard Tucker LJ

Appeal (conviction and sentence)

Crime

Article 8,  Article 9

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

1) Any interference with rights under ECHR Arts 9/8 in prosecution / conviction of Rastafarian for possession with intent to supply Class B drugs under s5 MDA 1971, or in the terms of MDA itself, justified under Arts 9(2) / 8(2), as necessary to combat dangers to public health and safety 2) MDA 1971 could not be read as incorporating religious defence under Arts 9 or 8: R v Lambert (2001) 3 WLR 206)

UK Coal Mining Ltd v Secretary of State for Local Government, Transport and the Regions
2001 EWHC Admin 912 LTL 28/11/2001

23 October 2001

High Court (Administrative Court)

Ouseley J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Planning

Article 6

n/a

Obiter: Art 6’s requirement for “speedy determination” breached where Secretary of State failed at review hearing to advance any particular reasons for 32-month delay during determination of called-in planning application

R v Loosely; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 2000)
2001 UKHL 53 [2001] 1 WLR 2060 LTL 25/10/2001 TLR 29/10/2001 (2001) 4 All ER 897 (2002) HRLR 8 2002 1 CAR 29

25 October 2001

House of Lords

Lord Hoffman ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Mackay ,  Lord Nicholls ,  Lord Scott

Appeal (conviction); AG’s reference

Crime

Article 6

s 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

common law (inherent jurisdiction / abuse of process)

In relation to entrapment, there was no appreciable difference between Art 6’s standard, that a trial’s fairness is violated if the crime was incited or instigated by police officers (Texeira de Castro v Portugal 28 EHRR 101), and English law as developed in recent years (Nottingham CC v Amin [2000] 1 WLR 1071)

R (Anufrijeva) v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Secretary of State for Social Security
2001 EWHC Admin 895

25 October 2001

High Court (QBD)

Sir Christopher Bellamy QC

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Asylum,  Social/welfare benefits

Article 14,  Article 3,  Article 6,  Article 8

HRA 1998

s70 (3A)(b)(i) Income Support (General) Regulations 1987

ECHR/HRA points raised in judicial review irrelevant where pre-Oct 2000 executive decisions challenged: although interpretive obligation in s3(1) HRA applicable to legislation “whenever enacted”, this does not oblige court retrospectively to reinterpret to give meaning different to that in force at time in question (R v Lambert [2001] 2 Cr App R 511 HL (E) applied)

R v Sargent
2001 UKHL 54 TLR 30/10/01 [2001] 3 WLR 992

25 October 2001

House of Lords

Lord Hobhouse ,  Lord Hope ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Nicholls ,  Lord Steyn

Appeal (conviction)

Crime - evidence

Art 6(1)

s 1 Interception of Communications Act 1985 s 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

1) Admission of confession obtained by showing suspect content of incriminating but illegally obtained phone interception (itself inadmissible under s 1 ICA 1985) did not violate Art 6 (1). 2) S 78 PACE provides essential safeguard to ensure fair trial

Pine v Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal
2001 EWCA Civ 1574

25 October 2001

Court of Appeal

Andrew Morritt V-C ,  Arden LJ ,  Buxton LJ

Appeal

Disciplinary proceedings

Art 6(1)

s 49 Solicitors Act 1974

Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1994

There is a right to free legal representation in civil proceedings only in exceptional circumstances, such that to deny it would make assertion of claim virtually impossible. This will depend on the facts of each case.