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.

R (Bempoa) v Southward London Borough Council
2002 EWHC Admin 153

14 February 2002

High Court (Admin)

Munby J

Application for contempt proceedings

Housing

Article 8,  Protocol 1 Article 1

Contempt

Eviction in breach of local authority’s earlier unqualified undertaking given to the court held unlawful under s 6 HRA 1998 as violation of Art 8

R (Hooper & others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
2002 EWHC Admin 191 [2002] All ER (D) 193 Feb

14 February 2002

High Court (Admin)

Moses J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Discrimination,  Social/welfare benefits

Article 14,  Article 8,  Protocol 1 Article 1

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, s36, 37, 38

Social Security (Claims & Payments) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1968 as amended by SI 1997/793))

1) ss 36-38 SSCBA 1992 breached Art 14 in conjunction with Art 1 Prot 1 as discriminatory against widowers; and as the sections could not be read compatibly declaration of incompatibly would be made under s4 HRA; 2) it had not been unlawful to give effect to the relevant provisions.

R (Ayres) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
2002 EWHC Admin 295 [2002] All ER (D) 131 (Mar)

19 February 2002

High Court (Admin)

Silber J

Appeal (planning inspector)

Planning

Article 8

s288 Town & Country Planning Act 1990

On the facts: i) interference with applicant's rights under Art 8 was proportionate to protection of the countryside in the public interest and other development plan considerations; ii) no evidence indicative of discrimination under Art 14 on grounds of gypsy status

R v Jones
2002 UKHL 5

20 February 2002

House of Lords

Lord Bingham ,  Lord Hoffmann ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Nolan ,  Lord Rodger

Appeal (certified as question of general importance)

Crime - procedure

Art 6(3),  Article 6

Common law as to trial in absence of accused

Discretion to commence a trial in the absence of an accused who had voluntarily absconded was not inconsistent with Art 6(1); discretion must however, be exercised very carefully

Lindsay v Customs & Excise Commissioners
2002 EWCA Civ 267

20 February 2002

Court of Appeal

Carnwath LJ ,  Judge LJ ,  Lord Phillips MR

Appeal (VADT)

Property,  Taxation - procedure

Protocol 1 Article 1

Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, ss49, 141, 152

Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 as amended by Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1999 and Channel Tunnel (Alcoholic Liquor and Tobacco Products) Order 2000; Commissioners' policy DCL 13 July 2000

Commissioners' policy, pursuant to the Directive and 1992 Order, relating to forfeiture and restoration of vehicles discovered in use for transportation of dutiable goods on cross-border shopping trips held unlawful, as disproportionate interference with Art 1 Prot 1, in: i) providing that importation of dutiable goods on behalf of friends and family, but not for profit, is "commercial"; ii) failing to provide that value of vehicle in question is a consideration relevant to determination whether it should be forfeit

R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

21 February 2002

High Court (Divisional Court)

Simon Brown LJ ,  Scott Baker J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Independent and impartial tribunal

Article 6

s133 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Although SSHD was not “impartial and independent tribunal” under Art 6 when determining a claim for compensation under s133 CJA 1988, requirements of Art 6 were met because SS’s decisions are subject to court's supervisory jurisdiction, sufficiency of which, for purposes of Art 6, depends on facts of particular case (Bryan v UK [1996] 21 EHRR 342); where, as here, as issue was entirely one of statutory construction, review jurisdiction is sufficient, and s 133 CJA 1988 therefore compatible with Art 6

R (Ponting) v (1) Governor HMP Whitemoor & (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department
2002 EWCA Civ 224

22 February 2002

Court of Appeal

Arden LJ ,  Clarke LJ ,  Schiemann LJ

Appeal (judicial review)

Prisoners

Article 6,  Article 8

Prison Service Instruction 1/2/01

No breach of a disabled prisoner’s Art 6 right of access to legal advice and to court arising from imposition of conditions regulating use of computer facilities

T v Mental Health Review Tribunal & G (Interested Party)

22 February 2002

High Court (QBD)

Scott Baker J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Mental health

Article 2,  Article 8

MHRT Rules SI 1983/942, r21(5)

Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post & Another [1991] 2 AC 370

Where former partner (T, who was not party to the MHRT proceedings) of a patient (G) detained under ss37 & 41 MHA 1983, sought disclosure of MHRT’s reasons for, and conditions attached to, its decision to grant G deferred conditional discharge: i) Art 2 not engaged: even if G posed risk to T's life, this fell far short of threshold for positive obligations under Osman v UK ([1999] 1 FLR 193); ii) Art 8 not engaged: insufficient evidence before court to establish minimum level of severity for Art 8 engagement reached

International Transport Roth GmbH & others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2002 EWCA Civ 158 TLR 26/2/02

22 February 2002

Court of Appeal

Laws LJ ,  Jonathan Parker LJ ,  Simon Brown LJ

Appeal (judicial review)

Immigration

Art 6(1),  Art 6(2),  Art 6(3),  Article 6,  Protocol 1 Article 1

Part II Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

The Carrier's Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000 The Carrier's Liability (Clandestine Entrants)(Code of Practice) Order 2000

Declaration of incompatibility upheld (High Court, TLR 11.12.01) in relation to scheme under Pt II IAA 1999 to penalise carriers bringing clandestine entrants into UK, as in violation of: 1) Art 6, because in combination, reversed burden of proof; power to detain vehicles as security; and substantial inflexible penalties not fixed by an independent and impartial tribunal, amounted to a scheme criminal in nature; and 2) Art 1 Prot 1, given scale and inflexibility of penalties imposed on carriers

Jones v 3M Healthcare Ltd & Others
2002 EWCA Civ 304

27 February 2002

Court of Appeal

Mummery LJ ,  Latham LJ ,  Pill LJ

Appeals (EAT)

Disability,  Employment

Article 14,  Article 3,  Article 6,  Article 8,  Other Article

Art 13

Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II (Employment), ss4 & 55

HRA 1998 inapplicable where originating facts occurred before 2 October 2000; arguments relying on Arts 3,6,8, 13 & 14 as an aid to construction of s4(2) DDA 1995 therefore misconceived

H (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited; A (A Healthcare Worker) v N (A Health Authority)
2002 EWCA Civ 195

27 February 2002

Court of Appeal

Carnwath LJ ,  Judge LJ ,  Lord Phillips MR

Appeal (High Court)

Freedom of expression,  Health - confidentiality

Article 10

CPR 39.2

Inherent jurisdiction

Court has inherent jurisdiction to restrain publication of information made available in the course, or as a result of, conduct of proceedings where its disclosure would pre-empt court's decision on issues before it; correlate restriction of freedom of expression justified under Art 10(2)

R(PG) v London Borough of Ealing, Ealing Hospital Managers & Scott
2002 EWHC Admin 250

28 February 2002

High Court (QBD)

Munby J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Civil procedure

Article 6,  Other Article

General ECHR/HRA obligations

CPR 54 and 8.6

High Court's inherent jurisdiction

Exceptionally, i) High Court's obligations under Art 6, and ii) intensity of review demanded by an alleged breach of Convention rights, may require the court to order oral cross-examination; power to do so arises from CPR 32.1, 3.1(2)(m) and / or inherent jurisdiction

R (McFayden) v Secretary of State for Home Department
2002 EWHC Admin 790

04 March 2002

High Court (Administrative)

Roderick Evans J

Judicial review

Prisoners

Article 8

s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1991

r 3 Prison Rules 1999

Art 8 not engaged by Home Office decision not to guarantee place on prison sex offender course to a recalled discretionary life prisoner, intended to decrease risk of reoffending and increase likelihood of future release

R (Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

07 March 2002

High Court (Admin)

Wilson J

Judicial review

Social/welfare benefits

Article 14,  Article 3,  Article 8,  Protocol 1 Article 1

s4 Jobseekers Act 1995

Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 SI 1996/207

irrationality

1) Contribution-dependent JSA (JSA(C)), but not income support, is "possession" under Art 1 Prot 1; 2) Arts 1 Prot 1 and 14 not breached by age-banding of payment levels of contribution-based JSA (setting different levels for single persons under and over 25-yrs), as discrimination not "manifestly without reasonable foundation", and therefore "justified" (allowing wide margin of discretion); 3) neither Art 8 nor Art 3 breached by amount of JSA (C) payments

Financial Times Ltd & Others v Interbrew SA
2002 EWCA Civ 274

08 March 2002

Court of Appeal

Sedley LJ ,  Longmore LJ ,  Ward LJ

Appeal (High Court)

Freedom of expression

Article 10

S10 Contempt of Court Act 1981

Norwich Pharmacal [1974] AC 133 jurisdiction

Guidelines for operation of s10 CCA 1981 compatibly with Art 10 ECHR in context of Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction

R(Prolife Alliance) v BBC & Others
2002 EWCA Civ 297

14 March 2002

Court of Appeal

Jonathan Parker ,  Laws LJ ,  Simon Brown LJ

Judicial review (appeal)

Freedom of expression

Article 10

Broadcasting Act 1990 s6(1); Broadcasting Act 1996, ss109 & 110

freedom of expression

Respondents’ refusal to transmit claimant's proposed party election broadcast on grounds of taste and decency unlawful as disproportionate interference with P’s freedom of expression

In Re S (FC) In Re S and Others In Re W and Others (FC) In Re W and Others (Second Appeal) (Consolidated Appeals)
2002 UKHL 10

14 March 2002

House of Lords

Lord Nicholls ,  Lord Browne-Wilkinson ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Mackay ,  Lord Mustill

Appeals

Family,  HRA 1998

Article 6,  Article 8

Children Act 1989 Parts III & IV

i) CA 1989 not incompatible with Arts 8 or 6 ECHR; ii) Court of Appeal's judicial innovation under s3 HRA 1998 of system of court supervision of implementation of care plans made under full care orders (W & B (Children): W (Child)(Care Plan) [2001] EWCA Civ 757) exceeded limits of interpretation under s3 HRA 1998 and breached CA 1989’s cardinal principle that full care order transfers responsibility for parental care to local authority; iii) obiter CA 1989 might contravene Art 8 rights of children who lack parent /guardian to bring any breach to court’s attention

R (Bono) v Harlow District Council
2002 EWHC Admin 423

15 March 2002

High Court (QBD)

Richards J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Housing,  Independent and impartial tribunal

Article 6

s63(3) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

Reg 73(1) Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987

Obiter s 6(2)(b) HRA 1998 did not apply so as to protect from liability under s6 acts or decisions of a public authority under subordinate legislation where those acts, while permitted, were not required by the terms of the relevant enabling primary legislation

Rusbridger and Toynbee v Attorney General
2002 EWCA Civ 397

20 March 2002

Court of Appeal

Schiemann LJ ,  JonathanParker LJ ,  May LJ

Appeal against refusal to grant permission for judicial review

Media

Article 10

s 3 Treason Felony Act 1848

Permission to challenge s 3 TFA 1848 granted, on basis that incompatible with the right of freedom of expression to criminalise advocacy of republicanism

R v Leonard Cheshire Foundation (a charity) & Another
2002 EWCA Civ 366 TLR 08.04.02

21 March 2002

Court of Appeal

Dyson LJ ,  Laws LJ ,  Lord Woolf CJ

Judicial review (appeal on preliminary issue)

Charities,  Health

Article 8

s6 HRA 1998; ss21 & 26 National Assistance Act 1948

CPR Part 54

A charitable sector provider of residential care homes with whom local health and social services had arrangements to provide accommodation for persons owed a duty under s21 NAA 1948 did not perform a "public function" within s6 HRA 1998; obiter where such arrangements were entered into after 2 October 2000, local authorities might be required to contract in terms protecting residents’ Art 8 rights

R v Shayler
2002 UKHL 11 TLR 22/3/02

21 March 2002

House of Lords

Lord Bingham ,  Lord Hobhouse ,  Lord Hope ,  Lord Hutton ,  Lord Scott

Appeal (from pre-trial hearing)

Crime

Art 6(1),  Article 10

ss 1 & 4 Official Secrets Act 1989s s 29 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

No disproportionate interference with Art 10 in OSA 1989’s ban on release of documents and information gained in course of employment by former member of security forces

R (Green) v Police Complaints Commission (appellant) and Secretary of State for Home Department, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, DS Lawrence, Liberty and the Crown Prosecution Service (interested parties)
2002 EWCA Civ 389 TLR 6/5/02

26 March 2002

Court of Appeal

Simon Brown LJ ,  Chadwick LJ ,  Hale LJ

Appeal (judicial review)

Police

Article 2,  Article 3

Part IV Police Act 1996

Complainant not entitled to disclosure of witness statements made in course of a PCA investigation – no legitimate interest as an alleged victim of Art 2 and 3 breach entitling him to disclosure

R(A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd
2002 EWHC Admin 529 2002 All ER (D) 23 (Apr)

11 April 2002

High Court (Admin)

Keith J

Judicial review (preliminary issue)

Health,  Mental health

Article 3,  Article 8

s3(1) & 23 National Health Service Act 1977; s6 Human Rights Act 1998; Registered Homes Act 1984

CPR Part 54.1; NHS Regulations 747/2001; Reg 12(1) Nursing Homes & Mental Health Nursing Homes Regulations 1984 SI 1984/1528

On a preliminary issue: Hospital managers' decision to change the focus of a ward within a private hospital was i) an act of a public nature under s6 HRA 1998 and ii) within CPR 54.1, as a decision made "in relation to the exercise of a public function", and therefore amenable to judicial review

R (Farrakhan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2002 EWCA Civ 606 TLR 6/5/02

30 April 2002

Court of Appeal

Lord Phillips MR ,  Arden LJ ,  Potter LJ

Appeal by Home Secretary of Judicial Review

Immigration

Article 10,  Article 16

s 1 Immigration Act 1970 s 59 - 60 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Public Order Act 1986

On facts, interference with F’s freedom of expression (caused by his exclusion from UK) was lawful, as proportionate to legitimate aim of preventing disorder