EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950

[2004] EWCA Civ 1031
[2004] EWCA Civ 1031
CA (Civ Div) (Tuckey LJ, Clarke LJ, Jackson J)
1 January 1970

Where evidence before a parole board came from a source who would be at risk were his identity to be disclosed to the prisoner, the board had an inherent power to devise procedures to protect that source, including a direction that his evidence should be withheld from the prisoner or from his legal representatives. The board also had the power, through the specially appointed advocate procedure, to mitigate any unfairness to the prisoner caused by the withholding of such evidence.

[2004] EWCA Civ 943
[2004] EWCA Civ 943
CA (Civ Div) (Auld LJ, Neuberger LJ, Holman J)
1 January 1970

The rule of absolute immunity from suit applied to complaints made to an employment tribunal about unlawful discriminatory conduct in the course of an internal police disciplinary hearing.

[2004] EWHC 362 (Admin)
[2004] EWHC 362 (Admin)
DC (Rose LJ, David Clarke J)
1 January 1970

The solicitor of a person alleged to have driven while disqualified could be compelled to give evidence as to whether that person had had a disqualification order made against them if the solicitor had been in court when the disqualification order was made.

[2004] EWCA Civ 199
[2004] EWCA Civ 199
CA (Civ Div) (Waller LJ, Longmore LJ, Maurice Kay LJ)
1 January 1970

Where judicial review proceedings were initiated in the High Court following the administration of a police caution, the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the High Court. The consequent inability of the appellant to bring such an appeal was not a breach of his human rights.

[2004] EWHC 69 (Admin)
[2004] EWHC 69 (Admin)
DC (May LJ, Harrison J)
1 January 1970

A conviction under s.5 Public Order Act 1986 was, in the circumstances, an interference with the appellant’s human rights under Art.9 and Art.10 European Convention on Human Rights that was justified by the pressing social need to show tolerance to others. It had not been perverse for Wimbourne Magistrates court to hold that the words used on a sign in public were insulting within the meaning of s.5 Public Order Act 1986 and the appellant had no defence of reasonable conduct.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1845
[2003] EWCA Civ 1845
CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Keene LJ, Munby J)
1 January 1970

The parole board’s decision to continue to detain a prisoner who had been subject to recall during an extended licence period was a decision which attracted the safeguards of Art.5 European Convention on Human Rights and therefore the detention had to be consistent with the objectives of the original sentence and would be subject to regular reviews compliant with Art.5.4

[2003] EWHC 3120 (Admin)
[2003] EWHC 3120 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Maurice Kay J)
1 January 1970

A parole board had not erred by deciding that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of a specially appointed advocate to represent a prisoner in respect of sensitive material to be relied on by the secretary of state in a parole review.

DC (Rose LJ, Jackson J)
1 January 1970

The circumstances of the search and seizure of items without warrant from premises, in the context of extradition proceedings, fell outside the common law powers of search and seizure prescribed by authority.

[2003] EWHC 3253 (Admin)
[2003] EWHC 3253 (Admin)
DC (Rose LJ, Jackson J)
1 January 1970

On a proper construction of the legislation, the magistrates’ court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Swainmote to hear summons’ alleging breaches of the Byelaws of the New Forest.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1844
[2003] EWCA Civ 1844
CA (Civ Div) (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (President), Brooke LJ, Latham LJ)
1 January 1970

The fact that a small number of people could be identified as the only ones capable of having committed the offence could, in principle, afford reasonable grounds for suspecting each of them of the offence. The reasonableness of a police officer’s decision to arrest had to be considered bearing in mind the effect on the suspects’ right to liberty under Art.5 European Convention on Human Rights.

Scroll to top