Latest Cases

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, then aged 17 years, had taken part, with two others, in an unprovoked attack on a man, which had resulted in his death, for which a minimum term of 15 years had been imposed. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court held that the offender had clearly made exceptional progress in prison which could not have been foreseen when he had been sentenced and had earned the maximum reduction conventionally allowed of two years. 

Mental health – Patient's property. The Court of Protection made decisions regarding the patient's living arrangement and visitation rights of her family between whom there was considerable disagreement about various matter relating to her care and also to previous business dealings. The court held that publication of an anonymised judgment would be futile as so much information was already in the public domain and it was in the public interest for the court to publish its judgment in the case in a form that named individuals. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 17, had played the leading role in a violent murder, for which a tariff of 14 years had been imposed. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court, refused to recommend a reduction of the tariff, as the offender's progress had not been exceptional. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision rejecting her application for a British passport as a citizen by descent. The Administrative Court, in declaring the claimant a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies by descent, held that the claimant was the daughter of a British citizen, she had been born after he was registered as a citizen and her parents had been married. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal against an order granting the claimants relief from sanctions, pursuant to CPR 3.9(1), in respect of the claimants' failure to service notice on the defendants of the existence of a conditional fee agreement and an after the evident insurance policy within the period specified by CPR 44.15(1) and para 9.3(3) of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. There was no justification for any interference with the exercise of the judge's discretion. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of one year and two months' imprisonment for fraud offences. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not made the wrong decision in concluding that extradition had been proportionate. In particular, there was no basis for the submission that it was extremely unlikely that the care the appellant's wife needed for herself and daughter would be made available and, therefore, the daughter would be placed in foster care. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim on behalf of the estate of her deceased husband against the defendant General Practitioner who had examined the husband and discovered that he had blood pressure in the high range. The court held that, on the evidence, it was satisfied that the defendant had told the husband that his blood pressure was raised and that he should visit his regular GP to get it checked out. 

National Health Service – Medical records. An application for judicial review of the lawfulness of the guidance to the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1556, which permitted the transfer of patient data regarding non-United Kingdom resident patients to, ultimately, the Home Office for the purpose of consideration of immigration sanctions, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal. The information transferred was generally not private information vis-a-vis the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Office. The transfer was not ultra vires the NHS bodies and the Secretary of State and, finally, any interference with the claimants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was in accordance with the law. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A local authority had applied for care and placement orders in respect of three of six children. It sought care orders in respect of the others. The judge refused the application, relying heavily on the impact of adoption on the relationship between the siblings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the authority's appeal as the judge had had the correct factors in mind and because the court had to consider the relevant child's relationships with all of his relatives and the wishes and feelings of those relatives, which included siblings. 

Parliament – Member. The present judgment concerned the hearing of preliminary issues relating to the status, meaning and effect of the Wilson Doctrine, to the effect that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave guidance on its application with respect to s 8(1) and (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and held that the doctrine was not legally enforceable and that the regime for interception complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.