Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant sought judicial review of his ongoing detention pending deportation. Little was known about his personal circumstances and basic questions had bedevilled the defendant Secretary of State's attempts to deport him. The Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the claimant's detention up until the date of the instant proceedings had been lawful. However, the Secretary of State faced new difficulties in deporting the claimant and it had become clear that there was no longer any realistic prospect of removing him within a reasonable timescale. Accordingly, applying settled law, the claimant's continued detention beyond the period needed to establish accommodation and to ensure compliance with bail conditions would be unlawful. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by two appellants charged with assault who lodged minutes objecting to the admissibility of evidence obtained from the first appellant's iPhone which the Crown sought to rely on, the court agreed with the conclusion of the sheriff, who dismissed the minutes, holding that there was no illegality or irregularity in recovering the evidence objected to and that the evidence was admissible. 

Sentence – Murder. The defendant was convicted of murder of her 11 month old son and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years. The Attorney General brought a reference, pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, on the basis that the proper balancing of the relevant factors should have led to an increase above the 15 year starting point indicated by Sch 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that the aggravating features of the case considerably outweighed the available mitigation so that the sentence passed by the judge had been unduly lenient and substituted a minimum term of 17 years. 

Insolvency – Voluntary arrangement. The second claimant, P, and his wife, entered into individual voluntary agreements (IVAs) with creditors. P sought a declaration that the IVAs were a nullity. He submitted that he had not expressly consented to modification made to the IVAs, and that the proxy of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had been used in favour of the modification without authority. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the claim would be dismissed. 

Police – Complaint against police. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police's decision dismissing his appeal against a decision rejecting his complaint against various police officers. The claimant contended that CCTV footage demonstrated that two officers had fabricated their accounts in order to justify their actions, including his arrest. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant's decision had been fair and reasonable, as the footage had been inconclusive. 

Judicial review – Act of Scottish Parliament. Court of Session: At the hearing of a reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary's rejection of a challenge to the legality of an enactment prohibiting the sale of alcohol on licensed premises at a price below the minimum price specified by order of the Scottish Ministers, the challenge proceeding entirely on the basis of European Union Law, the court concluded that it should exercise its discretion to request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police's decisions to include on and not to remove from an enhanced criminal records certificate certain information concerning his sexual comments. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inclusion of the matters represented a disproportionate interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Highway – Definitive map. In a test case with the potential to affect 500 to 1000 other public rights of way, the claimant challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision, upholding a local authority's refusal to modify the definitive map of the area to include a public bridleway. The Administrative Court determined that, properly construed, s 10 of the Inclosure (Consolidation) Act 1801 was designed to deal with 'private' rights of way only. Accordingly, the authority had been right to reject the claimant's claim and the Secretary of State had been right to dismiss the appeal. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant was excluded from the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State as his presence in the UK was thought not to be conducive to the public good. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. The Administrative Court held that the decision to exclude had been lawful and a decision by the Secretary of State to exclude a foreign national person from the UK, on the grounds that his presence was not conducive to the public good, did not require the level of detailed reasons expected from public law decision-makers in other areas. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had been employed for a number of years in a role which had involved regular exposure to asbestos. He developed diffuse pleural thickening and issued proceedings seeking compensation. As the employing companies had not had insurance, he issued proceedings against the defendant parent company. The county court judge found, on the evidence, that the defendant had owed the claimant a duty of care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal. The basis upon which the judge had found a duty of care stemming from the defendant's appointment of a director to the employing company had been unsustainable. Further, the limited evidence available had fallen far short of that required to establish such a duty.