Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had originally travelled to Italy and sought asylum or refugee status, but had left Italy and arrived in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State determined that they should be returned to Italy and certified their claims as clearly unfounded. The appellants had all sought judicial review of those decisions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had concluded, based on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other cases: C-411/10 and C-493/10 [2012] All ER (EC) 1011 (NS), that the sole ground on which a second state was required to exercise its power under art 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation to entertain a re-application for asylum or humanitarian protection, and to refrain from returning the applicant to the state of first arrival, was that the source of risk to the applicant was a systemic deficiency, known to the former, in the latter's asylum or reception procedures. On the facts, the situation in Italy had not reached that mark. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred and misinterpreted NS. The correct test had remained that in Soering v United Kingdom (Application 14038/88)[1989] ECHR 14038/88. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The proceedings concerned the proper construction of a rent review clause contained in two 99-year building leases of commercial property. The Chancery Division held that, on the proper construction of the clause, where a landlord had elected not to instigate a rent review, the rent remained at the previous increased level. 

Family proceedings – Care. The mother of a six-year-old boy made allegations about the father. In the course of care proceedings, the judge made factual findings against the parents. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, found that, although the judge had relied on an interview with the boy, arguably failing to meet achieving best evidence interview guidance, the case had turned on the mother's reliability. There was nothing to undermine the judge's conclusions, given that he had had the parents before him and there had been no detectable error in the judge's approach to the law or the material that had been put before him. 

Broadcasting – Television. Sky provided premium pay TV services which showed major sporting events such as premier league football matches. Ofcom investigated and found that Sky's practices in restricting wholesale access by Sky's competitors to those channels was prejudicial to fair and effective competition. It also made adverse findings in respect of the pricing models that Sky had adopted. Ofcom exercised its jurisdiction under s 316 of the Communications Act 2003 to impose conditions on Sky's broadcasting licences. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed Sky's appeal against Ofcom's jurisdiction to impose conditions but allowed its appeal on the pricing issue. Sky appealed the jurisdiction point. Sky's competitors also appealed against the CAT's refusal to consider other issues relating to pricing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that Ofcom did have jurisdiction under s 316 of the Act and held that the CAT had erred in not considering further issues relating to pricing. The matter was remitted. 

Citizenship – United Kingdom citizenship. The claimant was a national of Botswana who had served in the British Army. He applied for naturalisation as a British citizen. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and upheld that decision on review (the decisions) on the grounds that she was not satisfied that the claimant met the 'good character' requirement for naturalisation within para 1(1) of sch 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 because he had a conviction for exceeding a temporary 50 mph speed limit. Allowing his claim for judicial review, the Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had not properly weighed in the balance the strong countervailing evidence of the claimant's good character against the fact of his conviction, in order to make an overall assessment of his character, as was required by law. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant, who had a history of mental health issues, sustained his head injuries outside the Accident and Emergency Department whilst en route from a police station to hospital pursuant to being 'sectioned' under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. He brought a clam against the defendant NHS trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that the trust was liable as the security guards had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the claimant; and that failure caused him to suffer injury. 

Criminal law – Intention. The defendants were convicted of attempted murder and two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. They appealed against conviction on the basis that it was not possible to seek a conviction for two different offences of specific intent which had an identical actus reus and mens rea. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that within the defendants' intention to kill lay an intention to cause really serious physical harm. Proof of the mens rea for attempted murder, by definition, involved proof that the mens rea for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted on one sample count of buggery (count 3) and three other counts of buggery, including count 5, which was a specimen count. The defendant appealed against conviction for count 3 claiming, amongst other things, inconsistency of verdicts considering, in particular, the acquittal on count 5. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the jury had been entitled to reach the verdicts they had reached based upon the entirely proper directions given by the trial judge. 

Criminal evidence – Confession. The appellant was convicted of assault. At the appellant's trial, the only evidence relied upon by the Crown was a confession that the appellant had made during the course of interview (the confession). She applied to exclude that evidence, but the judge rejected that application. Dismissing her appeal by way of case stated, the Administrative Court held that the judge had been correct to: (i) reject the submission that the appellant had not properly or adequately been informed of her right to legal advice; (ii) to find that the interviewing police officer had been entitled to come to the conclusion that the appellant had in all respects been fit to be interviewed; and (iii) to find that, accordingly, the confession evidence of the appellant had in all respects been both reliable and fair and that neither s 76 nor s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had applied to exclude the confession. 

Education – Teacher. The appellant teacher appealed against the imposition of a prohibition order with no provision for review, imposed following his conviction of, among other things, having a bladed article, a s 4 Public Order Act 1986 offence and dangerous driving. The Administrative Court dismissed his application for judicial review as the appellant had been unable to demonstrate that his case had been dealt with in a way that was statistically out of kilter with other decisions.