Reviews

Immigration – Trafficking. The court had jurisdiction to grant general interim relief in respect of persons other than the individual claimants who were not claimants before it. The Administrative Court further held that there was a serious issue to be tried in the claimants' judicial review proceedings challenging the defendant Secretary of State's policy of ending support 45 days after a conclusive determination that a person was a victim of modern slavery/people trafficking and the balance of convenience came down in favour of granting the general relief sought.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. A proposed care plan that would involve an element of deception was compliant with the individual's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, provided the best interests exercise had been carried out. If the care plan was in a person's best interests for deception or misrepresentation to take place, then the court would be obliged to authorise that. Accordingly, the Court of Protection, in allowing the applicant NHS trust's application for declarations to the extent stated in the judgment, ruled that it was in the best interests of a young autistic woman who suffered from severe abdominal pain to undergo a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and colonoscopy (with associated surgical procedures), and for the proposed care plan to be implemented in its final amended form.

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant Criminal Cases Review Commission had made no error of law in deciding not to refer the claimant's murder conviction to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review.

Prison – Prisoner. The complaint of the applicant prisoners that they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had, accordingly, been prevented from voting in elections had disclosed a breach of art 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A3P1). The European Court of Human Rights held that, at the date of the index elections which preceded the package of measures adopted by the respondent government, the statutory ban on prisoners voting in elections had been, by reason of its blanket character, incompatible with A3P1.

Immigration – Detention. There had been a violation of art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights by the claimant's immigration detention from 4 March 2011 to 6 July 2011 due to the deficiencies in her detention reviews. The European Court of Human Rights further held that the applicant had to have suffered distress as a result of being unlawfully detained in immigration detention and would be awarded €3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.