| |
|
|
| |
|
Case |
|
Webster
& French |
|
Issue |
|
Sentence
referred by the Attorney General as an unduly lenient
sentence. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
8
June 2006 |
|
Outcome |
|
View
Judgment |
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Attorney
General's Reference No 80 of 2005 sub nom R v Wedlock-Ward
(Adam Arthur) [2005] EWCA Crim 3367.
|
|
Issue |
|
Sentence
referred by the Attorney General as an unduly lenient
sentence. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
16
November 2005 |
|
Outcome |
|
Court held that the original non-custodial sentence
was unduly lenient and replaced it with a sentence
of 2 years' imprisonment. |
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Oakley
Inc v Animal Ltd and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1191.
The
Attorney General appeared for the Secretary of
State (Intervener).
|
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the Registered Designs Regulations 2001, reg. 12,
had been validly made by the Secretary of State
under section 2 (2) of the European Communities
Act 1972. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
20
October 2005 |
|
Outcome |
|
The Court held that they were validly made.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Jackson
and others v Attorney General (Hunting Act 2004)
[2005] UKHL 56 |
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the legislative process provided for under the Parliament
Act 1911 can validly be used to amend the provisions
of the 1911 Act itself, and hence whether the Parliament
Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 (which was passed
under the 1911 Act as amended by the 1949 Act) are
valid Acts of Parliament. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
13
October 2005 |
|
Outcome |
|
Decided
in favour of the Attorney General
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Trial
of Zardad.
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Crown. |
|
Issue |
|
First
torture case in UK legal history. Attorney General
consented to prosecute, and decided to lead the
prosecution in order to mark the case's importance. |
| |
Court |
| |
Old
Bailey |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
19
July 2005 |
|
Outcome |
|
Initially
the jury could not reach a decision. There was a
retrial in 2005 and the Defendant was convicted. |
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
v Z (Proscription of Real IRA) [2005] UKHL 35.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Crown. |
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the Real IRA was a proscribed organisation for the
purposes of s3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
19
May 2005 |
|
Outcome |
|
It
was held that the Real IRA was a proscribed organisation
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
A
(FC) and others v Secretary of State for the Home
Department; X (FC) and others v Secretary of State
for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Home
Secretary. |
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the UK's derogation from Article 5, ECHR, and the
protective detention powers in relation to suspected
foreign terrorists in the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Act 2001, were lawful. The Special
Immigration Appeals Commission was satisfied that
there was a public emergency which justified the
derogation and that in principle the protective
detention powers were lawful. However, because those
powers only applied to suspected foreign nationals,
the Special Immigration Appeals Commission held
that they were discriminatory. On appeal, the Court
of Appeal held that the legislation and underlying
derogation were lawful. It also held, allowing the
Home Secretary's appeal, that the differential treatment
of suspected foreign terrorists as compared with
suspected UK terrorists was justified and that there
was no discrimination. The applicants appealed this
decision. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
16
December 2004 |
|
Outcome |
|
Appeals
allowed. Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation)
Order 2001 quashed and declaration of incompatibility
made in respect of section 23 of ATCSA (Article
5 and 14)
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator;
Thi Lien Do v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2004] UKHL 26. |
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the domestic court had to consider Convention rights,
other than Article 3, might be engaged in the removal
of a person to the receiving state. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
17
June 2004 |
|
Outcome |
|
Other
Convention rights could be engaged in the removal
of a person from the UK, even if the anticipated
treatment by the receiving state did not reach
the minimum requirements of Article 3. However,
on the facts of these cases, the applicants had
not shown that other rights (namely article 9)
had been breached.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
(on the application of Razgar) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27.
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of the
Government
|
|
Issue |
|
Razgar
was an asylum seeker who resisted a removal decision
on the grounds that it would violate article 8 because
he was undergoing psychiatric treatment in the UK.
The Secretary of State argued that article 8 was
not violated and the applicant's claim unfounded
under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 s 72(2)(a). |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
17
June 2004 |
|
Outcome |
|
Held that the foreseeable consequences for the
mental health of an asylum seeker on removal could
engage article 8, even if the removal did not
violate article 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Attorney
General's Reference No 92 of 2003 sub nom R v
Pells (James Philip) [2005] EWCA Crim 3367.
|
|
Issue |
|
Sentence
referred by the Attorney General as unduly lenient.
Offender had committed racially aggravated assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
22
March 2004 |
|
Outcome |
|
Court
held original sentence of 12 months' detention
was unduly lenient and increased the period of
detention to 30 months.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
In
Re McKerr [2004] UKHL 12.
|
|
Issue |
|
State's
obligations under article 2 in relation to pre-HRA
deaths |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
11
March 2004 |
|
Outcome |
|
The
duty to investigate unlawful killings under Article
2 did not arise in domestic law in relation to
deaths before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into
force.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
v C; R v H [2004] UKHL.
Attorney
General appeared on behalf of the Crown.
|
|
Issue |
|
What
the judge must consider when ruling on a claim of
public interest immunity. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
5th
February 2004 |
|
Outcome |
|
It
was held that the judge had failed to consider
in detail the material that the prosecution had
sought to withhold. The House of Lords emphasised
the overriding principle that derogation from
the principle of full disclosure had always to
be the minimum necessary to protect the public
interest and must never imperil the overall fairness
of the trial.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Opening
of the Gaul Inquiry on 13 January 2004.
|
|
Issue |
|
Inquiry
into the FV-Gaul Fishing Vessel incident |
| |
Court |
| |
Public
Inquiry |
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs -v- ASDA
Stores Limited [2003] UKHL 71.
Attorney
General appeared on behalf of DEFRA.
|
|
Issue |
|
Whether
section 14 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act
1964 as amended created a criminal offence that
was currently applicable. The divisional court had
ruled that criminal law had to be clear and it was
necessary to have clear words in domestic legislation
which imposed criminal liability by reference to
present regulations and those made or amended in
the future. DEFRA appealed this decision. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
18th
December 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
DEFRA
succeeded in their appeal. The House of Lords
indicated that courts should not approach the
interpretation of statutes/regulations implementing
Community legislation as if they did not embrace
future Community law changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Reference
by Her Majesty's Attorney General for Northern
Ireland Nos 2, 6,7 and 8 of 2003 sub nom R v Robinson,
Humphreys, McGuone and James) [2003] NICA 2.
|
|
Issue |
|
Unduly
lenient sentence references by the Attorney General
against sentences for death by dangerous driving
and other serious driving offences in Northern Ireland. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal, Northern Ireland |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
11
July 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
Court
held that all the original sentences were unduly
lenient and imposed increased sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Wilson
v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003]
UKHL 40.
The
Attorney General appeared for the Secretary of
State.
|
|
Issue |
|
Appeal
against a declaration of incompatibility against
the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 127 (3) |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
10
July 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
It
was held that the court had been wrong to make
the declaration because the events and the cause
of action took place before the Human Rights Act
1998 came into force.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
(on the application of Q and others) v Secretary
of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ
36.
|
|
Issue |
|
The
procedure and application of section 55 of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (claims for support
from asylum seekers) |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
18
March 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
The
Court held that there were procedural deficiencies
in the process for refusing claims for support,
which could result in unfairness. However, once
they were remedied, there was not reason why section
55 should not operate effectively and the 'real
risk' that an asylum seeker might be reduced to
a state of degradation did not itself engage Article
3.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Attorney
General's Reference Nos 58 to 66 of 2002 sub nom
R v Coudjoe, Day, Gordon, McGlacken, Simons, Proverbs,
O'Too, Thorne and Boakye [2003] EWCA Crim 636.
|
|
Issue |
|
Sentences
referred by the Attorney General as unduly lenient.
The offenders had been members of a gang called
the 'Pit Bull crew' and had all been convicted of
gun related or drugs offences. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
21
February 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
Court
held that Gordon, Thorne, Boakye and Simons' sentences
were unduly lenient and imposed increased sentences
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Attorney
General's References Nos 120, 91 and 119 of 2002
sub nom R v (1) CCE (2) NJK (3) TAG [2003] EWCA
Crim 5.
|
|
Issue |
|
These
separate cases all involved, in varying degrees,
sexual abuse of children (rapes, indecent assaults),
with one case having an additional element of physical
abuse, by either the father or someone in a position
of some responsibility over the children. The issue
was whether the sentences imposed by the Crown Court
were unduly lenient. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
21 January 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
In
each of the three cases the Court concluded that
the sentences were unduly lenient. The sentences
were increased from a custodial sentence of 6
months to one of 12 months; from a (non-custodial)
rehabilitation order for 3 years to a custodial
sentence of 3 years; and from a custodial sentence
of 8 years to one of 13 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
v Lyons and Others (Guinness case) [2002] UKHL
44.
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of the
Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
|
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the original convictions of "the Guinness Four"
were to be set aside because the European Court
of Human Rights had subsequently held that the admission
of answers given under compulsion was a breach of
Article 6. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
14 November 2002 |
|
Outcome |
|
Judgment
given for the Director of the SFO
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
v Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte Saadi and others [2002] UKHL 41.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Home
Secretary.
|
|
Issue |
|
Whether
or not the detention of asylum-seekers at the Oakington
Detention Centre was lawful. It had previously been
held by Collins, J. that it was contrary to ECHR
to detain asylum-seekers who were not at risk of
absconding. |
| |
Court |
| |
Court
of Appeal; House of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
31 October 2002 (HL) |
|
Outcome |
|
Judgment
was given for the Home Secretary in both the Court
of Appeal and the House of Lords
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
R
v Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte (1) Yogathas (2) Thangarasa.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Home
Secretary.
|
|
Issue |
|
Appeals
relating to decisions of the Secretary of State
to order the return of the appellants (Tamil asylum
seekers) to Germany as a safe third country under
the Dublin Convention. |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
17 October 2002 |
|
Outcome |
|
Judgment
given for the Home Secretary
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Peter
Robinson v SoS for Northern Ireland and Others
[2002] UKHL 36.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland.
|
|
Issue |
|
Whether
the election of David Trimble and Mark Durkan was
lawful, being 2 days over the 2 week period provided
by s16 (8) Northern Ireland Act 1998 |
| |
Court |
| |
House
of Lords |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
25 July 2002 |
|
Outcome |
|
Judgment
given for the Home Secretary
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Persey
v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs and others [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin).
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Secretary
of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
|
|
Issue |
|
This
was a judicial review challenge to the decision
to hold the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries in
private. The Divisional Court had previously held
in relation to the Shipman Inquiry that it was open
to the courts to order a public inquiry. The Court
in Persey made remarks indicating that decisions
of this kind (whether or not to hold an inquiry
in public) are political ones, in which the courts
should not intervene. The Court accepted the principle
that, while it is for the courts to say whether
Government is acting unlawfully, it is not for the
courts (but the electorate) to say whether Government
is governing well. The Court also ruled that the
right to freedom of expression (under Article 10,
ECHR) does not include a right to receive information. |
| |
Court |
| |
Administrative
Court |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
15 March 2002 |
|
Outcome |
|
Judgment
was given for the Secretary of State
|
|
|
|
|
European
Court of Human Rights |
|
| |
|
Case |
|
Hatton
and Others v UK.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the UK
Government.
|
|
Issue |
|
The
Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights
had earlier found that the regime for permitting
night flights at Heathrow (because of the associated
noise pollution) was in breach of Article 8, ECHR.
This was because in setting the night-flight limits
the Government had (in the view of the Third Section
of the ECtHR) failed to strike a fair balance between
the economic well-being of the UK and the applicants'
right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The
decision had implications, not just for night flights,
but also for other sectors (e.g. roads, railways)
where a balance had to be struck between economic
interests and environmental concerns. The UK appealed
against the decision. |
| |
Court |
| |
European
Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
8 July 2003 |
|
Outcome |
|
The
State had not violated Art 8, but the absence
of a domestic remedy gave rise to a violation
of Art 13
|
|
|
|
|
Case |
|
Kingsley
v UK.
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the UK
Government.
|
|
Issue |
|
Whether
someone whose rights were violated under Article
6 ECHR was necessarily entitled to monetary compensation
apart from costs. On the applicant's appeal, the
Grand Chamber held that the finding of a violation
under Article 6 was itself sufficient to afford
"just satisfaction" in respect of the
applicant's non-pecuniary loss and no damages were
to be awarded. |
| |
Court |
| |
European
Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
28 May 2002 |
|
Outcome |
|
Judgment
in favour of the UK Government on the issue of
monetary compensation and just satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
|
European
Court of Justice |
|
| |
|
Case |
|
Van
Schaijk v Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de
Keuring van vee en Vlees (Foot and Mouth Disease).
The
Attorney General appeared on behalf of UK Government.
|
|
Issue |
|
The
extent of the powers conferred on Member States
by Article 10 (1) of Directive 90/425 |
| |
Court |
| |
European
Court of Justice |
|
Date
of Judgment |
| |
10 March 2005 |
|
Outcome |
|
The
Directive confers on Member States the power to
adopt additional measures to control the disease,
in particular to order the slaughter of animals
on a holding near to a holding containing infected
animals.
|
|
|
|
