-
[align=left]
Zietsman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Dental Practice Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 433
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/1828/1999
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Wednesday, 13th December 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JACK BEATSON QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
(1) PAUL ZIETSMAN
(2) MARIUS SCHMULIAN
-v-
DENTAL PRACTICE BOARD
- - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -
MR S AIREY (instructed by Titmuss Sainer Dechert, 2 Serjeants' Inn, London EC4Y 1LT) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
MR P HAVERS, QC (instructed by Clyde & Co., 51 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1JP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
1. JACK BEATSON Q.C.:- Introduction: Dentists providing treatment under the NHS are required to make claims for payment to the Dental Practice Board (the "Board"). This application concerns the power of the Board to suspend consideration of such claims for payment pending the outcome of police investigations as to whether those claiming payment, in the present case orthodontists, are involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the NHS.
2. The Board is a statutory body established by section 37 of the National Health Service Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act") for the purpose of carrying out prescribed duties "with respect to ... dental treatment and appliances, and to the remuneration of dental practitioners providing dental services" within the NHS. Provision is made for the approval of payments by the Board and payment by it in regulation 20 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 SI 1992 No 661 ("the Regulations"). Regulation 20(2) provides:-
"The Board shall, where it approves a claim for remuneration made by a dentist, other than a salaried dentist, in respect of
(a) care and treatment under a continuing care arrangement or a capitation arrangement;
(b) treatment on referral; or
(c) occasional treatment;
completed by the dentist, pay, in accordance with the Scale of Fees, the remuneration due to the dentist in respect of such care and treatment, treatment on referral, or occasional treatment."
Prior to 1992, the functions of the Board (then known as the Dental Estimates Board) were to approve claims for payment but not to pay them (Regulation 11 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1973).
3. The claims with which this application is concerned are in respect of orthodontic treatment. Since the cost of orthodontic treatment commonly amounts to several hundred pounds for a full course of treatment, which commonly takes 2-3 years to complete, schedule 4 to the Regulations requires that all courses of orthodontic treatment which it is anticipated will cost more than £600 must be given prior approval by the Board. The Board generally proceeds on the basis of the dentist's own assessment. In the case of orthodontic treatment, regulation 20(6) of the Regulations empowers the Board to make interim payments on account pending completion of the treatment. Further, since most orthodontic treatment is provided to children who are exempt from paying a "patients charge", ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Adams, R (on the application of) v Vale Of Glamorgan DC, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 323
- 1 -
Case no: co/2775/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Friday 12 April 2000
Before:
thE HON MR JUSTICE richards
Regina
V
Vale of Glamorgan DC
Ex parte David Adams
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
No Council for Respondents
Mr Elvin (instructed be 4 Breams Buildings) for the Applicant
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS:
The applicant, Mr David Adams, is the tenant farmer of The Darren Farm at Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. The farm has been farmed by the family since 1941. The applicant now runs it in partnership with his sister and brother under the name of E.T. Adams & Son. His mother used to be a member of the partnership and used to live in the house at the farm, but she died in 1999. His sister thereupon inherited the mother's share and moved into the house. The farm itself is a dairy farm and is also used for the purposes of a livestock haulage business. The freehold owners of the land are the Trustees of the Penllyn Estate. In the documents before the court there is an allegation that the Trustees have conducted a vendetta against the Adams family over several years. That, however, is not something about which I can or should form a judgment. It is not relevant to the issues before me and the Trustees have chosen not to take any part in the p...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC 638 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
CO/1928/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Friday, 15th December 2000
Before:
MR JUSTICE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF Claimant
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
VERSUS
MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL Defendant
and
M.W. and F.O. Interveners
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400
Fax No: 0207-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR RABINDER SINGH (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MS A FOSTER (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
MR P BOWEN (Instructed by Scott-Moncrieff, Harbour & Sinclair Solicitors, Office 5, 19 Greenwood Place, London, NW5 1LB) appeared on behalf of FO).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENTJUDGMENT
1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: In form, this case involves an application by the Secretary of State for a declaration that a decision by a Mental Health Review Tribunal, made on 14th March of this year, to adjourn a case before it until 8th June of this year, was wrong in law. We are now in December. As may be obvious, the adjournment itself is long past and to that extent the claim is academic. Indeed, no one has appeared before me to represent the patient whose case the Tribunal was hearing. But the issue is of considerable importance to the tribunals and to patients. In those circumstances, it is clearly desirable that the matter should be decided, particularly as it is unlikely that any decision to adjourn will be live by the time judicial review claims could be heard. There is ample authority to justify me hearing the case, notwithstanding that it may be thought to be academic.
2. Although no one has appeared on behalf of the patient involved, Mr Bowen has been permitted to appear before me and to make submissions on behalf of another patient who found himself in exactly the same position in a hearing before another tribunal. It has been helpful to have submissions from the patient's point of view, and I am satisfied that all possible arguments relevant to the issue have been placed before me.
3. The factual background can be shortly stated. The patient, whom I shall refer to as ``Ms W'', was convicted in December 1990 of offences of burglary, handling and possession of an offensive weapon. Reports before the Crown Court showed her to be suffering from a psychopathic disorder, and so she was ordered to be detained in a special hospital and a restriction order was made. She was placed in Broadmoor. She applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in October 1999; this was not her first application. A few days before the hearing was due, her solicitors wrote requesting an adjournment because, to quote the letter:
``We feel that it would be very helpful to the Tribunal to have information about a possible assessment from an all-women unit before deciding this tribunal ...''
4. Two days later, the Home Office, who had of course been notified and served with this letter from the patient's solicitors, wrote to the Tribunal saying this:
``I should be grateful if you would respectfully remind both the solicitors and the Tribunal members that directions about transfers are outside the Tribunal's remit and that, therefore, it is inappropriate for the hearing to be adjourned solely for that purpose.'' 5. ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Society Of Lloyds v Twinn & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 308
CHBKF 1999/0660/B3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHBKF 1999/0659/B2
CHANCERY DIVISION
Thursday 23rd March 2000
Before:-
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Chadwick
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Buxton
B E T W E E N:-
_________________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________________________
Mr J. Briggs instructed by The Society of Lloyds for the Appellant
Ms C. Mackenzie-Smith instructed by Geoffrey George Twinn and Gail Sally Anne Twinn for the Respondents
_________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Vice-Chancellor:
1. This is an appeal by the Society of Lloyd's (Lloyd's) against the judgment of Jacob J., given on 11 May 1999. The respondents to the appeal are Mr and Mrs Twinn. They are, or were, Lloyd's Names.
2. On 12 July 1998 Lloyd's served on Mr and Mrs Twinn statutory demands. A separate statutory demand was served on each. The statutory demands called for payment of sums said to be owing by them to Lloyd's under the so-called Reconstruction and Renewal Agreement entered into between Lloyd's and each of the Names who accepted the terms on offer. No application to set aside the statutory demands was made. Nor was payment made. So, on 23 September 1998 Lloyd's petitioned for bankruptcy orders to be made against Mr and Mrs Twinn. There was a separate petition against each of them. The petition against Mr Twinn alleged an indebtedness to Lloyd's of £1,018,832. Paragraph 2 of the petition said this:- "2. The debtor is justly and truly indebted to us in the aggregate sum of £1,018,832 being the amount due to us pursuant to the terms of Settlement Agreement concluded between us and the debtor in 1996 and payable by Noon on 30 September 1996 whereby the debtor is deemed to be an "Accepting Name". By a letter dated 27 June 19...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
DPP v West, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 403
-- 1 --
Case No: CO/2276/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr John Riley (instructed by the CPS, Buckinghamshire Branch) appeared for the Appellant
The Respondent was not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright
Pill LJ:
1. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Buckinghamshire Justices, sitting at Aylesbury, on 28 March 2000. The Justices made an order under Re...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Al-Fawwaz v The Governor Of Brixton Prison, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 424
Case No: CO/3833/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 30 November 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
MR JUSTICE ELIAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mr Keir Starmer (instructed by Raja & Partners for the Applicant)
Mr James Lewis and Miss Saba Naqshbandi (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Buxton:
1. This the judgment of the court, to which both members have made substantial contributions.
The basic facts and the issues
2. The applicant Mr Al-Fawwaz is accused in proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring with Usama bin Laden and others between 1 January 1993 and 27 September 1998 by agreeing that:
a) citizens of the the USA would be murdered in the the USA and elsewhere;
b) bombs would be planted and exploded at American embassies and other American installations;
c) American officials would be killed in the Middle East and Africa;
d) American soliders deployed in the United Nations peacekeeping missions would be murdered;
e) American Diplomats and other internationally protected persons would be murdered.
3. The category referred to of Internationally Protected Persons [IPP] is recognised by the [United Kingdom] Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978. That provides that any murder of an IPP outside the United Kingdom is justiciable within the United Kingdom, even if the accused is not a United Kingdom citizen. 4. The USA government's case alleges as follows. Bin Laden was the moving force in an Islamic terrorist organisation called Al-Qaida, devoted to violent opposition to, in particular, the USA. The organisation issued various Fatwahs or rulings, which members were obliged to obey, including rulings requiring the pursuit of jihad (holy war) against the USA. Since 1993 al Qaida had operated a cell in Kenya. In 1994 it created an organisation in London called the Advice and Reform Committee [ARC], which purported to be devoted to peaceful activities against breaches of human rights in Arab countries, but which was in fact the London organisation of the conspiracy. Amongst the alleged fruits of this conspira...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Holding & Barnes Plc, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 01, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 432
Case Nos: 3062/2000, 3606/2000
3742/2000, 3904/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 13 December 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
MR. JUSTICE HARRISON
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
This is the judgment of the court.:
Introduction.
These four applications raise the very important question whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Article says :
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ........ everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ........ by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
It is common ground that such decisions and orders do affect civil rights and obligations. In the present cases the SSETR does not argue that he is himself an independent and impartial tribunal but contends that the decision making process as a whole including the right of appeal to and the reviewing role of the High Court does comply with Article 6. Whether he is right about this is the central question we have to decide. If he is not, the SSETR's alternative submission is that this court should expand its role to review his decisions consistently with Sections 3 and 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) so as to make the processes compliant. These sections say :
3. (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if :-
(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.
(3) In this section "Public Authority" includes -
a court ........
If the processes are not compliant and cannot be made so, the SSETR contends that Section 6 (2) HRA applies to them so Section 6 (1), which would otherwise make his acts unlawful, does not apply. Such a finding would enable us to make declarations of incompatibility under Section 4 HRA which says :
4. (1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right.
(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
Two of the cases, (R -v- SSETR ex p. Holding and Barnes PLC (HB) and R -v- SSETR ex p. Premier Leisure (PL) ) involve decisions by the SSETR to call in their applications for planning permission under Section 77 TCPA. As well as the Article 6 challenge to the process as a whole HB contends that the decision to call in should be quashed on conventional judicial review grounds. The third case (Alconbury Developments Ltd. (ADL) -v- SSETR) involves "recovered" appeals against refusals of planning permission under Sections 78 and 79 TCPA and proposed orders under Section 1 TWA relating to the construction and operation of a railway in connection with the proposed re-development of RAF Alconbury. The fourth case (SSETR -v- Legal and General (LG)) involves proposed highway orders and related compulsory purchase orders (CPO) in connection with a scheme to improve the A34/M4 junction. It is the SSETR's acts in calling in or recovering planning decisions and proposing to make TWA, HA or CPO orders which are alleged to be unlawful under Section 6 (1) HRA because they do not comply with Article 6.
In the PL case a public inquiry has been held but no decision has yet been made. In the ADL and LG cases public inquiries have started but are now adjourned to await the decision of this court. We have been told that a number of other important public inquiries have been adjourned for the same reason. For these reasons the hearing before us was arranged at short notice and we are extremely grateful to all involved for the huge amount of work which has gone into its preparation and the presentation of the argument. In the interests of producing a judgment quickly we intend to summarise the material put before us (about 2,500 pages of evidence, 200 authorities and nearly 5 days of submissions from 10 counsel) as shortly as possible. In view of th...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Fernback & Ors v London Borough Of Harrow, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 278
Case No: CO/3942/2000
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 11th April 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Eian Caws (instructed by Mishcon de Reya for the Claimants)
Mr David Mole QC, Mr Paul Brown and Mr Paul Greatorex (instructed by Harrow Legal Services for the Defendant)
Mr Matthew Horton QC and Mr Reuben Taylor (instructed by Turbervilles for the Interested Party, Laing Homes Limited)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Richards:
1. The claimants challenge a decision made by the Planning Committee of the defendant council on 15 September 2000 to grant planning permission (subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement) for a residential development at RAF Stanmore Park, Uxbridge Road, Stanmore. The application site, which covers some 14 hectares, was formerly used for the purposes of the RAF. The proposed development includes 411 dwellings in houses and flats, community facilities, access, parking and public open space. The developer is Laing Homes (North London) Limited.
2. The claim raises three main issues: (1) whether the council erred in its consideration of the traffic impact of the development, (2) whether there was a breach of the regulations concerning environmental impact assessments and (3) whether the decision was procedurally unfair.
Brief factual history
3. In 1999 Laing Homes sought a screening opinion from the council pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as to whether the proposed development would require an EIA. On 13 September 1999 the council, through its Chief Planning Officer acting under delegated powers, gave a screening opinion to the effect that the proposal was not considered to require an EIA. The reasons for that opinion included:
"1. The proposal involves the redevelopment of a site that contains a substantial amount of building and hard standing and would not be on a significantly greater scale than the previous use. In addition, the estimated number of dwellings will be significantly lower than the indicative guideline for "urbanisation" set out in DETR Circular 02/99.
2. The Local Planning Authority will require a Transport Impact Assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage. This should assess the predicted impact of the transportation demands of the development and include measures to mitigate any adverse effect." 4. An application for planning permission, at that time relating to 390 dwellings, was submitted on 3 November 1999. It was soon followed by a transportation impact assessment prepared by Singleton Clamp & Partners for the developer. The application was subsequent...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Norgren, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 296,[2000] 3 WLR 181,[2000] QB 817
- 20 -
Case No: C0-4530-97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT)
In the matter of an application for judicial review
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday, 18 February 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL)
Mr JUSTICE KLEVAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clare Montgomery QC & James Lewis (instructed by Kingsley Napley)
for the applicant
James Turner QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State
Paul Garlick QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the
United States Government
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES:
The applicant Mr Christian Norgren, seeks judicial review of an order to proceed made by the Home Secretary on 30 September 1997 under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989.
The applicant is a Swedish citizen. In 1989 he was a director of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, a multinational corporation. In his capacity as director he became aware of a proposed merger between an Asea Brown Boveri subsidiary and a Delaware corporation, Combustion Engineering Inc. It is alleged that with that knowledge, and in expectation that the merger would cause a rise in the value of the stock in Combustion Engineering, the applicant procured the purchase of Combustion Engineering stock on his own behalf on the New York and Pacific Stock Exchanges.
The...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Rezouali, R (on the application of) v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 318
- 13 -
Case Nos: CO/2188/1999; CO/984/2000; CO/309/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday 31st March 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Salter ( for the applicant (Rezouali) and the respondent (Mendoza)(instructed Wilson Carca London, W1V 5AH)
Timothy Spencer (instructed by Legal Services, City of Westminster Council for the City of Westminster Council)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Kennedy:
1. BACKGROUND TO THESE PROCEEDINGS
We have before us an application for Judicial Review and two appeals by way of Case Stated, arising out of two separate sets of proceedings taken by Westminster City Council for the closure of the ground floor of Nos. 5 and 6 Walkers Court, Soho, London, W.1., on the basis that, in each case, the premises were being used as an unlicensed *** shop. Mr Rezouali traded at No.5 and Mr Mendoza at No.6.
Mr Rezouali's case came before Mrs McIvor, sitting as an Acting Stipendiary Magistrate at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court on 19th May 1999, when she gave her reasons for making the order sought. The power to make the order is to be found in The City ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Mapere, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2000, [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin),[2001] Imm AR 89
SMITH BERNAL
CO/4766/1999
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Date: Monday, 3rd July 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN
- - - - - - -
REGINA
- v -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
EX PARTE MAPERE
- - - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - -
MR ALBERT FALUYI (instructed by Nathaniel & Co, London, E8 4AA) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR P SALES (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN:This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Immigration Officer of 29th November 1999, refusing the applicant leave to enter the United Kingdom for one year for the purpose of embarking on a course of study, and granting only temporary admission into the United Kingdom. 2. The applicant comes from Zimbabwe. He claims to have a legitim...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Persaud, R (on the application of) v University Of Cambridge, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 374
- 22 -
Case No: CO/772/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 21st July 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Jones & Mr A Warner (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby for the Applicant)
Robert Jay QC& Mr C Thomann (instructed by Mills & Reeve for the Respondent )
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 1. The Applicant is a scientist of undoubted ability. In 1992 she was awarded a first class honours degree in astronomy after three years at University College, London. Her ambition was to work in the field of astrophysics. In October 1992 she was admitted to the University of Cambridge as a Graduate Student in order to carry out research leading to the award of a Ph. D. She commenced work on "Broad Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei". Her research supervisor was Dr. Andrew Robinson. The expected date for the completion of her research was September 1995. For the first year she made normal progress. However, in the second year things began to go wrong. According to the Applicant the problem stemmed from conflict with Dr. Robinson. She considered that he had involved her in collaboration without her knowledge and was more interested in using her work for his own purposes. Dr. Robinson, on the other hand, considered that she had made limited progress in the second year and had become increasingly uncommunicative. In the summer of 1994 he wrote to Mr. Paul Aslin, the Secretary to the Institute of Astronomy, to express his concerns. In September 1994 Mr. Aslin involved Dr. Paul Hewett in the matter. There followed a s...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
M L, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Heal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 397
- 18 -
Case No: CO/4858/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 11 October 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Richard Gordon QC & Fenella Morris(instructed by Peter Edwards & Co for the Applicant)
Mr Philip Sales (instructed by The Department of Health for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright
Mr Justice Scott Baker:
The Applicant is a patient at Rampton Hospital. He seeks to challenge Health Service Circular HSC 1999/160 dated 23 July 1999 which sets out Directions and Guidance for visits by children to patients in high security hospitals namely Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Patients in these hospitals suffer from mental disorders and need to be treated and cared for in conditions of special security because of their dangerous, violent or criminal tendencies.
The statement of Jennifer Anne Gray sets out in detail the background to this challenge and the circumstances leading to the promulgation of the circular. Section 4 of the National Health Service Act 1977 requires the Secretary of State for Health to provide special hospitals for detained mentally disordered patients. There are three such hospitals of which Rampton, with which this case is directly concerned, has a catchment area that comprises Yorkshire and parts of eastern and central England. It has an average patient population of around 450. Patients are housed in high security wards and the average stay is 7½ years, although some patients remain a good deal longer. Ov...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Bancoult, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Foreign & Commonweal Office, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 03, 2000, [2001] QB 1067,[2000] EWHC Admin 413
Case No: CO/3775/98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday 3 November 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LAWS
MR JUSTICE GIBBS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, Laurens Fransman QC and Anthony Bradley (instructed by Sheridans for the Appellant)
David Pannick QC, Philip Sales, Cecilia Ivimy (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the Respondents)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Laws:
Introductory
1 The Chagos Archipelago is in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Its islands and Mauritius were ceded by France to Great Britain in 1814. From that date until 1965 the Archipelago was governed as part of the British colony of Mauritius, though Mauritius itself is some 1,000 - 1,200 miles distant from the Archipelago. On at least some of the islands there lived in the 1960s a people called the Ilois. They were an indigenous people: they were born there, as were one or both of their parents, in many cases one or more of their grandparents, in some cases (it is said) one or more of their great-grandparents. Some may perhaps have traced an earlier indigenous ancestry. In the 1960s by agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America it was resolved that there be established a major American military base upon the chief island of the Archipelago, Diego Garcia. There is no doubt but that the defence facility which the base provides is of the highest importance. In a letter of 21 June 2000 from the US Department of State it is described as "an all but indispensable platform" for the fulfilment of defence and security responsibilities in the Arabian Gulf, the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa. In order to facilitate the establishment of the base, the Archipelago was first divided from Mauritius and constituted (together with certain other islands) as a separate colony to be known as the "British Indian Ocean Territory" ("BIOT"). That was done by the British Indian Ocean Territory Order 1965 ("the BIOT Order"). Then in 1971 the whole of the Ilois population of BIOT (and other civilians living there) were compulsorily removed to Mauritius. Their removal was effected under a measure called the Immigration Ordinance 1971 ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance was made by the Commissioner for BIOT ("the Commissioner"), who is the second respondent in these proceedings for judicial review. He was an official created by s.4 of the BIOT Order. He made, or purportedly made, the Ordinance under powers conferred by s.11 of the BIOT Order. As a matter of fact he made it, as is effectively accepted by Mr David Pannick QC for the respondents, upon the orders of the Queen's Ministers in London. The first respondent is the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The principal issue in the case is whether there was any lawful power to remove the Ilois from BIOT, in the manner in which that was done. There is also a question whether this court has any jurisdiction to entertain the case. The applicant is an Ilois from Peros Banhos in the Archipelago. Leave to seek judicial review was granted by Scott Baker J on 3 March 1999 after a hearing on notice. No point is now or was then taken by either respondent as to time or delay.
2 Though it will be necessary to examine other legislation, it is convenient by way of introduction to set out the relevant terms of the BIOT Order and the Ordinance. I should first say that the BIOT Order was made on 8 November 1965 by "Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in that behalf by the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895, or otherwise in Her Majesty vested". The Act of 1895 merely regulates the alteration of a colonial boundary, when that is sought to be done: it affords no source of the vires of the BIOT Order for presently relevant purposes. It was common ground at the Bar, and it seems to me plainly to be right, that the BIOT Order is an Order in Council made under the powers of the Royal Prerogative.
3 Ss.3 - 5 of the BIOT Order provide:
"3. As from the date of this Order -
the Chagos Archipelago, being islands which immediately before the date of this Order were included in the Dependencies of Mauritius, and
the Farquhar Islands, the Aldabra Group and the Island of Desroches, being islands which immediately before the date of this Order were part of the Colony of Seychelles,
shall together form a separate colony which shall be known as the British Indian Ocean Territory.
4. There shall be a Commissioner for the Territory who shall ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Legal Aid Area No 1 (London) Appeal Committee v McCormick, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 351
Case No CO/5099/98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
Friday 26 May 2000
Before:
The Hon. Mr Justice Elias
Between:
THE LEGAL AID AREA No 1 (LONDON) APPEAL COMMITTEE
(Respondents)
-and-
Ex parte McCORMICK
(Applicant)
__________________________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________________________________
Mr M Belloff Q.C. and Mr M Collings appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Ms B Lang Q.C. and Mr T Weisselberg appeared on behalf of the 1st Respondent
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGMENT
The Applicant in this case was an Executive director of Atlantic Computers plc. He held that position during the take-over of that company by British and Commonwealth Holdings in 1988. Unfortunately that transaction resulted in both companies being placed in administration. Thereafter the Applicant faced four separate sets of legal proceedings. He was prosecuted and acquitted of insider dealing; he was the subject of an application for disqualification as a company director made by the Secretary of State; and he was sued in two civil actions arising out of the take-over. All these proceedings have now come to an end. Between 28 February and 24 July 1996 he made four applications...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Barry, R (On The Application Of) v Liverpool City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 321
- 16 -
Case No: CO/1770/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Liverpool Crown Court
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts
Liverpool L2 1XA
Friday 7th April 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Application for permission to apply for judicial review
__________________________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________________________________
Mr Vincent Fraser (instructed by Liverpool City Council for the Respondent)
Mr John de Bono (instructed by Kilner Polson for the Applicant)
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Maurice Kay: Liverpool City Council (the Council) is the licensing authority for the grant of public entertainment licences within its area pursuant to section 1 and schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Such licences are required for "public dancing or music or any other public entertainment of a like kind" (schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)). Currently, there are over three hundred and fifty such licences in respect of premises in Liverpool. They customarily have door staff who control entry to and security on the premises. For some years there has been concern in Liverpool and elsewhere about the quality of door staff on premises with public entertainment licences. This is apparent from Home Office and Police studies and is summarised in the present pr...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Bogou, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 292
- 13 -
Case No: CO/2972/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Tuesday, 15 February 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Eleonor Gray (instructed by The Secretary of State for the Respondent)
Eric Fripp (instructed by Roelens & Co. for the Applicant)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Maurice Kay: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review, permission having been refused on the papers by Scott Baker J. The Applicant is a citizen of the Ivory Coast. She arrived in the United Kingdom with three children on 14 July 1995, having travelled from the Ivory Coast via France using a false passport. On 24 July 1995 she claimed asylum. On 5 March 1997 she was interviewed. She claimed that she and her husband had suffered persecution in the Ivory Coast by reason of their involvement with an opposition party known as the FPI. She described a number of incidents. On 29 December 1991 there had been an incident in which a car had been driven at the Applicant, her husband and their youngest daughter, on which ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Nationwide Access Ltd & Anor v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 290
11
Case No : CO/1953/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Monday, 14 February 2000
Before:
MR JUSTICE DYSON
NATIONWIDE ACCESS LTD Appellants
PTP AERIAL PLATFORMS LTD
v
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE Respondents
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040 Fax No 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Julian Ghosh (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell for the Appellants)
High McKay (instructed by Solicitor for HM Customs & Excise for the Respondent)
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE DYSON:
Introduction
These are joined appeals from a decision of the VAT & Duties Tribunal, Chairman His Honour Stephen Oliver QC ("the Tribunal"), released on 29 March 1999 dismissing appeals under section 12A of the Finance Act 1994 against assessments to hydrocarbon duty. The short point of construction that lies at the heart of the appeals is: what is a "mobile crane" within the meaning of paragraph 9, Schedule 1 of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 ("HODA")? The vehicles operated by the two appellants are known as the "Bronto Skylift" and "Simon Galaxy". Assessments to duty were made o...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
B, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge County Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC 641 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
NO: CO/4849/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Friday, 11th August 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE HIDDEN
- - - - - - - - - - - -
R e g i n a
-v-
UXBRIDGE COUNTY COURT
EX PARTE B
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG
Telephone No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040 Fax No: 0171 831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
MS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by R H Campbell Taylor, 3 Bradbury St, London N16 8JN) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR RABINDER SINGH (Amicus Curiae) (instructed by Hillingdon Legal Services, Uxbridge) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N TJUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: The decision sought to be impugned by this application for judicial review is the order of the ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Toth & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 361
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
23rd June 2000
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Respondent
EX PARTE ARPAD TOTH
Applicant
DR DAVID JARMAN
Interested Party
- - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr Timothy Straker QC & Mr Clive Rawlings (Instructed by Messrs Russell-Cooke Potter & Chapman, 2 Putney Hill, Putney, London SW15 6AB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr Mark Shaw (Instructed by Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse, 35 Vine Street, London EC3N 2AA) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Miss Mary O'Rourke (Instructed by the Solicitor of The Medical Defence Union Ltd, 3 Devonshire Place, London W1N 2EA) appeared on behalf of Dr Jarman.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application by the applicant ("Mr Toth") for judicial review of two decisions ("the Decisions") of the respondent ("the GMC"), the first dated the 23rd March 1998 ("the First Decision") and the second dated the 23rd July 1998 ("the Second Decision"). Mr Toth made a complaint ("the Complaint") to the GMC against his general practitioner Dr Jarman. Under the rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings by the GMC, the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules Order 1988 ("the Rules") made under the Medical Act 1983 ("the Act"), complaints against registered medical practitioners ("practitioners") have to go through and survive two filters or processes of examination before they are heard by the Professional Conduct Committee ("the PCC"). The first is examination by a member of the GMC, (colloquially and hereinafter referred to as a "screener") to decide whether the complaints "need not proceed further". If the screener does not so decide, the Preliminary Proceedings Committee ("the PPC") must then decide whether the complaints "ought to be referred for inquiry" to the PCC. Only if the PPC does so decide do the complaints then proceed before the PCC. By the Decisions the screener decided that the Complaint did not need to be investigated. By this application Mr Toth challenges the legality of the Decisions. Critical for this purpose is the statutory role of the ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Berkshire & Oxfordshire Magistrates' Courts' Committee v Gannon & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 326
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Friday 14th April 2000
B e f o r e
THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH
BERKSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIRE
MAGISTRATES' COURTS' COMMITTEE
Appellant
-V-
MRS J.M. GANNON AND MRS K.J.PIZZEY
Respondents
__________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________
Mrs A. Proops (Judgment)
Mr Adrian Lynch (instructed by Slough Borough Council Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Mr Oliver Segal (instructed by Messrs Thompsons, Congress House, Great Russell Street WC1B 3LW) appeared on behalf of the respondents.
__________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath This is an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal given on 23rd November 1998. As the Tribunal said, it concerns a somewhat obscure corner of their jurisdiction, relating to what are known as the "Crombie" Regulations. (No-one before me was able to explain the name). These are the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978, as amended. They regulate the compensation payable on redundancy to justices' clerks or their assistants. The case turns on a short statutory q...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Otaru, R (On The Application Of), Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 346
Page 7
Case no: CO/1088/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWn OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London wc2
Wednesday, 24th May 2000
Before:
mr justice Owen
-------------------
R e g i n a
- v -
ex paret Otaru
____________________
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
MR K HAMMOND (instructed by Victor Evans & Co, London SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MISS J COLLIER (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
J U D G M E N T (s Approv...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd, R (on the application of) v South Holland District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 419
1
Case no: CO/1640/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London,
wc2a 2ll
Tuesday, 14 November, 2000
Before:
MRS JUSTICE SMITH
-------------------
The Queen
-v-
South holland district Council
Appellant
ex parte
Respondent
Lincoln co-operative society ltd
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Mr N. Nardecchia (instructed byAndrew & Co, St Swithn's Square, Lincoln) for the Appellant
Mr T. Corner (instructed by Marples & Son, 23 New Road, Spalding, Lincs PE11 1DH) for the Respondent
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Smith:
This is an application by the Lincoln Co-operative Society Ltd (the Co-op), brought with the permission of Scott Baker J, for judicial review of a decision of the South Holland District Council Development Control (Planning) Committee (the Council) on the 23rd February 2000, when they granted planning permission to Westry Developments Ltd (Westry) for a retail development at a site at Station Yard, Long Sutton, Lincolnshire.
Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that in dealing with an application for planning permission a local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.
Section 54A of the Act requires that a local planning authority shall determine a planning application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant development plan for South Holland comprised two documents: the Lincolnshire County Structure Plan Alteration Number 2 ( 1994) and the South Holland District Local Plan (1998). The Lincolnshire Structure Plan provided at Policy 24A:
`Major new shopping development within or adjacent to the urban areas but outside their centres as may be defined in local plans will normally be permitted where: Access is adequate and the additional traffic generated can be accommodated on the surrounding road netw...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, R v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 370
12
CO/1606/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 14th July 2000
B e f o r e :
TH E HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY
Between:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr P. Mantle (instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents)
Mr D Vaughan QC (instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith for the Applicant)
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Langley:
This is an application for permission. The questions are whether the application made on May 8, 2000 is out of time under RSC Order 53 rule 4 and if it is whether the court should extend time....
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Samaroo, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 435
- 1 -
Case No: CO/4973/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 20th December 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE THOMAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nicholas Blake QC and Osama Daneshya (instructed by T Osmani) for the Applicants
John Howell QC and Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE THOMAS:
Introduction
1. In April 1994 the applicant was found guilty of an offence of being concerned in the importation of 4 kg of cocaine and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and recommended for deportation. He was refused leave to appeal. A deportation order was made against him in April 1998. In November 2000, the Secretary of State made his final decision not to revoke the order. The applicant now applies for a declaration that his removal from the UK pursuant to a deportation order made on him would be a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and for the quashing of the decision of November 2000 not to revoke the deportation order. He contends that the Secretary of State misdirected himself as to the proper test to apply and that in any event the decision to deport was disproportionate to the effect it will have on his family. Before considering the arguments advanced it is necessary to set out the facts.
The factual background
2. The applicant is a citizen of Guyana and was born there in February 1948. He left Guyana for the USA in 1983; in June 1988, at the age of 40, he moved to the United Kingdom and was given leave to enter for 6 months as a visitor.
3. Three months later, in September 1988 he married Jennifer Alitia Camacho. He had known her since his school days and had remained in communication with her. She had arrived in the United Kingdom in 1969 when she was 16; she had had three children from a previous relationship who were born respectively in 1972, 1976 and 1982. She had obtained British Citizenship in 1987.
4. In March 1989, the applicant was given leave to remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months as a foreign spouse and on 15 March 1990 was granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a foreign spouse. On 18 April 1991, a son, Jonathan, was born to the applicant and his wife.
5. In June 1993 the applicant was arrested at Heathrow Airport for being concerned with the importation of 4 kg of cocaine; its street value was then estimated to be £450,000. He was tried with other...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 315
- 12 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/3235/1999
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Friday, 31st March 2000
Before:
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD
_________________________
CANTABRICA COACH HOLDINGS LIMITED
Appellant
-v-
VEHICLE INSPECTORATE
Respondent
_________________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________________________
MR DAVID PHILLIPS Q.C. and MR RICHARD SERLIN (instructed by Messrs Wedlake Saint, 14 John Street, London WC1N 2EB) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR RICHARD PLENDER Q.C. (instructed by Foinette Quinn, 125-131 Queensway, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2DH) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
_________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD:
General
1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Hertfordshire Justices sitting at Dacorum on 10 May 1999 whereby the appellant was convicted of failing to hand over to the respondent tachograph charts, contrary to Section 99(1)(bb) of the Transport Act 1968. The case raises the question of the proper construction of the relevant legislation. The resolution of that issue is of considerable practical importance to transport operators and to the Department of Transport alike.
Summary of the Facts
2. The appellant company, Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd, is a coach operator and the holder of a Public Services Vehicle Operators Licence and as such obliged to comply with Pa...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Alba Radio Ltd & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v Department Of Trade & Industry, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 423
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/4138/1999
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London,
WC2A 2LL
Thursday 30th November 2000
Before:
NIGEL PLEMING QC
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
-----------------------------
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & INDUSTRY
Respondent
ex parte
(1) ALBA RADIO LIMITED
(2) PIFCO LIMITED
Applicants
-----------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-----------------------------
Ms Claire Andrews, instructed by Reid Minty, appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
Mr Jonathan Crow, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Judgment -
1. The Applicants are importers and distributors of electrical goods. The product at the centre of these proceedings is the domestic toaster. There are two relevant types of toaster: hot-wall and cool-wall. The names speak for themselves. In recent years cool-wall toasters have emerged as a popular, safer product - at least to the extent that there is a considerably reduced chance of contact burns from that form of toaster. Cool-wall toasters have plastic walls and insulating material between the wall and the heating element. However, the older form of toaster, without such insulation and with metal sides, continues to be manufactured and sold in large numbers. As John Malin, Group Secretary of Alba plc, says at paragraph 2 of his witness statement - "...... a large number of customers continue to buy hot-wall toasters and there are millions of hot-wall toasters in use throughout the United Kingdom". Until recently, cool-wall toasters were more expensive. That is no longer the position.
2. The supply onto the market of products such as electrical toasters is regulated, insofar as the safety of the products is concerned, by the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/3260 ("the 1994 Regulations"). These Regulations were made under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Regulations are intended to implement, in the United Kingdom, the requirements of Council Directive 73/23/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits ("the Low Voltage Directive").
3. It will be necessary in the course of this judgment to consider the terms of the Directive and the Regulations in some detail. 4. The Applicants commenced these jud...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
F & I Services Ltd, R (On The Application Of) v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 327
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Friday 14th April 2000
B e f o r e
THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH
R -V- COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
EX PARTE F & I SERVICES LTD
AND
F & I SERVICES LIMITED
-V-
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
__________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________
Mr Michael Kent QC and Mr Rupert Anderson (instructed by Solicitors of HM Customs and Excise New Kings Beam House 22 Upper Ground London SE1 9PJ) appeared on behalf of HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Mr Roderick Cordara QC and Miss Perdita Cargill-Thompson (instructed by Messrs Hutchinson Mainprice & Co, 80- Ebury Street London SW1W 9QD appeared on behalf of F & I Services Ltd
__________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath:
Part I - The Appeal
Introduction
I have before me an appeal from a decision of the VAT Tribunal (Mr Nicol and Mr Khan) dated 26th February 1999. (The related application for judicial review against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will be considered in Part II.) The facts relevant to the appeal are fully set out in the Tribunal's decision and it is unnecessary to do more than summarise them.
The appeal concerned a proposed scheme, whereby books of vouchers would be sold to car dealers for them to offer to purchasers of cars. Each voucher was for a specified sum which could be used towards the purchase of goods or services with a named retailer (for instance The Sock Shop or Harvester Restaurants), or of mechanical breakdown insurance provided through the car dealer. The total nominal value of the vouchers in each book was approximately £2,200. They were sold to car dealers for the price of £10.40 each, and by the car dealers to their customers at a nominal price of £300, included as part of the overall price of the car (there is a dispute whether it represents the true price for the vouchers). The scheme was devised by the appellants ("F&I") who had an established business relationship with a car dealer network. They arranged for a company called Entertainment Publications Ltd ("EP") to design and produce the voucher booklet and to contract with the retailers named in the vouchers. It was accepted by F&I that VAT was chargeable on the supply of books to the car-dealers, but it was hoped to avoid...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Director Of Public Prosecutions v Ramos, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 328
- 1 -
Case No: CO/20/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday 14th April 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Carey-Hughes (instructed by CPS for the appellant)
John Skinner (Solicitor Advocate)(for the respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Camelot Group Plc, R (on the application of) v National Lottery Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 391
- 1 -
Case no: CO/3085/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWn OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Thursday, 21 September, 2000
Before:
The honourable mr justice richards
-------------------
The Queen
- and -
The National Lottery Commission
Respondent
Ex parte
Camelot Group plc
Applicant
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Mr D. PANNICK QC and MR T. DE LA MARE (instructed by Baker McKenzie & Co) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR J. CROW and MR M HOSKINS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
MR N PLEMMING QC and MISS A FOSTER (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) appeared on behalf of GTECH
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS:
The National Lottery is currently operated under a seven year licence by Camelot Group Plc ("Camelot"). The licence expires on 30 September 2001. Responsibility for the award of a new licence with effect from 1 October 2001 lies with the National Lottery Commission ("the Commission"). In 1999 the Commission established a competitive procedure for the award of the new licence and bids were subsequently received from Camelot and The People's Lottery ("TPL"). After a lengthy process of evaluation, involving an extension to the original timetable, the Commission announced on 23 August 2000 that it had decided (1) that neither of the bidders' plans met the statutory criteria for granting a licence, and the competitive procedure for the new licence was at an end, and (2) to proceed on the basis of a new procedure under which it would negotiate exclusively with TPL for one month.
By these proceedings Camelot challenges the legality of the Commission's decision to operate the new procedure of exclusive negotiation with TPL. On 29 August Elias J granted Camelot permission to apply but refused interim relief. The case has now come before me to decide the substantive application. Camelot is represented by Mr David Pannick QC and the Commission by Mr Jonathan Crow.
GTECH, the supplier of gaming software and terminals to Camelot, has been served with the application and has appeared, represented by Mr Nigel Pleming QC. Mr Crow, whilst not actively opposing GTECH being heard, raised a number of questions for the assistance of the court concerning GTECH's standing. He submitted that GTECH is not a person directly affected by the decision within CPR Schedule 1 RSC Order 53 r.5(3) and cannot be heard under r.9(1) because that applies only to persons desiring to be heard in opposition to an application; and, if the court has an inherent discretion to hear a person in support of an application, it is doubtful whether GTECH can add to what Camelot has to say and thereby assist the court. I have not found it necessary to decide whether GTECH is a person directly affected. In my view the court has a discretion to hear a person even where that person does not come within r.5(3) or r.9(1). Any doubt about that will be removed in any event by the new rules due to come into force on 2 October: CPR rule 54.17, as contained in the schedule to the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2000, SI 2000 No.2092, confers an express power to allow any person to make representations at the hearing. I have exercised what I perceive to be my existing discretion in favour of GTECH. In doing so I have had particular regard to the impact of the Commission's decision on GTECH, even if such impact is indirect, and to the limited additional time required for consideration of Mr Pleming's commendably brief written and oral submissions. Should it ever become important, it remains open to GTECH to contend that it is entitled to appear anyway as a person directly affected.
TPL was also served with the application but has not appeared.
Statutory framework
The governing statute is the National Lottery Etc. Act 1993, as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998. Section 1 of the 1993 Act creates the National Lottery and requires it to be promoted by a body licensed under section 5. Section 3A, which was introduced by the 1998 Act, establishes the Commission, to which are transferred the functions previously conferred or imposed on the Director General of the National Lottery.
Section 4 lays down overriding duties of the Secretary of State and the Commission. Substituting references to the Commission for references to the Director General, its material provisions read:
"(1) The Secretary of State and (subject to any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State under section 11) the Commission shall each exercise their functions under this Part in the manner they consider the most likely to secure - that the National Lottery is run, and every lotter...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 410
-- 1 --
Case No: CO/1508/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Nicholas Hall (instructed by Eastbourne Borough Council Legal Services Dept) appeared for the Appellant
Mr James King-Smith (instructed by Mayo & Perkins, eastborne, BN21 4RP) appeared for the Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Pill:
1. This is a prosecutor's appeal against a decision of Mr Kevin John Gladwell, acting stipendiary magistrate for the County of East Sus***, sitting at Eastbourne on 7 February 2000. The magistrate dismissed informations against Mr Charles William Stirling and Mr Robert John Morley alleging that each of them, being the driver of a private hire vehicle was found plying for hire with the vehicle on the west forecourt of Eastbourne railway station without a licence to ply for hire having previously been obtained under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ("the 1847 Act"), contrary to section 45 of the Act. Mr Stirling is alleged to have infringed on 28 May 1999 and Mr Morley on 29 May 1999.
2. It is conceded that the respondents were not license...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
HM Attorney General v Flack, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 29, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 422
-- 1 --
Case No: CO/3416/1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Jay QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Applicant
William Hoskins (instructed by Langshaw Kyriacou) appeared for the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Pill:
1. This is an application, made with appropriate authority, under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. A civil proceedings order is sought against Ian Richard Flack ("the respondent").
2. Section 42(1) provides that the court may make such an order if it is satisfied that the respondent has:
"... habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground --
(a) instituted vexatious proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or (b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings whether in the High Court or any inferi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Parker v Director Of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 429
Case No: CO/3299/00
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED
(Bristol Crown Court)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 7 December 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
and
MR JUSTICE SACHS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Paul Garlick QC; Mr Richard English (instructed by Gordon & Penney for the Appellant)
Mr Neil Ford QC; Mr Mark Worsley (instructed by CPS Bristol for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Waller:
Introduction This is an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Bristol which dismissed an appeal by Lee Christopher Parker from his conviction by the magistrates of an offence under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The point raised is of importance. The section provides for it being an offence to drive a motor vehicle after consumption of so much alcohol that the proportion of alcohol in the breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescr...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Lowry v Honourable Society Of Middle Temple, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 06, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 427
VISITORS TO THE INNS OF COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 6th December 2000
B e f o r e:
The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown
The Honourable Mr Justice Bennett
The Honourable Mr Justice Hart
Garrett T. Byrne Esq.
and
Mrs Monica Fisher
Christopher John Lowry
(Appellant Student)
and
The Honourable Society
of the Middle Temple
(Respondent)
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Mukherjee Appeard on behalf of the Appellant
Mr S Ford Appeared on behalf of the Respondent
REASONS
AS APPROVED BY THE COURT
CROWN COPYWRIGHT©
This is an appeal by Mr C...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Kingdom Of Belgium, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 293
- 2 -
Case Nos: CO/236/2000
CO/238/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 15 February 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
MR JUSTICE LATHAM
and
MR JUSTICE DYSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr J. Sumption QC & Mr P. Sales (instructed by Treasury Solicitor of London SW1) for the Respondent
Mr R. Drabble QC & Miss Frances Webber (instructed by Messrs. Bindman & Partners, Solicitors of London W1X 8QF) for Amnesty International and 5 other applicants
Mr N. Pleming QC, Mr P. Sands, Mr R. Singh & Miss H. Mountfield (instructed by Messrs Leigh Day & Co, Solicitors of London EC1M 4LB) for The Kingdom of Belgium
Mr C. Nicholls QC & Mr J.B. Knowles (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Napley, Solicitors of London EC1M 4AJ) for Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, an interested party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Simon Brown:
Introduction
It is sixteen months since Senator Pinochet was arrested. What should happen to him now? Should he be extradited to Spain to stand trial for the grave crimes of which he is accused? Or should he be allowed to return home to Chile? Many passionately hold one view, many the other. All, however, would surely agree upon one thing. It is high time the decision was taken: Senator Pinochet has spent quite long enough in this country. But the decision must, of course, be taken lawfully, and that is the issue now before us.
This challenge, the latest in a whole succession of legal proceedings, is to the Secretary of State's proposed decision not to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain on the ground that he is unfit to stand trial. More particularly at issue is the Secretary of State's entitlement to take such a decision (as he is "minded" to do) without first giving Spain and other requesting states sight of the medical report which is critical to it. Shorn of the applicants' more exorbitant demands - that they be allowed to examine Senator Pinochet themselves, that they have an opportunity to question the four specialists who prepared the Secretary of State's report, that the report be disseminated more widely than to the four requesting states - this is the essence of their complaint. What they ask is that the report now be disclosed to the requesting states so that at least they may comment upon its conclusions.
There are two applicants before us, one the Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium), a requesting state, the other a group of six human rights organisations headed by Amnesty International (Amnesty). Their joint application for permission to move for judicial review came initially before Maurice Kay J who dismissed it on 31 January 2000: in the case of both applicants on the merits and in Amnesty's case on the additional ground that they lack "sufficient interest" i.e. standing. His judgment, right or wrong, is a model of clarity and thoroughness extending to forty-five pages of transcript. On the core issue he concluded:
"... that it is simply not arguable that the non-disclosure of the medical report [to the requesting states] is unlawful, unfair or irrational."
The application was renewed before us. During the course of the hearing we decided that it certainly merited permission and thereafter we proceeded to deal with it as a substantive motion.
With that brief introduction let me now outline the facts as shortly as may be
The Facts
We shall assume our readers' familiarity with the earlier stages of this case: Senator Pinochet's arrest in London on 16 October 1998 pursuant to a Spanish warrant and the extensive subsequent litigation as to whether he enjoys state immunity. I can pick up the story with the final House of Lords decision on 24 March 1999 essentially to the effect that the offences alleged in Spain's request were "extradition crimes" only if committed after September 1988, and that Senator Pinochet had no immunity in respect of such crimes committed after December 1988. Following that decision, the Secretary of State on 14 April 1999 issued a fresh Authority to Proceed which Senator Pinochet thereafter unsuccessfully sought to challenge.
The committal hearing before the Bow Street magistrate took place between 27 and 30 September 1999. On 8 October 1999 Senator Pinochet was committed on all charges to await the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether he should be extradited to Spain. A habeas corpus application was made on Senator Pinochet's behalf on 22 October 1999 which presently stands fixed for hear...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 444,(2001) 3 LGLR 8,[2000] COD 338,(2000) 164 JP 485
SMITH BERNAL
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC Admin 444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
Date: Wednesday 10 May 2000
B e f o r e:
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(Lord Bingham of Cornhill)
and
MR JUSTICE SILBER
B E T W E E N:
_______________
CITY OF BRADFORD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
Appellant
- v -
ERIC WILSON BOOTH
Respondent
_______________
Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 071-421 4040 071-421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_______________
MR JOHN BLAIR-GOULD (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council) appeared on behalf of
THE APPELLANT
THE RESPONDENT was not represented and did not appear
_______________ J U D ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Mayne & Anor v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 368
- 10 -
Case Nos: CO/786/00 & CO/750/00
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
13th July 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE JACKSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Perkoff for Quentin Mayne (instructed by Clyde & Co, Guildford) and Malcolm Mr. G. Foster for Chitty Wholesale (instructed by Charles Russell Baldocks, Guildford)
Christopher Vajda QC and Mary McCarthy (instructed by the Legal Department of MAFF for the respondents)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Kennedy: This is a defendants' appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of Mr Roger Davies, a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting at Staines who in November 1999 considered informations which alleged that the appellants on various dates between October 1995 and February 1996 were concerned in the export of nine lorry loads of beef from the United Kingdom to France without the meat being accompanied by valid Export Health certificates contrary to Regulation 6 of the Products of Animal Origi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Russell & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v HMP Frankland, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 365
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
10th July 2000
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
GOVERNOR OF HMP FRANKLAND
Respondent
ex parte
(1) ANDREW RUSSELL
(2) PERRY WHARRIE
Applicant
_________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
________
Ms Phillippa Kaufmann (Instructed by Messrs Bhatt Murphy, 23 Pitfield Street, London N1 6HB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr Steven Kovats (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application made pursuant to permission granted by me on the 14th January 2000 for an order quashing the policy ("the Policy") of the Governor ("the Governor") of HMP Frankland ("the Prison") in respect of the provision of food to prisoners placed in the segregation unit of the Prison ("the Unit") who refuse to wear prison clothes. The Governor provides prisoners with three meals a day at the central servery, but he has made it a rule that prisoners placed in the Unit who refuse to wear prison clothes shall not be allowed to collect their meals from the servery. If the Governor obtains the necessary authority, the segregation of a prisoner in the Unit can be continued month by month for an indefinite period. The Applicants were prisoners at the Prison who, when placed in the Unit, were subjected to the Policy. They have since been transferred to other prisons, but may at any time be transferred back to the Prison. They seek to challenge its legality and a declaration that ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Murray, R (on the application of) v Derbyshire County Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 06, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 393
Case No: CO/1493/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 6th October 2000
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Ex parte David Murray
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Applicant)
Mr Evans(instructed by David W. Tysoe, Solicitor and County Secretary) for the Respondent)
Mr Katkowski QC (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) representing Fitzwise Limited
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Aproved by the Court
Crown Copyright
Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 1 Derbyshire County Council ("the Council") is the local planning authority in relation to waste disposal facilities in its area. There is an established landfill site known as the Hall Lane Site close to the village of Barrow Hill which is just outside the town of Staveley. On 20 March 2000 the Council, through its Environmental Services Planning Development Subcommittee, granted planning permission for an extension in the use and duration of the Hall Lane Site. This involved a larger area, the extraction of 120,000 tonnes of clay, the incidental extraction of 1000 tonnes of coal and the provision of a fourth waste cell with an additional 650,000 tonnes of waste disposal capacity and extending the life of the landfill operation by about one year to December 2005. The Applicant lives in Barrow Hill. He and other local residents objected to the planning application on environmental and amenity grounds. Following the grant of planning permission, he now seeks to challenge that decision by way of an application for judicial review. The Respondent to the application is the Counci
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Beresford, R (on the application of) v City Of Sunderland, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 418
1
Case no: CO/2064/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London,
wc2a 2ll
Tuesday, 14 November, 2000
Before:
MRS JUSTICE SMITH
-------------------
The Queen
-v-
THE CITY OF SUNDERLAND
Appellant
ex parte
Respondent
PAMELA BERESFORD
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Mr D. Edwards (instructed by Southern Stewart & Walker 157 Prince Edward Road, South Shields, Tyne & Wear) for the Appellant
Mr P. Petchey (instructed by Mr. Colin Langley, City of Sunderland, Civic Centre, Sunderland SR2 7DN) for the Respondent
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Smith:
Introduction.
1. This is an application for judicial review, brought by permission of Moses J, of the decision of the Licensing Committee of the Council of the City of Sunderland on 27th April 2000, when they refused the application of Mrs Pamela Beresford and 3 other residents of Washington, Tyne and Wear, to have registered land known as the `Sports Arena' at Washington, as a town or village green pursuant to section 13 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (the Act).
2. The Act provides a statutory framework for the registration of common land and town and village greens. Under section 2, local authorities were appointed as registration authorities for the purposes of the Act and by section 3 are required to maintain a register of common land and town and village greens within their area. Washington is within the City of Sunderland.
3. The Act and regulations made thereunder provided that all common land and town and village greens were to be registered within 5 years. Any land not so registered by 2nd January 1970 was deemed not to be common land or a town or village green. However, by Section 13 of the Act, the register could be amended to include any land which became common land or a town or village green after that date. An application to amend the register was to be made to the registration authority. Any person aggrieved by the inclusion of any la...
[/align]