-
[align=left]
B, R (on the application of) v Collins & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC 639 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
Case No: CO/68/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
IN CHAMBERS
Queen Elizabeth II
Law Courts
Liverpool
Date: 10 March 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Nigel Pleming QC and Ms Eleanor Grey (instructed by Reid Minty, London ) appeared for the Respondent
Mr Benet Hytner QC, Ms Phillippa Kaufmann and Mr Robin Makin Solicitor Advocate (instructed by E. Rex Makin and Company, Liverpool)
appeared for the Applicant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENTMr Justice Maurice Kay:
1. The Applicant is 62 years old. On 6 May 1966 at Chester Assizes he was convicted of three murders and sentenced to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment. His offences, and those of his co-defendant, M.H., are often referred to as ``the Moors Murders''. The Secretary of State has fixed a full life tariff and the Applicant (unlike M.H.) accepts that he will never be released. For many years he was detained in high security prisons but on 29 November 1985 he was transferred to Park Lane Hospital by a Transfer Direction which referred to his suffering from mental illness within the meaning of the Mental Health Act and stated that the mental disorder was of a nature or degree which made it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment. Park Lane Hospital, together with the nearby Moss Side Hospital, was later reorganised to form Ashworth Hospital. From his admission in November 1985 until June 1995 he was detained in Newman Ward. On 16 June 1995 he was moved to Jade Ward within the former Moss Side site. The move was carried out with police assistance because it involved movement outside the perimeter wall and along a short stretch of public highway. The move was uneventful. Throughout this period the authorities were mindful of the position of the Applicant and they made arrangements which, in his own interests, limited his freedom within the Hospital. To compensate for or counterbalance this they afforded him additional facilities, in particular a personal computer and special visiting arrangements.
2. For a number of reasons unrelated to the Applicant, Ashworth Hospital attracted public criticism and on 7 February 1997 an Inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of His Honour Peter Fallon QC. The ensuing Report recommended that ``Ashworth Hospital should close in its entirety at the earliest opportunity''. However, the Secretary of State for Health did not accept this recommendation. Without descending into unnecessary detail, the outcome was a more restrictive regime, the consequences of which included the withdrawal of the Applicant's computer and an increase in the security arrangements for visitors. In addition, the Applicant began to fear a return to the prison system.
3. On 18 June 1999, a Mental Health Review Tribunal considered the Applicant's position as part of a routine review and not at the request of the Applicant. It concluded that:
``the patient remains mentally ill and subject to a psychopathic disorder. His persistent verbal abuse of staff is largely attributable to such conditions. The patient is appropriately hospitalised for his own health and the safety of himself and others.''
4. At the same time the Tribunal expressed disappointment about the withdrawal of his computer and added that in its view: ``no step ought to be taken to reduce Mr. B.'s quality of life unless such can be adequately justified in his particular case. The patient's unique position in Ashworth would seemingly justify an...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Rogers & Anor v Rhys Evans (A Firm) & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 312
1
Case No: QBENI 99/0743
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY FROM THE
ORDER BY H.H.JUDGE DYER
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, LONDON, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 30 March 2000
Before:
LORD JUSTICE EVANS
AND
MR JUSTICE PARKER
-----------------------------
Kenneth Edward Rogers & Anr
APPELLANTS
And
Rhys Evans (a firm) & Ors
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)
-----------------------------
Miss Barbara HEWSON (Instructed by Burges Salmon, Bristol for the Appellants)
Mr Christopher GIBSON QC & Mr Nigel GERALD (Instructed By Wansbroughs Willey Hargrave, Birmingham for the Respondents)
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
ROGERS v. IDRIS DAVIES HOLDINGS LTD & Ors.
Mr Justice Jonathan Parker:
This is an appeal by the first claimant in the action, Mr Kenneth Rogers, against an Order made by His Honour Judge Dyer (sitting as a High Court Judge) on 15 April 1999, striking out the action as an abuse of process. The second claimant in the action is a company called Great Norwood Developments Ltd (I will refer to it hereafter as "GND"). The Order was made on the application of the sixth defendant in the action, Messrs Rhys Evans (a former firm of solicitors). The Judge refused Mr Rogers permission to appeal, but permission was subsequently granted on paper by Sir Anthony McCowan. Notice of appeal was subsequently issued on behalf of Mr Rogers, followed by a cross-notice on behalf of the sixth defendant seeking to affirm the judgment on the alternative basis that the action should be dismissed for want of prosecution on the ground that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay, giving rise to serious p...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Xuereb, R (on the application of) v Immigration Officer, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 352
Case no: co/2355/1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Friday 26 May 2000
Before:
his hon MR JUSTICE Turner
-------------------
THE QUEEN
-v-
AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER
Ex parte JOHN XUEREB
____________________
(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 Steven kovats (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent)
Miss stephanie harrison (instructed by Gill & Co for the Applicant)
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice TURNER :
Introduction
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer dated 28 May 1999, by which he refused to grant the applicant exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and enforced his removal to Malta.
History
2. On arrival in the United Kingdom from Malta on 12 December 1997, the applicant had applied for asylum, he provided various disconnected reasons for his application. His asylum application was refused on 29 January 1998. On 12 February, the immigration officer refused leave for the applicant to enter the United Kingdom. He was detained. Sometime after his detention in HMP Rochester, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist and diagnosed as suffering from acutely psychotic symptoms with marked paranoid delusions.
3. On the same day as he decided to refuse to grant leave to enter, the Secretary of State for the Home Department certified the asylum application under the provisions of paragraph 5(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The applicant appealed against the decision refusing his asylum application. On 19 February 1998, the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric hospital under the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act of 1983). On investigation of the Maltese authorities, it transpired that the applicant had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Malta in 1994, "but had subsequently lapsed psychiatric follow up".
4. On 18 September 1998, the applicant's asylum appeal was dismissed. The special adjudicator found that the removal of the applicant to Malta, with the accompanying risk that his mental health would deteriorate in consequence, would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and recommended that...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
McNicholas Construction Co Ltd v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 357
50
Case No: CO/974/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 16 June 2000 at 0930am
B e f o r e :
THE HON 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)
_______________________
Charles Purle QC; Michael Sherry and Eamon McNicholas (instructed by Messrs Titmuss Sainer Dechert for the Appellants)
Kenneth Parker QC and Aidan Robertson (instructed by the Solicitor for HM Commissioners' of Customs and Excise for the Respondents)
_______________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Dyson:
Introduction
1. McNicholas Construction Company Limited ("MC") appeals against the decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal (Chairman Stephen Oliver QC) given on 12 January 1999 in relation to appeals against 24 assessments to VAT on MC for the three month periods from June 1990 to March 1996 inclusive. The assessments were all made on 21 March 1997. The aggregate amount of the assessed tax was £1,245,545 plus interest. The Tribunal allowed some of the assessments, with the result that the total amount of the assessed tax was reduced. It is MC's case that the Tribunal should have allowed the appeals in full, and discharged all the assessments of which complaint was made.
2. MC operates as a civil and public works contractor. One of its main activities is that of digging trenches for the laying of cable ducts. Part of its labour force comes from its own employed staff. But self-employed labourers, who usually work in gangs, form the much greater part of the workforce. As a result of investigations started in about 1993, the Commissioners came to the conclusion that companies and individuals purporting to be sub-contractors, whom they suspected to be bogus, were issuing VAT invoices to MC for services of providing labour that they had not provided. MC was claiming VAT relief as input tax of the amounts of VAT paid to these sub-contractors pursuant to the invoices. If in truth the sub-contractors were not making supplies to MC, there could be no obligation to pay them VAT, and no right in MC to claim VAT relief in respect of amounts purportedly paid as VAT.
3. Each of the 24 assessments was raised on the basis that in the opinion of the Commissioners MC had wrongly claimed input relief in respect of the VAT paid to 12 sub-contractors in all. The assessments were raised to recover the tax wrongly relieved in response to the input tax claims. Each assessment for each period was for an amount that was the aggregate of the input tax charged on the invoices issued in the names of the 12 sub-contractors.
4. The assessments for the periods 6/90 to 12/93 required the Commissioners to prove fraud against MC, since they were extended time-limit assessments made outside the normal 3 year time-limit for assessment to VAT. It was the Commissioners' case that MC was party to 3 frauds directed at the Commissioners. The first was supported by an organisation run by a Mr Christopher Lee, and was based on Hi-Tech House, Wembley. In the course of this fraud, VAT invoices were issued to MC in the names of 9 alleged sub-contractors. The second centred on the activities of Mr McHugh (who was employed as a project manager by MC): this related to the production of VAT invoices to MC in the names of 2 alleged sub-contractors. The third alleged fraud concerned the activities of a Mr Cassidy. Cassidy invoiced MC for consultancy services in finding labour purportedly supplied by the 11 alleged sub-contractors who were the subject of the first and second frauds.
5. The Commissioners' case before the Tribunal was that the steps in the fraud were as follows (see paragraphs 32-38 of the Decision). They started typically with the registration for VAT of individuals, whose businesses were ostensibly those of subcontractors. In some cases, the registration of an already VAT registered individual was used. In all cases, the person running the fraud, for example Mr Lee, operated and maintained a bank account in the name of the alleged subcontractor. MC paid into the bank account the amount shown as payable to that subcontractor in the relevant Certificate of Payment to Subcontractor for the services allegedly supplied by the subcontractor in the previous week. Payments were exclusive of VAT. The person running the fraud would arrange to withdraw the amounts required to pay the gangs whose services had allegedly been supplied the previous week. The amounts required to pay the gangs (and to make other disbursements) were a known percentage, usually 86%, of the amount paid into the bank account. The weekly withdrawals were transmitted to the sites, and used to pay the gangs and labourers. Periodically, VAT invoices w...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 415
Case no: CO/4481/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Wednesday 8 November 2000
Before:
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
And
MR JUSTICE PENRY DAVEY
-------------------
The Queen
-v-
A SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
EX PARTE MORGAN GRENFELL & CO LTD
____________________
(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)
____________________
Michael Beloff QC and Mr Giles Goodfellow (instructed by Messers Slaughter and May) for the applicants
Mr Timothy Brennan and Miss Ingrid Simler (instructed by the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue) for the Respondents
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON:
This is the judgment of the Court.
Background
These proceedings arise in the context of a tax-related scheme called Sale With Tax Enhanced Leasing Arbitrage [STELA] devised and operated by Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [MG], the well-known merchant bank. The scheme was commended to clients by MG as enabling them to secure extremely low cost term funding through a tax arbitrage based on property.
It will be necessary to describe STELA in somewhat more detail at a later stage of this judgment. Its essence, however, was that (to quote MG's documentation promoting the scheme) the client (in the example at which these proceedings are directed, Tesco plc)
grants a long leasehold interest in property that it already owns to [MG] and then leases it back under a sub-lease in a highly tax efficient manner........The lump sum obtained from the grant of the property interest is amortised through rental payments made by Tesco under the sub-lease. Tesco receives the sale proceeds tax free (or sheltered from tax) and obtains a tax deduction for the rental payments which repay both the principal and the interest. That is the tax advantage obtained by Tesco. The substantial premium paid by MG for the granting of the leasehold interest, seen by Tesco as the proceeds of the sale of the lease, would not be expec...
[/align]
-
Duncan & Anor, R (on the application of) v Legal Aid Board & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 294
Case No: CO/4807/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday, 16th February 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE ROCH
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
and
MR JUSTICE GAGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Richard Gordon QC, Jenni Richards & Paul Bowen (instructed by Mackintosh Duncan for the Applicants)
Mr Nigel Pleming QC & Beverley Lang (instructed by the Legal Aid Board for the First Respondents)
Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Second Respondent)
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Index
Part Title Para Nos
1 An overview of the issues in the case 3 - 17
2 The history of legal aid before the 1988 Act 18 - 31
3 The 1988 Act and its aftermath 32 - 51
4 The need for reform: the advantages and challenges of controlled contracts 52 - 77
5 Certificated legal aid 77 - 86
6 The allocation of funds and the bidding system 87 - 111
7 The firm of Mackintosh Duncan and its contract award 112 - 130
8 The Burgundy book 131 - 135
9 Mackintosh Duncan's concerns about the new scheme 136 - 175
10 Prescribed panels 176 - 183
11 The new controls over travelling expenses 184 - 205
12 Practical problems facing firms under the new scheme 206 - 219
13 The meeting on 20th December and the amended contract offer 220 - 250
14 The Board's discretions and the need for transparency 251 - 302
15 The new generic franchise categories, their purpose and their scope 303 - 324
16 Particular franchise categories: (i) mental health 325 - 373
17 Particular franchise categories: (ii) community care 374 - 394
18 Particular franchise categories: (iii) employment 395 - 398
19 Particular franchise categories: (iv) immigration 399 - 413
20 The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners' Group 414 - 430
21 The complaints by other practitioners 431 - 443
22 The applicants' submissions: (i) The common law right of access to the courts 444 - 468
23 The applicants' submissions: (ii) The right conferred by section 32(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 469 - 477
24 The applicants' submissions: (iii) the treatment of the not for profit sector 478 - 485
25 The applicants' submissions: (iv) Wednesbury irrationality 486 - 547
26 The court's conclusions 548 - 584
Lord Justice Brooke:
This is the judgment of the court.
There is before the court an application by Ian Duncan and Nicola Mackintosh for permission to apply for judicial review. They are the partners in a small firm of solicitors who have been practising under the name of Mackintosh Duncan since 1st July 1999 from office premises in Borough High Street, Southwark. The respondents to this application are the Legal Aid Board ("the Board") and the Lord Chancellor. At one level the applicants are challenging the legal validity of the whole new scheme for legal advice and assistance and free representation at mental health review tribunals which was introduced by the Board under powers given to it by the Lord Chancellor and with the authority of both Houses of Parliament with effect from 1st January 2000. At this level the applicants also challenge the legal validity of two directions made during December 1999 by the Lord Chancellor under Section 4(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") and one statutory instrument made by him in the same month, following positive resolutions by each House of Parliament, under Section 8(3) of the Act. At a lower level the applicants challenge the legal validity of the new scheme because they castigate as irrational certain aspects of the way in which the Board has planned and implemented it, particularly in relation to the way in which it affects their firm and their clients or potential clients. Their application is supported by the Law Society. Although the Society has not formally intervened, there are in evidence two statements by its President, Mr Robert Sayer, nearly 40 letters and two affidavits from firms of solicitors or other interested agencies who are worried about the way the scheme will affect their staff and their service to their clients, and a large number of documents concerned with the scheme and the events that led up to its introduction. On 13th December 1999 Latham J refused the applicants interim relief. He directed that their application for permission be listed for hearing before a Divisional Court on 12th January 2000, with the substantive hearing to follow if permission was granted. On 12th January we granted the Board and the Lord Chancellor a short adjournment, for reasons we ...
-
[align=left]
Gholam-Shehni, R (on the application of) v IAT, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 400
5
Case No CO/1317/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST.
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date 12 Oct 2000
Before:
MR. JUSTICE GOLDRING
R E G I N A
-v-
IAT
Respondent
ex parte
GHOLAM-SHEHNI
Applicant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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. F. KRAUSE (Instructed by Messrs. Woolcombe Beer Watts) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. J. SWIFT (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright
The application
1. The applicant is 29. He was born in Iran. He entered the United Kingdom on 3 August 1994. He claimed asylum on 5 August 1994. The Secretary of State refused his claim in a letter dated 5 March 1997. His appeal to the Special Adjudicator was dismissed by a determination on 13 December 1998. Leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was refused on 19 February 1999. The applicant seeks judicial review of that refusal. He does so by permission of the Court of Appeal (following a hearing at which the Respondents were not represented), applications for permission having previously been refused both on paper and at an oral hearing.
The Secretary of State's refusal
2. The basis of the application was set out in a long statement dated 20 September 1994. Its contents were summarised in the Secretary of State's refusal letter of 5 March 1997 (page 69). In paragraph 2, the Secretary of State stated that "The basis of your claim is that you suffered continuous harassment in Iran because of your own and your family's political beliefs. You claimed that yo...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Youngson, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION COURT
Case No:CO/4235/1999
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 11 December 2000
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(A child by Sarah Youngson his Litigation friend)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 De Mello and Miss Kelly (instructed by Gamble Morris Hills Kingston, Birmingham, B30 3AS) for the Claimant
Mr C SheldonError! Bookmark not defined. (instructed by Birmingham City Council Legal Services, Birmingham, B2 5EN) for the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: 1. Jacob Youngson was born on 24 October 1987 and is therefore now aged 13. He has ambitions to be a professional ballet dancer. He has some talent and his parents applied to the Local Education Authority of the Birmingham City Council (the Defendant) for a grant to enable him to attend a full time vocational dance course. On 10 Feb...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
ADT Auctions Ltd v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 305
- 37 -
Case No: CO/4040/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 16 March 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE JOWITT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Elvin (instructed by Gouldens for the Claimant)
Timothy Corner (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the 1st Defendant)
Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Solicitor to Hart District Council for the 2nd Defendant)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Jowitt:
1. This is a statutory appeal pursuant to section 288(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of the first defendant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, dismissing the claimant's appeal against a refusal by the second defendant, Hart District Council as Local Planning Authority, of an outline application for planning permission to develop for housing 5.68 hectares of low grade agricultural land lying south west to the edge of Yately in Hampshire. The proposal was to build 42 houses. There was an appeal against this refusal to the Secretary of State. He appointed an Inspector, Mr D P Machin (the first Inspector), to hold an inquiry and report to him so that he might decide the appeal. The inquiry was held over a period of 8 days in June and July 1996.
2. The appeal site was close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and there was at the time of the planning application and appeal a live proposal to designate the SSSI also as a Special Protection Area for Wild Birds (SPA) by reason of the presence on the site of breeding woodlarks, nightjars and Dartford warblers. I shall refer to the site as a conservation site. It is a site to which the public have access.
3. An important issue at the appeal hearing was whether and to what extent the proposed development would adversely affect environmentally the conservation site. It is this aspect of the planning appeal which is relevant in the appeal before me. Appearing before the first Inspector were the claimant, the second defendant, Hampshire County Council, English Nature and other interested parties and evidence was called and submissions were made by them about the environmental issue.
4. There was evidence that within the conservation site are to be found the largest remnant of heathland habitat and the largest valley bog/heathland complex in the north east Hampshire section of the Thames basin. As well as being a home for the three species of birds, which depend on the heathland, the conservation site is home for a particularly rich intervertebrate fauna, including a number of nationally rare and scarce species. Among the factors which it was said would lead to a degradation of this site from the building of the 42 houses were the added pressure on the conservation site from the activities of the residents and their cats and dogs, from the dumping of garden refuse, the escape of and deliberate planting ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
O'Bryne, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For The Environment & Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 347
1
Case no: co/1085/1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Wednesday 24 May 2000
Before:
MR JUSTICE goldring
-------------------
Regina
v
Secretary of State for the Environment and Transport and Regions
Ex Parte O'Bryne
____________________
(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 John hobson qc (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent)
Mr alistair craig (instructed by Donne Mileham & Haddock, Brighton, East Sus***, BW1 3YB, for the Applicant)
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The application
This is an application by Ms O'Byrne for
A declaration that the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, cannot deprive her, as a secure tenant, of the right to buy her flat from Croydon Borough Council ("Croydon") under section 118 of the Housing Act, 1985.
An order of certiorari to quash the decision said to deprive her of that right.
An order of mandamus to oblige the Secretary of State to consent to the sale by Croydon to her.
The basic issue Section 5(1) of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 ("the 1938 Act") provides that the consent of the minister has to be obtained before Green Belt land vested in a local authority is sold. If the relevant local authority is dissatisfied with the sale, the minister, before consenting to it, is obliged to hold a local inquiry. Section 118 of the Housing Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act") provides a right to a secure tenant to buy his council house. Ms O'Byrne is a such a tenant with such a right. Croydon was dissatisfied with the sale it ...
[/align]