-
[align=left]
Ratchev, R (on the application of) v Government Of Bulgaria & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 343
Case No: CO 2018/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 17th May 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE HENRY
and
MR JUSTICE ALLIOTT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Helen Malcolm (instructed for the Applicant)
James Lewis Esq (instructed for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Henry:
Mr Ratchev, now a British subject through marriage and residence, challenges, under Section 6(2) of the Extradition Act, 1989, his committal for e
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Kaymak, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 431
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/961/2000
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
- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
HASAN KAYMAK
-v-
(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(2) THE IMMIGRATION APPEALLATE AUTHORITY
(3) THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
- - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - -
DR S JUSS (instructed by Sheikh & Co, 208 Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park, London N4 3NX) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MISS J ANDERSON (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
JACK BEATSON Q.C.:- In this application for judicial review Mr Hasan Kaymak, an Alevi Kurd aged 31 who is a Turkish citizen, seeks certiorari to quash the decisions of Miss Lingard, the Special Adjudicator promulgated on 3 November 1999 t...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Joseph, R (on the application of) v Director Of Public Prosecutions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 439
Case No: CO/1224/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST
DIVISIONAL COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 21st December 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
and
SIR EDWIN JOWITT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Hugh Southey (Instructed by Deighton Guedalla, 30 Islington Green , London, N1 8DU)appeared for the Appellant
Mr John McGuinness (Instructed by CPS, London)appeared for the Respondent
Mr Julian Knowles (appeared for the Intervener)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Waller: 1. The applicant Andre Joseph seeks to review the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions da...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
MRB Insurance Brokers Ltd, R (on the application of) v Kettering Magistrates' Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 320
- 1 -
Case No: CO/1721/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
CROWM OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 4 April 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FREDERICK PHILPOTT & IAIN MACDONALD (instructed by Messrs. Romain Coleman & Co. for the Applicant)
KARL H. SCHOLTZ (instructed by Legal Servcies, Northampton County Council for the PROSECUTOR)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
[/align]
...
-
[align=left]
Howell, R (on the application of) v Planning Inspectorate Cardiff, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 355
- 10 -
Case No: CO/3850/1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CROWN OFFICE LIST - IN THE MATTER OF
AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 15 June 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE ROCH
----------------------------------
(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)
----------------------------------
Geraint Jones (instructed by Messrs Lewis Lewis, Carmarthenshire, for the Applicant)
Philip Marshall (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
Counsel for judgment: Mr. A Scott-Gall For the Applicant
Ms. E Gow For the Respondent
----------------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Roch
1. This is an application for an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash a decision of a planning inspector, Mr R. F. Shercliff, contained in a decision letter dated 10 June 1999. That decision was to confirm the proposal of the former Dyfed County Council, to reclassify a public way formerly classified as a road used as a public path under the Public Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, as a footpath pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.
2. The ground upon which relief is sought is that the Inspector, having heard evidence of vehicular use of the relevant way, summarised in paragraph 48 of his decision letter, directed himself that the majority of the evidence of use of the way by vehicles referred to activity after December, 1930, and was evidence that he, the Inspector, could not take into account. The Inspector conclude...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Mellor, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 385
- 1 -
Case No: 561/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 31 July 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE FORBES
- - - - - - - - - -
(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 David Pannick QC and Miss Flo Krause (instructed by A S Law) appeared for the Applicant
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Respondents
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice FORBES:
1. Introduction In these proceedings the Applicant ("Mr Mellor") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("the Secretary of State"), made on 3 November 1998 and communicated to Mr Mellor on 5 November 1998, not to allow his application for artificial insemination.
2. The Background Facts Mr Mellor was born on 4 April 1971 and is now aged 29. In February 1995 he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The tariff element of Mr Mellor's life sentence (Mr Mellor's "tariff") is due to expire in 2006, by which time he will be 35 years old.
3. In January 1997, whilst Mr Mellor was a prisoner at HMP Gartree, he met and formed a relationship with Tracey McColl, who was a member of the prison staff there at the time. On 17 March 1997, Miss McColl resigned from the Prison Service. On 21 April 1997 Mr Mellor was transferred to HMP Winchester, moving from there to HMP Long Lartin on 14 May 1997 and from there to HMP Nottingham on 11 October 1999. HMP Nottingham is a Category B local prison, with a wing for prisoners serving life sentences. Mr Mellor's understanding is that his next progressive move will be to a Category C prison: see paragraph 2 of his affidavit dated 27 May 2000.
4. On 22 July 1997, Mr Mellor and Miss McColl were married in prison. Mrs Mellor is now aged 25 and will be 31 years old when Mr Mellor's tariff expires in February 2006. In 2004, when it is possible that Mr Mellor may be granted temporary release (as to which, see paragraphs 7 and 8 below), Mrs Mellor will be 28/29 years old.
5. The first formal review of Mr Mellor's case by the Parole Board will take place in late 2002, 3 1/2 years prior to the expiry of his tariff, provided he has spent over 12 months as a Category C prisoner. Otherwise, his case will first be reviewed by the Parole Board in February 2003, 3 years prior to expiry of his tariff. Mr Mellor has been advised that once he reaches a Category C prison as a life prisoner, he can expect to spend 2 to 3 years in Category C conditions, if all goes well. This would then be followed by 2 years in Category D conditions (ie open conditions), followed by release on licence: see paragraph 3 of his affidavit dated 27 May 2000.
6. It will be open to the Parole Board, when reviewing Mr Mellor's case, to recommend that he should be transferred to open conditions. Such a recommendation would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and would only be made if the Parole Board were satisfied that Mr Mellor had made sufficient progress in addressing his offending behaviour to minimise the risk of reoffending, that he would benefit from open conditions and that he could be trusted not to abscond or to commit further offences whilst inside or outside prison.
7. After 6 months in open ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Vallaj, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2001] INLR 455,[2002] Imm AR 16,[2000] EWHC Admin 438
1
Case No: CO/2738/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London,
WC2A 2LL
Thursday 21st December 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE DYSON
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
(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 I. MacDonald QC and Ms S. Harrison (instructed by Messrs A.S.Law for the Applicant)
Mr S. Catchpole (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
----------------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Dyson:
Introduction
1. The Claimant is a Kosovar Albanian and a national of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("FRY"). He applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in the FRY. The basis of his claim was that he had been beaten up on two occasions by 4 or 5 Serbs who lived in his village in Kosovo. He also claimed that he had been living in a tent because his house had been burnt down, and had decided to leave Kosovo in fear of his life in late March 2000.
2. In a letter dated 12 April 2000, the Secretary of State refused the application. So far as material, the letter stated:
"6. The Secretary of State considers that you could have attempted to seek redress through the proper authorities before seeking international protection. While he is aware that there are security difficulties in Kosovo, which the UN administration is seeking to address, he has concluded that you would not be at risk of persecution for a Convention reason there.
7. Further doubts as to your alleged fear of persecution can be drawn from the fact that you did not leave Kosovo until two months after the second alleged attack on you by the Serbs. The Secretary of State holds the view that if your fear of persecution by the Serbs was genuine you would have left Kosovo at the earliest opportunity and the fact that you did not casts doubt on the veracity and credibility of your claim.
8. With regard to the letter received from you r representative on 11th April 2000, the Secretary of State would comment as follows:
The letter claimed that the attacks by Serbs were carried out in an organised manner in order to intimidate you. However, the Secretary of State considers that there is no suggestion that the two claimed attacks were more than random criminality, particularly as the incidents were two or three months apart.
The letter claimed that it is "common knowledge that ethnic Albanians are discriminated against and persecuted by the Serbs". However, the Secretary of State considers that following the Kosovar war such discrimination no longer applies, and it is considered that Serbs are, in fact, vulnerable in Kosovo because of revenge attacks by ethnic Albanians.
9. In the l...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Akdogan, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator Of Immigration Appellate Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 289
- 1 -
Case No: CO/1357/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday, 11 February 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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Matthew Feldman (instructed by Messrs Christmas & Sheehan for the Applicant)
Lisa Giovannetti (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 11 February 2000
JUDGMENT Mr Justice Maurice Kay: This Applicant has permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by a Special Adjudicator, Mr. G Denson, made on 13 January 1999 to adjourn the Applicant's appeal hearing and to transfer it to another Adjudicator. The Applicant is an asylum seeker from Turkey. He is an Alevi Kurd. He is 29 years of age. I do not know all the details of his claim for asylum but it is based upon the involvement of his family and of himself in Kurdish politics. It is said that two of his relatives have been shot for their political activities, one in 1969, the other in 1...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Victor Chandler International v Customs & Excise & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 29, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 299
HC 999 02539
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
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 P. Sales and Mr T. Pitt-Payne instructed by H.M. Customs & Excise for the Appellant
Mr D. Oliver QC and Mr M. Cunningham instructed by Goldsmiths, London SW1Y 6JF for the Respondent
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Tuesday 29th February 2000
The Vice-Chancellor :-
1. This appeal raises a narrow question of construction of section 9(1)(b) of the Betting and Gaming Act 1981. The 1981 Act is a consolidating Act which reproduces previously enacted statutory provisions. Under section 1(1)(a) of the Act betting duty is chargeable on any bet which is not an on-course bet and which "is made with a bookmaker in the United Kingdom". There are other circumstances set out in the sub-section in which betting duty becomes chargeable but I need not refer to them. Under section 2(1) the betting duty has to be paid "in the case of a bet with a bookmaker ..., by the bookmaker". Naturally enough bookmakers make arrangements under which the real cost of the betting duty for which they become liable is borne by the punters who place bets with them.
2. Betting duty is an excise duty and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are responsible for its collection.
3. Section 9 of the Act is entitled "Prohibitions for protection of revenue". It reproduces provisions which had their origin in the earlier legislation. The purpose of section 9, and its statutory predecessors, is to prevent bookmakers who are based off-shore, and who are therefore not chargeable under section 1(1)(a), from soliciting bets from people within the United Kingdom.
4. Section 9(1) provides as follows:-
"(1) Any person who -
(a) conducts in the United Kingdom any business or agency for the negotiation, receipt or transmission of bets to which this section applies, or (b) knowingly issues, circulates or distributes in the United Kingdom, or has in his possession for that purpose, any advertisement or other document inviting or otherwise relating to the ma...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
KL v Worcestershire County Council & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 303
- 13 -
Case No: 1999/1252/C
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST (CARNWATH J)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 15 March 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
Of England & Wales (Lord Birmingham of Cornhill)
LORD JUSTICE PILL
and
LADY JUSTICE HALE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Gordon QC & Nicholas Bowen (instructed by Rust Moss & Co., 48 Blackburn Road, Accrington, Lancashire, BB5 1LE) for the appellant
David Wolfe (Mr J Moffatt 15.3.00)(instructed by Simon Mallinson, Head of Legal Services, Worcestershire County Council, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcestershire, WR5 2NP) for the respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Hale:
1. This is the judgment of the Court.
Facts 2. K was born on 1 June 1990. She has cerebral palsy, which affects her fine and gross motor movements. She also has Turner's Syndrome which results in small stature. Because of these physical disabilities she has special educational needs. Her mother wishes her to go to A Manor School which is a small private special school. The Special Educational Needs Tribunal has decided that she should go to a mainstream day school which is able to provi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Montana, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 421
Case No: C/2000/0386
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HON. MR. JUSTICE TURNER
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 23 November 2000.
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
and
SIR SWINTON 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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Liberty) for the Appellant
Robin Tam (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor London SW1H 9JS) for the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction. This is the judgment of the court. The case raises the question whether the policy adopted by the Secretary of State for exercising a statutory discretion to register a child as a British citizen is unlawful. It arises on appeal from Turner J. who decided that it was not when dismissing the Appellant, Mario Montana's application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to register his son Julian as a British citizen. The Judge also rejected the Appellant's contention that the Secretary of State's decisi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Friend & National Assembly For Wales Newport Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 332
28
Case No: CO/2265/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING AT SWANSEA CROWN COURT
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, LONDON, WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 18th April 2000
Before:
THE HON.MR JUSTICE TURNER
-----------------------------
DENNIS FRIEND
And
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
NEWPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL
-----------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 , Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-----------------------------
Mr Rupert Warren (instructed by Miss J. Johnstone Rubin Lewis O'Brian, Solicitors, South Wales NP44 1PL for the Applicant)
Mr David Forsdick (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent)
2nd Respondent not represented
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Justice TURNER:
1. This is a statutory appeal from the decision of an inspector who dismissed three appeals which had been brought before him by the applicant. Those appeals were brought against the service of three enforcement notices served on the applicant by the respondent Borough Council in respect of what was alleged to have been three breaches of planning control by the applicant as the owner of land and buildings at Trinco House, Penhow, Newport. The three notices have throughout been referred to as A, B and C and related to separate aspects of the applicant's conduct on his land. Thus:
1. Notice A, alleged the change of use to a dwelling house without planning permission of a building formerly used for pleasure purposes;
2. Notice B, alleged the erection of a building and lamp standards, without planning permission;
3. Notice C, alleged a change of use of agricultural land to use as residential curtilage.
2. The proceedings had commenced as the result of the service by the Newport Borough Council ('the Council') of three enforcement notices which not only had required discontinuance of the non-permitted use but also reinstatement of the three separate pieces of, what was claimed to have been, unauthorised development. The applicant appealed against all three notices and relied upo...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Isle Of Wight Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 322
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case no: CO/4077/99
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Friday 7 April 2000
Before:
The Hon Mr Justice Newman
__________________________________
THE QUEEN
- and -
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Respondents
- ex parte -
THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL
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)
----------------
Jeremy Lever QC and Hugh Mercer instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, Solicitors for the Applicant
Christopher Vajda QC and Stephen Morris instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, for the Respondents
----------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Hon Mr Justice Newman
The applicant, the Isle of Wight Council, seeks judicial review of two measures taken by the respondents containing proposals by the United Kingdom Government (the Government) to the Commission of the European Communities (the Commission) for the classification of areas within the United Kingdom for the purposes of
(a) the grant by the Government of a form of national state aid known as regional selective assistance (RSA), ("the Assisted Areas Proposal") and
(b) the grant by the Commission of assistance, also made available on a regional basis, from the structural funds of the European Community (EC) ("the Objective 2 Proposals").
The proposals were published in the name of the Departments for which each of the Respondent members are responsible. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acted as the lead minister in submitting the proposals to the Commission.
The Government's proposals for RSA were contained in "the Government's proposals for new assisted areas dated l5 July l999. The Government's proposals for structural funds were contained in the document entitled "EU Structural Funds: the UK Government's Proposals for New Objective 2 areas" dated 8 October l999.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RSA
The Government exercises power in connection with RSA pursuant to the Industrial Development Act l982 (the Act) and in particular Section l, which provides
"S.1(1) For the purposes of this Act, and any other enactment referring to the development areas or intermediate areas under this Act, the Secretary of State may by order specify any area of Great Britain as -
(a) a development area, or
(b) an intermediate area."
(2) ..........
(3) ..........
(4) ..........
The legal framework of the Act for the provision of financial assistance for industry in assisted areas is set out in Sections 7 and 8. Section 7 provides:
"S.7:
(1) For the purposes set out in the following provisions of this section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assistance where, in his opinion -
(a) the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted area; and
(b) the undertakings for which the assistance is provided are or will be wholly or mainly in the assisted areas.
(2) The purposes mentioned in sub-section l above are -
(a) to promote the development or modernisation of an industry;
(b) to promote the efficiency of an industry;
(c) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
M, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC 644 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
CO/4563/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday 28th September 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE JACKSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REGINA
-v-
THE ASHWORTH SPECIAL HOSPITAL TRUST
EX PARTE COLONEL M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MISS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by HOGANS SOLICITORS, 10 STATION ROAD, RAINHILL, MERSEYSIDE, L35 OLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR GREGORY CHAMBERS (instructed by REID MINTY SOLICITORS, LONDON WIX 9HZ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This judgment is in four parts, namely: part 1, introduction; part 2, the background facts and statutory context; part 3, the four challenges to Ashworth Hospital's Seclusion Procedure; part 4, conclusion.
Part 1: Introduction 2. The applicant is a patient detained at Ashworth Special Hospital pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The applicant has been at Ashworth Hospital since March 1994. From time to time the applicant has been placed in seclusion at Ashworth Hospital as a result of behavioural problem...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Pelling, R (on the application of) v Bow County Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 2000, [2001] ACD 1,[2000] EWHC 636 (Admin),[2001] UKHRR 165
SMITH BERNAL
CO/4774/1999
BAILII Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 636 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2
Date: Thursday, 19th October 2000
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
and
MR JUSTICE PENRY-DAVEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
MICHAEL JOHN PELLING
-v-
BOW COUNTY COURT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The applicant appeared in person
MESSRS P SALES & A CHOUDHURY (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT
1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: In these proceedings for judicial review the applicant, Dr Pelling, principally seeks to have declared ultra vires certain rules in the Civil Procedure Rules and certain parts of the Practice Directions issued under those rules. Dr Pelling's attention was drawn to the matters of which he complains by certain practices at the Bow County Court, but it is important to note that the relief that he seeks in these proceedings is directed at the generality of the rules and practice directions underlying those practices and not, save in one respect, which I shall come at the end of this judgment, at the practices at that court themselves.
2. There are a number of preliminary matters that I must deal with before I come to the substance of the case: (1) The case was estimated to last for one day. That was an estimate that even if not made by Dr Pelling, he concurred in to the extent of recording it at the beginning of his skeleton argument, and the case was accordingly listed and other cases today equally listed on that assumption. The case was listed to come on at 12 noon yesterday and was called on at that hour. Dr Pelling had not then arrived in court, owing to transport difficulties which he properly explained to us later, but was able to commence his submissions at 12.30. At 4.15 yesterday we told him that the court would sit today at 10 o'clock but that he must conclude his oral submissions by 11.30; that is to say, allowing him over four hours of court time to address us. Dr Pelling indicated that that would cause him difficulty. However, we bore...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
C, R (on the application of) v London South and South West Region, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC 637 (Admin)
CO/4092/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Thursday 21st December 2000
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T H E Q U E E N
ON THE APPLICATION OF
C
Claimant
v.
MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL
LONDON SOUTH AND SOUTH WEST REGION
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcription of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG Tel: 020 7404 1400 020 7404 1400
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR STEPHEN SIMBLET (instructed by Jacqueline Everett & Co, London SW16 6JF) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR DAVID FORSDICK (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N TSMITH BERNAL
1. MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The single issue raised in this application is whether the Mental Health Review Tribunal (``the tribunal'') is in breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights (``ECHR''), which provides:
``Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.'' 2. The claimant, to whom I shall refer as C, was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the 1983 Act'') on 16th October 2000. He immediately applied to the tribunal for discharge and in accordance with current practice his case was listed for hearing eight weeks later, on 11th December. His submission is that eight weeks is too long a period and is contrary to Article 5(4), which requires the lawfulness of his decision to be decided speed...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, R (on the application of) v The Chief Schools Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin),[2001] ELR 574
SMITH BERNAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CO/3642/2000
BAILII Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Date: Thursday, 14th December 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL
-v-
THE CHIEF SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 MR C BEAR and MR N GIFFIN (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as Agents for PG Manson, Borough Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR C LEWIS and MR T PITT-PAYNE (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Wirral Borough Metropolitan Council is the claimant in these proceedings and is the local education authority for the Wirral. Within its area, state sector secondary education is provided at six grammar schools and 17 all-ability schools. The grammar schools account for approximately 20 per cent of the total number of places. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (``Wirral''), as the admissions authority, determines admission arrangements for two of the grammar schools which are community schools and for the 14 community all-ability schools. Two of the other grammar schools are foundation schools (ex-grant maintained) and set their own admission arrangements. However, the community and foundation grammar schools' admissions are managed jointly by Wirral. The remaining two grammar schools, as well as three of the all-ability schools, are Roman Catholic aided schools which set and conduct their own admissions arrangements. However, by agreement, the Authority at present exercises a co-ordinating role in relation to admissions for all of these schools. 2. For admissions for the academic year starting 2001, Wirral determined that its approach would be that selection tests for grammar schools would precede the expression by parents of their preference as to the state sector secondary school for their children. This approach was agreed with those with whom Wirral co-ordinates arrangements and those whose admission arrangments it manages. The purpose of doing things that way round was to enable parents to have a much better idea of whether their children would obtain a grammar school place when they first expressed their preference for a grammar school. Armed with that knowledge, a parent of a child who had failed to obtain the requisite standard for entry to the grammar school could select as his or her first preference one of the six over-subscribed, more popular state all-ability schools. Without that knowledge, a parent of a child who had chosen a grammar school as fi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Parkyn, R (on the application of) v Restormel Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 344
1
Case no: CO/1406/2000 & CO/1425/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWn OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Wednesday 13th September 2000
Before:
Mr George bartlett qc
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division)
-------------------
Regina
V
Restormel Borough Council ex parte Parkyn
-and-
Regina
V
Restormel Borough council ex parte Corbett
____________________
(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 c katKowski qc and Mr j Maurici (Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London, WC1V 6HG) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Parkyn
mr j LittoN (Instructed by Russel Jones & Walker Solicitors London, WC1X 8NH) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Corbett
mr g roots qc and Mr r taylor (Instructed by Stephens & Scown St Austell, Cornwall, PL25 5DR) appeared on behalf of Land and Property Limited, an interested party
____________________
Judgment
(As Approval by the Court)
Crown Copyright
Mr George Bartlett QC:
The claimants in this case, both councillors of Restormel Borough Council, seek by judicial review to challenge four decisions of the council as local planning authority. Councillor Parkyn does so on behalf of the council itself, Councillor Corbett in a private capacity. Three of the decisions are grants of planning permission, and the fourth relates to an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on parts of the Victoria Business Park at Roche in Cornwall. The purpose of the challenge is to relieve the council of the obligation to pay compensation to the landowners in consequence of an order made by the Secretary of the State for the Environment Transport and the Regions modifying one of the permissions. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted to Councillor Parkyn by Sullivan J on 19 May 2000 and to Councillor Corbett by Forbes J on 30 June 2000 after Collins J had refused permission on paper.
Victoria Business Park
Victoria Business Park comprises about 20 hectares of land lying in otherwise generally open country on the south side of the A30 trunk road 3 kilometres west of the Bodmin bypass and 7 kilometres to the east of the Indian Queens bypass on a single carriageway section of the road. The village of Roche lies about 1.5 kilometres to the south. The nearest town are Bodmin, St Austell, Newquay and Truro. The Business Park has been developed on land formerly known as Penstraze Farm, which was bought by a company called ML Real Estate Ltd in, I think, the 1970s. It has been developed in a piecemeal manner from then onwards. Initially a number of planning permissions were granted for the erection of factory/workshop units. Then in October 1986 permissions were granted for retail (non-food bulky items) and warehouse development on part of the site. It appears that the retail element (50,000 sq ft) was included to give a high value use to make the site more attractive to developers. Overall there have been numerous applications and permissions covering B1 (business), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage/distribution) as well as retail and other uses. Four of these permissions (including the three which are the subject of these proceedings) are of particular relevance.
The planning permissions
On 12 November 1990 permission ("the 1990 permission") was granted to ML Real Estates Ltd for the "Erection of non-food retail units with associated car parking, etc.". The amount of retail floor space was 195,000 square feet. The site was a roughly square area which formed the central area of the business park and was bounded on three of its sides by what the plan showed as the internal estate road. The permission was a full permission with the standard 5-year time limit on commencement. Among the conditions imposed was the following:
"11. The total floorspace to be used for non food retail shall not exceed 125,000 sq ft comprising a maximum number of five units which shall not be sub-divided but shall be occupied by a single non food retail operator."
An agreement made under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 between the council, ML Real Estate Ltd as owners, the mortgagees, and the contracting purchaser of the land, contained a similar provision. The application had been referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a departure from the development plan, but it was not called in despite the fact that there was an objection to it by Cornwall County Council. On 5 January 1994 a permission was granted on an application made in 1993 for "Extension of time limit of Decision ... dated 12/11/90 for erection of non-food retail units with associated car parking etc." The applicants were Ernst & Young, receivers for ML Real Estate Ltd, which was then in receivership. Although the p...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
McNally, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Education & Employment, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 380
2
McNally
CO/2182/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 27th July 2000
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY
Between:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 E. Grey (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
Mr T. Straker QC (instructed by Messrs Stanley Monaghan for the Metropolitan Borough of Bury)
Miss. A. Weston (instructed by Messrs Thompsons for the Applicant)
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright
INTRODUCTION
This is a difficult case which has rightly given rise to serious concern on the part of the Applicant, a teacher, the Governors of the School (Woodhey High School) at which he worked, the local Education Authority, the Metropolitan Borough of Bury in which the School is situated and the Respondent Secretary of State.
BACKGROUND The Applicant has taught at the School for several years. In 1995 an...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Russell, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 366
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
(1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(2) THE GOVERNOR OF HMP FRANKLAND
(3) THE GOVERNOR OF HMP FULL SUTTON
Respondents
ex parte
ANDREW RUSSELL
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.
Miss Alison Foster (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application by Mr Russell (pursuant to permission g...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secreatary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 425
1
Case no: CO/2248/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London,
wc2a 2ll
Thurday 30th November 2000
Before:
The honourable mr justice DYSONS
-------------------
The Queen on the Application of
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and
France-Manche S.A.
Respondent
-v-
The Secreatary of State for the
Environment Transport and The
Regions
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)
____________________
Stuart Isaacs QC (only for the Judgment) & Clive Lewis (instructed by Mesrs Brachers, Maidstone, ME16 8JH for the Applicant)
Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction
1. This is an application by the Channel Tunnel Group and Franche-Manche S A ("Eurotunnel") challenging the validity of two directions issued by the Secretary of State in connection with security at the Channel Tunnel. By Direction 15B/00 ("the X-ray Direction") made on 7 April 2000, Eurotunnel was required to install a new X-ray system. By direction 4B(2)/00 ("the Search Direction") made on 18 April 2000, Eurotunnel was required to increase the proportion of vehicles that were to undergo under-vehicle searches. These directions were purportedly made under The Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 ("the Order"). Eurotunnel contends that the Secretary of State had no power to give such directions on the grounds that (a) directions made pursuant to the Order may not be imposed on Eurotunnel by one government acting unilaterally, and (b) the two directions with which this application is concerned were imposed unilaterally by the government of the United Kingdom.
The legislative framework
The Treaty of February 1986 between the United Kingdom and France
2. The Treaty concerns the construction and operation by concessionaires of the Channel fixed link. So far as material, it provides as follows:
"ARTICLE 5
Defence and Security
(1) Defence and security matters relating to the Fixed Link and the
implementation of the Treaty shall be the subject of special arrangements between the two Governments. Such arrangements shall inc...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Atkins v Director Of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 302,[2000] 2 All ER 425,[2000] 1 WLR 1427,[2001] 1 WLR 1427
- 28 -
Case No: CO/3417/99
CO/3002/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 8 March 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
and
MR JUSTICE BLOFELD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Helen Malcolm (instructed by Offenbach & Co of London W1V 2BA Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant, Dr Atkins
Mr Peter Blair (instructed by Nile Arnall of Bristol BS1 5NA Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant, Mr Goodland
Mr Robert Davies (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the DPP
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Simon Brown: These two appeals by way of case stated raise a number of interesting and difficult questions as to the proper construction and application of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (the PCA) and s.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the CJA), provisions concerned with indecent photographs of children.
Antony Rowan Atkins was convicted by the Avon Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate at Bristol Magistrates Court on 27 May 1999 of 10 offences of having in his possession indecent photographs of children between specified dates in October 1997 contrary to s.160(1) of the CJA. On 25 May 1999 the Magistrate had upheld a submission that Dr Atkins had no case to answer in respect of 21 additional counts of making indecent photographs of children between the same dates contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the PCA. Dr Atkins appeals against his conviction on the 10 possession counts; the DPP appeals against Dr Atkins' acquittal on the 21 "making" counts.
Peter John Goodland was convicted by the Avon Justices at Bristol Magistrates Court on 21 April 1999 on one count of having in his possession on 5 November 1998 an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child contrary to s.160(1) of the CJA. He now appeals against that conviction.
Although the two appeals raise entirely different points (both coming by sheer chance from Bristol Magistrates Court), it has se...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Shen, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 25, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 452,[2001] INLR 389
SMITH BERNAL
NO: CO/3808/98
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC Admin 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday, 25th May 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE DYSON
- - - - - - -
R e g i n a
-v-
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
EX PARTE SHEN
- - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -
MR KADRI QC and MR E PIPI (instructed by Jonathan & Chuks, 48 Balls Pond Road, London N1 4AP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR WARD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N TThursday, 25th May 2000
1. MR JUSTICE DYSON: This is an application for judicial review of the refusal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, on 15th February 1998, to grant the applicant permission to appeal against the dismissal by the special adjudicator, on 27th May 1998, of his appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State to grant him political asylum. 2. The applicant was born in China. He is now 45 years of age. He arrived in t...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Mahmood, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 02, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 632
Case No: CO/3079/98
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 9th August 2001
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Defendant)
Ramby de Mello (instructed by Fawcett Pattni, Solicitors for the Claimant)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Newman:
1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State notifying the claimant that he was an `illegal entrant' and therefore liable to deportation. Permission was granted as long ago as 2 February 2000 by Latham J, and on l9 June 2000, Gibbs J made an order for cross examination of the claimant on an application by the Secretary of State. Mindful of what had been said by Thorpe LJ in Cendiz Doldur v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1998 [IMM AR 352] and since the Secretary of State maintained that deceit was to be inferred from what the claimant had failed to state to immigration officers, it was consi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Powys County Council v National Assemble For Wales & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 313
15
Case no: co/4392/99
In the HIGH Court of JUSTICE
SITTING AT SWANSEA CROWN COURT
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Thursday 30 March 2000
Before:
thE HON MR JUSTICE turner
Powys county council
V
National assemble for wales and johnathan hanson
____________________
(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 IAIN COLEVILLE (instructed by RJ EAGLE for the Appellant)
(1ST RESPONDENT NOT REPRESENTED)
Ashley Underwood (instructed by Community Law Partnership for the 2nd Respondent)
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
POWYS COUNTY COUNCIL
v.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES and
JONATHAN HANSON
REASONS FOR J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE TURNER: 1. This is a statutory appeal from the decision of an inspector appointed by the first respondent to hear the appeal of the second respondent from the decision of the applicants. By that decision the applicant County Council had refused to grant planning permission to the second respondent to enable him to site two caravans on a parcel of land known as Maes Bwch Dihangol, Argoed Lane, Nantglas, Llandridnod Wells, in the county of Powys. By decision which was promulgated on the 28th September, 1999 the appeal was allowed. The first respondent has not appeared on the hearing of th...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Chamberlain, R (On The Application Of) v Social Security Commissioner, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 364
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
7th July 2000
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
Respondent
ex parte
SIDNEY CHAMBERLAIN
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 Nicholas Nicol (Instructed by Messrs Lawrence & Co, 474 Harrow Road, London W9 3RU) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr David Forsdick (Instructed by the Solicitor to the DSS, New Court, Carey street, London WC1) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lightman:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application made by Mr Sidney Chamberlain ("the Applicant") pursuant to permission granted by Ognall J on the 8th July 1999 for an order quashing a decision dated the 18th February 1999 ("the Decision") of the Social Security Commissioner ("the Commissioner"). The...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Proulx v Governor Of HM Prison Brixton & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 381
Case No.: CO/99/3802&3804
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date:28 July 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MANCE
and
MR JUSTICE NEWMAN
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
(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 Michel Massih Q.C. and Mr Mark J Summers (instructed by Messrs. Lound Mulrenan) appeared for the Applicant
Mr John Hardy (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondents
Bow Street Magistrates' Court were not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Mance:
1. Introduction
During the night of 25/26th March 1995 Stacey Koehler was killed by blows struck to the head with a heavy implement in her flat in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. She had worked in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in New Westminster, and had been promoted to become its manager about two months before her death. The applicant worked in the same restaurant, as did Patricia Gulliford, who was his girlfriend until April 1995. The applicant and Patricia Gulliford were interviewed after Stacey Koehler's death. He told the police and Patricia Gulliford confirmed that he had been with Patricia Gulliford on the evening of 25th March 1995. According to an affidavit sworn 16th October 1998 by Patricia Gulliford, that was in fact incorrect. It is common ground that its incorrectness could give rise to no more than suspicion in relation to the applicant. He was not arrested, and he left Canada for Mexico using his own passport in or about August 1995.
2. The applicant later moved to England, where he worked at the Queen Alexander Nursing Home, Folkestone. On 28th August 1998 he was arrested on a warrant for his arrest issued by the Bow Street Magistrates Court under s.8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989. On 16th October 1998 nine affidavits were sworn setting out the basis and evidence upon which the respondent Government of Canada sought his extradition to Canada to stand trial for murder of Stacey Koehler. As will appear, the evidence relied upon is evidence of confessions made on 21st and 22nd August 1998 to Scott Doran, an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") working as an undercover agent in collaboration with the Kent Police Force and London Metropolitan Police in an operation code-named Implore.
3. The Secretary of State gave authority to proceed under s.7(4) of the Extradition Act 1989 on 9th November 1998. The matter came before Mr Nicholas Evans, the Stipendiary Magistrate, under s.9(8) of the 1989 Act. That sub-section (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) reads:
"9-(8) Where an authority to proceed has been issued in respect of the person arrested and the court of committal is satisfied, after hearing any representations made in support of the extradition request or on behalf of that person, that the offence to which the authority relates is an extradition crime, and is further satisfied-
where that person is accused of the offence .... that the evidence would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings against him were the summary trial of an information against him;
where that person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the offence, that he has been so convicted and appears to be so at large,
the court .... shall commit him to custody or on bail-
(i) to await the Secretary of State's decision as to his return; and
(ii) if the Secretary of State decides that he shall be returned, to await his return."
4. The offence in relation to which extradition is sought is an extradition crime within the meaning of s.9(8). The issue argued before the Stipendiary Magistrate was whether the evidence before him "would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by [the applicant] if the proceedings against him were the summary trial of an information against him". By a ruling handed down on 2nd September 1999, the Stipendiary Magistrate answered that issue affirmatively, and in consequence made an order for committal under s.9(8).
5. Applications for habeas corpus under s.11(1) and/or (3)(b) and/or (c) of the 1989 Act and/or for judicial review were lodged on 16th September 1999. Permission to seek judicial review was granted on 11th April 2000, and the applications for habeas corpus and judicial review were consolidated. The primary ground upon which habeas corpus is sought is that the Magistrate erred in his conclusion that there was any sufficient evidence under s.9(8). This in turn depends upon submissions that the Magistrate ought - under ss.76 and/or 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE") and/or ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Buckinghamshire County Council v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 386
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO 4769/99
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday, 31st August 2000
B e f o r e:
MR ROBIN PURCHAS QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division)
- - - - - - -
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
-v-
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
and
J BROWN
- - - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Handed Down
Judgment of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 020-7421 4040 020-7421 4040
Fax No: 020-7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - -
MR B SEFI and MS K SHERRETT (for judgment) (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London WC1V 6HG) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR D ELVIN QC and MR D ABRAHAMS (for judgment) (instructed by The Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
(Crown Copyright)
Mr Robin Purchas QC
In this appeal Buckinghamshire County Council appeals under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act ("the 1990 Act") against a decision by an Inspector appointed by the First Respondent, allowing the appeal of the Second Respondent against an Enforcement Notice issued on the 8th December 1995 in respect of a building at Westhorpe Farm, Little Marlow ("the Building"). The Enforcement Notice was in respect of the change of use of the Building to an engineering workshop. The Second Respondent's appeal was allowed on ground (d), that is the use that commenced more than 10 years prior to the issue of the notice.
Mr Benedict Sefi, who appears for the Appellant, relies upon two main grounds, both of which raise points of general importance:
(1) That the Inspector erred in concluding that the Second Respondent was a competent Appellant for the purposes of Section 174 of the 1990 Act; and
(2) That the Inspector erred in holding that the Second Respondent was not estopped from relying upon ground (d) in support of his appeal pursuant to Section 174.
I will deal with each ground in turn.
COMPETENCY
The Statutory framework
By Section 174 of the 1990 Act:
"(1) A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates or a relevant occupier may appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, whether or not a copy of it has been served on him. ...
(6) In this section "relevant occupier" means a person who
(a) on the date on which the enforcement notice is issued occupies the land to which the notice relates by virtue of a licence; and
(b) continues so to occupy the land when the appeal is brought."
By Section 179:
"(1) Where, at any time after the end of the period for compliance of an enforcement notice, any step required by the notice to be taken has not been taken or any activity required by the notice to cease is being carried on, the person who is then the owner of the land is in breach of the notice. ...
(4) A person who has control of or an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates (other than the owner) must not carry on any activity which is required by the notice to cease or cause or permit such an activity to be carried on."
B...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
X, R (on the application of) v Immigration Officer, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC 647 (Admin)
Case no: co/2355/1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN 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 J X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JudgmentMr 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 the Secretar...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Regentford Ltd, R (on the application of) v Canterbury Crown Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 440
Case No: CO/1868/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 21 December 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
and
SIR EDWIN JOWITT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Charles Salter, Mr Nicholas Fairbank (instructed by J J Goldstein & Co) for the Claimant
Mr Jeremy Morgan for the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Waller:
Introduction The applicant was prosecuted under the Fire Precau...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Naeem v Bank Of Credit & Commerce, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 335
Case Number: CHANF 1999/0176/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 19th April 2000
Before:
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott
-and-
Lord Justice buxton
B E T W E E N
International S.A.
__________________________________
(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 Robin Allen QC & Mr Isaac Jacob (instructed by Messrs Bweale & Co for the Appellant)
Mr Christopher Jeans QC & Mr D Stilitz (instructed by Messrs Lovells for the Respondent)
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Vice-Chancellor:-
1. Two claimants gave notice of appeal against the order of Lightman J of 30 December 1998. They were Mr Khawaja Mohammad Naeem and Mr Abdul Naim Mohammad. We were told that since then, Mr Mohammad has agreed terms of settlement with BCCI. Mr Naeem is now, therefore, the sole appellant. But the issues raised on this appeal do not depend to any significant, extent, if at all, on facts peculiar to Mr Naeem's case. They are issues which affect the cases of every BCCI ex-employee who, like Mr Naeem and Mr Mohammad, signed an ACAS COT3 form and thereby purported to accept the terms that BCCI were offering -
"... in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under, Statute, Common Law or in Equity of whatever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the [ex-employee] has or may have or has made or could make in or to the Industrial Tribunal, except the [ex-employee's] rights under [BCCI's] pension scheme".
2. The question for decision is whether Mr Naeem, who signed a COT3 form on 4 July 1990, thereby barred himself from subsequently bringing a "stigma" claim against BCCI. In Malik -v- BCCI [1998] AC 20 the House of Lords, reversing a unanimous Court of Appeal who had dismissed an appeal from Mr Justice Evans-Lombe, held that breach of contract "stigma" claims by ex-employees of BCCI could, if the requisite facts could be proved, succeed.
3. It is accepted that, at the time Mr Naeem signed the COT3 agreement, he did not know that he could bring a breach of contract "stigma" claim against BCCI. It is to be assumed, for present purposes, that he was unaware of the Bank's illegal and dishonest conduct of its banking business; conduct that led to its collapse in the summer of 1991 and that, as the House of Lords held, may have constituted a breach by BCCI of the contractual obligation of trust and confidence that it owed to its employees.
4. The main argument for Mr Naeem, presented very clearly by his counsel, Mr Robin Allen Q.C., is that since Mr Naeem did not know that he had a "stigma" claim, the COT3 agreement should not be construed so as to release that claim. There is, however, also a subsidiary argument. The illegal and dishonest nature of the business being carried on by BCCI, which is the foundation stone of the "stigma" claim, was something of which Mr Naeem was unaware but, obviously, was known to BCCI through the medium of one or more of its corrupt officers. Since BCCI did not, at the time the COT3 agreement was signed, make any disclosure to Mr Naeem of the facts, known to itself but not to Mr Naeem, giving rise to the "stigma" claim, the COT3 agreement cannot be enforced against Mr Naeem, at least so far as the release of the "stigma" claim is concerned.
5. These two arguments are, or at least ought to be, distinct from one another. The first raises an issue of construction. The principles of construction of written documents should be applied to resolve it. The second argument involves a principle of equity. Should a beneficiary of a general release, who at the time of the release knows of some claim that the releasor can make against him but of which, to his knowledge, the releasor is ignorant, be permitted to rely on the general release in order to prevent that claim being made? In Taylor Fashions Ltd -v- Liverpool Trustees Ltd [1982] QB 133 Oliver J. was considering whether, in order to establish an estoppel by acquiescence, each and every one of the five "probanda" set out by Fry J. in Willmott -v- Barber (1880) 15 Ch.D. 96 had to be shown to be present. He rejected that rigid approach. He concluded that:- "... principle requires a very much broader approach which is directed at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged an...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Inland Revenue, R (on the application of) v Income Tax, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 354
22
Case No: CO/2745/99 and CO/2979/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday14 June 2000
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)
__________________________________
Mr D GOLDBERG QC and Clive LEWIS (instructed by Messrs Travers Smith Braithwaite for the Ulster Bank Ltd.)
Mr T. BRENNAN (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue)
-__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Dyson:
Introduction
1. These two applications concern section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA). Under section 20, inspectors of taxes have power to call for documents from, amongst others, third parties to an investigation. In order to exercise that power, an inspector must first give a notice to the person from whom he wants the documents. Section 20(8) and (8A) provide that he can only give such notice without naming the taxpayer with whose liability he is concerned if a Special Commissioner gives his consent. One of the issues that arises for determination is whether, upon the true construction of section 20(8A) of TMA, an application to a Special Commissioner for consent may be made by an inspector only if it has been authorised by an order of the Board of the Inland Revenue itself, or whether it is sufficient that the application be authorised by an officer to whom the Board has delegated the requisite power. But before I come to the issues in more detail, I need to set the scene.
2. Ulster Bank Limited ("UBL") is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Westminster Bank Plc. Its principal activity is that of deposit-taking. As part of its internal accounting mechanism, a "Sundry Parties' Account" was operated at each of its branches. This is an account through which may be passed isolated transactions with parties who may or may not be customers of the bank, or who may or may not have accounts at the branch. All branches of the bank will have a Sundry Parties' Account to record transactions which are not or cannot be dealt with through specific named accounts. UBL is not under investigation itself, and the Revenue is seeking information about other taxpayers whose transactions were passed through Sundry Parties' Accounts. It is accepted by the Revenue that such accounts can have entirely proper banking purposes. They can, however, be used as a means of facilitating fraud. This is because it is difficult to trace money transactions that pass through such accounts. The Revenue does not suggest that UBL has been complicit in a tax fraud. But it is of the opinion that sundry parties' accounts have been used by individuals for the purpose of serious fraud. The investigation which is the subject of these proceedings has the aim of unravelling these frauds.
3. The history of the attempts by the Revenue to extract documents from UBL under section 20 of TMA is complex. It is unnecessary to examine it in detail. The relevant investigations started in 1995. In November 1997, the Revenue gave UBL a notice in relation to 6 named branches. That notice was challenged in judicial review proceedings on the grounds that it was oppressive. These proceedings were compromised and settlement agreements were reached. The first of these agreements dealt with the existing notice in relation to the 6 branches. The second, the so-called "New Notice Agreement" dated 18 September 1998, dealt with the procedure to be followed if the Revenue wished to give UBL a new notice ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
TVDANMARK 1 Ltd, R (on the application of) v Independent Television Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 389
1
CO 3036/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
08 September 2000
B e f o r e
Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C.
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
THE QUEEN
v
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION
EX PARTE TVDANMARK 1 LIMITED
- - - - - - - - - -
(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 P LEAVER QC, MS E GLOSTER QC (For Judgment) and MR A CHOO-CHOY appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MS E APPLEBY QC AND MR J MOFFETT (instructed by Simmons & Simmons, London EC2M) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C.
The Applicant, TVDanmark 1 ("TVD"), is a television broadcaster established in the United Kingdom, holding a satellite television licence granted to it under Part 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 by the Independent Television Commission (the "ITC"). On 5 June this year acquired the exclusive rights to televise the five World Cup 2002 away matches of the Danish national football team live into Denmark from UFA Sports GmbH ("UFA"), a German company for Danish Kroner 3.35 million per match.
On 5 July TVD applied, as it was required to by section 101B(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996, to the ITC for the ITC's consent to TVD's broadcast of these matches exclusively live into Denmark. On 17 August 2000 the ITC refused to give its consent and on 22 August 2000 TVD applied for permission to move for the judicial review of the ITC's decision.
The application for permission came before me on Friday 1st September, the day before the first match was to be played. Evidence was filed on behalf of the applicant by Mr Lund, its Managing Director, and on behalf of the ITC, by Mr Johnson, Head of Programme Policy at the ITC, the official responsible for the handling of TVD's application. The ITC did not resist the granting of permission, which was granted and, in view of the urgency, I heard the substantive application.
Section 101B(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 was inserted into the Act by the Television Broadcast Regulations 2000 S.I. 2000 No. 54 in order to implement the 1997 amendments to the 1989 Television without Frontiers Directive, Council Directive 89/552/EEC, contained in Directive 97/36/EC, and in particular the new Article 3a(3) concerning broadcasts of designated events to another Member State. In certain circumstances, including this case, such broadcasts are prohibited without the consent of the ITC. TVD's request was the first one for consent under section 101B. As will be seen, its provisions differ from those governing consent by the ITC in respect of United Kingdom domestic listed events.
TVD's legal challenge stems from the way the Statutory Code on Sports and other Listed Events was revised to incorporate the provisions of the Directive. In the case of consents to United Kingdom domestic listed events the criteria in the Code are concerned with whether broadcasters have had a genuine opportunity to acquire the rights in question on fair and reasonable terms. Although the Directive and section 101B(1) are concerned with the "exercise" of rights by a broadcaster, the new paragraph 26 of the Code dealing with consents in respect of broadcasts to another Member State states that it will take into account similar criteria to those applicable to United Kingdom domestic listed events. At the core of this case is whether the fact that TVD purchased its exclusive rights in the course of an auction in which other broadcasters, including DR and TV2, the Danish public broadcasters, participated meant that consent should have been granted as it probably would in a purely domestic case, or whether, having acquired the rights, TVD should have offered them to the Danish public broadcasters. Mr Leaver Q.C. on behalf of TVD submitted that there is no legal basis in the Directive, the 1996 Act or the Code for the ITC's request that TVD offer the rights they acquired to DR and TV2. TVD also claimed to have a legitimate expectation that the ITC would grant consent in accordance with the criteria stated to be relevant in the Code and, as a minimum, should have been given clear notice that the ITC was minded to apply different criteria.
The legislative and regulatory framework
The rules governing the broadcasting of sporting and other events of national interest are...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Wiggins, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 436
Case No: CO/1971/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 21 December 2000
b e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE COLLINS
(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. Christopher Katkowski QC and Mr. David Forsdick (Lake Lapthorne, Holbrook House, 14 Great Queen street, London, WC2B 5DG) For the appellants
Mr. Timothy Corner (The Treasury Solicitor, Queen Ann's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) For the Respondent
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice COLLINS: This is an appeal under s.289 of the Town an Country Planning Act 1990 by Cecil Wiggins and Wiggins transport Ltd. whereby they seek to quash an enforcement notice which was substantially upheld by an inspector on 8 May 2000 follo...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Khan & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Newham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 334
Case No: CO/0213/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 19 April 2000
be f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE COLLINS
__________________________________
__________________________________
(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 Jan LUBA instructed by the Aina Khan Partnership for the Applicant
Mr D MATTHIAS instructed by the Solictor to Newham Council for the Respondent
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice COLLINS:
The applicants are sisters. In October 1991 their mother, Mrs Inayat Begum, became tenant under an assured shorthold of a three bedroom house in Plaistow. The applicants lived with her. Each was married and had children. Unfortunately, one of Ruksana's daughters, Neelofar, suffers from learning difficulties and so needs special tuition. In addition, Mrs Begum is unwell, suffering from diabetes, loss of memory and some physical mobility problems. She requires attention because of her health problems and Farzana was in receipt of an invalid care allowance for taking care of her mother.
Housing benefit was claimed by Mrs Begum and, for the purposes of that benefit, the household was considered to comprise herself and each applicant, her husband and child or children. In April 1999 the owner of the premises served notice seeking possession. Since the owner required possession to enable her to live in the premises, possession had to be given. There was no defence. Possession proceedings were commenced in September 1999 and on 12 November 1999 an order of possession was granted by the judge at Bow County Court. This required Mrs Begum to give possession on 10 December 1999.
On 8 November 1999 Ruksana attended Plaistow South Housing Office to apply for housing assistance. She explained that possession proceedings were due to be heard shortly and told the officer who lived in the house. The officer advised her that she, her sister and her mother were each likely to be in priority need and that, if an application under the homelessness provisions were made on behalf of all, there would be a need for a 5 bedroom house and that would mean a very long wait since such premises were rarely available. If individual applications were made, the situation would be much easier since two or three bedroom properties were more readily available. On 2 December 1999, following the making of the possession order, both applicants went to the Housing Office. They were interviewed. According to the housing officer, they elected to make separate applications and their mother was included on Ruksana's; this was, so the housing officer states, at their request. It is perhaps hardly surprising having regard to the advice that had been given to Ruksana on 8 November. The reality is that the family was placed in an impossible dilemma. If they decided to stick together, they would get no accommodation for a substantial period of time. If they wanted accommodation within a reasonable time, they ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Dinev & Ors, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 407
Case No: CO/1096/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 24th October 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
(1) Mr. Jivko Dinev (2) Mr. Dritan Duro (3) Mr. Petrit Gorovelli
(4) Mr. Anthony Graham (5) Ms. Svetlana Jemeljanova (6) Ms. Galina Kirk
(7) Mr. Iordan Kirtchev (8) Mr. Walery Martynchyk (9) Ms. Rebecca Newman
(10) Mr. William Robinson (11) Mr. Igor Romanko (12) Mr. Ilham Safarli
(13) Mr. Igor Slaouk (14) Mr. Elidon Veshi (15) Ms. Olga Yatchmenkova and
(16) Mr. Paolo Zeminian
v.
THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER COUNCIL
-------------------------
Mr. Jonathan Miller (instructed by Bow and Shore) appeared for the Applicants
Mr. Timothy Spencer (instructed by The City of Westminster) appeared for the Respondents
J U D G M E N T As Approved b...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Lewis, R (On The Application Of) v Prosetists & Orthotists Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 450
CO/4278/2000
[2000] EWHC 450 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Monday, 18th December 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE HUNT
- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
JULIUS LEWIS
-v-
THE PROSTHETISTS AND ORTHOTISTS 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 N BROWN (instructed by Willcox Lane Clutterbuck, 55 ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food v Pitt, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 310
- 1 -
Case No: CO/4606/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Monday 27 March 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
MR. JUSTICE ASTILL
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 LLOYD JONES (instructed by Solicitor to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the Appellant)
MAURICE SHERIDAN (instructed by Messrs. Wilsons, Salisbury, for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Schiemann:
2
This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated from a decision of magistrates. It raises a point of general significance to egg producers in relation to the marks which may be affixed to eggs and their boxes referring to the day of laying. The magistrates have held that a mark stating "laid between 21 - 23rd. October is...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
M, Re Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC 642 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
CO 1484/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday, 4th May 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURTON
- - - - - - - - - - - -
IN THE MATTER OF G. M.
-v-
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 3 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 KEVIN MUSAHEB (instructed by Peter Edwards & Co, Hoylake, Wirral, CH47 2AE) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR ANDREW HOCKTON (instructed by David Tysoe, Solicitor, Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3AG) appeared on behalf of the Derbyshire County Council and Ms Donaghy.
MR HUW LLOYD (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Sheffield S10 2G2) appeared on behalf of the Community Health Services
(North Derbyshire) NHS Trust.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N TThursday, 4th May 2000
JUDGMENT
1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: This is an application for leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of G.M. who is presently a mental patient at the Hartington Wing of the Royal Hospital, Chesterfield in Derbyshire. He has an unfortunate medical history of which the medical practitioners involved in this case had a considerable knowledge. 2. The approved social worker, however, Mrs Elizabeth Donaghy had only indirect knowledge of Mr M.'s mental state from some two weeks prior to his admission, as a result of a discussion with those who have been involved with his care, and she herself had not met Mr M.. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, she was armed with knowledge about him and in particular knowledge of the circumstances which in April of this year had heightened the concerns of those involved with his care, parti...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
London Electricity Plc, R (on the application of) v Director General Of Electricity Supply, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 340
19
Case No: CO/1582 /99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Monday 15 May 2000
B e f o r e :
Mr Justice Harrison
THE QUEEN
V
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY Respondent
Ex parte
LONDON ELECTRICITY plc Applicants
__________________________________
(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 Field QC and Nigel Giffin - for the Applicants
(Instructed by Herbert Smith Solicitors)
Kenneth Parker QC and Mark Shaw - for the Respondent
(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor)
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction
This is an application for judicial review of a determination made on behalf of the respondent, the Director General of Electricity Supply ("the Director General"), by Mr Saunders, who is the Director of Regulation and Business Affairs at the Office of Electricity Regulation ("Offer"). The determination was made on 27 January 1999 with reasons given later on 7 April 1999. The determination was that the charge which the applicant, a public electricity supplier, might properly require Mrs Elnaugh to pay for an upgraded supply of electricity to her home was zero.
Mrs Elnaugh is a resident of Mitcham Garden Village ("the Village"). The Village consists of some 88 dwellings which are all owned by the Mitcham Garden Village Trust ("the Trust") which is a register...
[/align]