-
[align=left]
Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 410
-- 1 --
Case No: CO/1508/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Nicholas Hall (instructed by Eastbourne Borough Council Legal Services Dept) appeared for the Appellant
Mr James King-Smith (instructed by Mayo & Perkins, eastborne, BN21 4RP) appeared for the Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Pill:
1. This is a prosecutor's appeal against a decision of Mr Kevin John Gladwell, acting stipendiary magistrate for the County of East Sus***, sitting at Eastbourne on 7 February 2000. The magistrate dismissed informations against Mr Charles William Stirling and Mr Robert John Morley alleging that each of them, being the driver of a private hire vehicle was found plying for hire with the vehicle on the west forecourt of Eastbourne railway station without a licence to ply for hire having previously been obtained under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ("the 1847 Act"), contrary to section 45 of the Act. Mr Stirling is alleged to have infringed on 28 May 1999 and Mr Morley on 29 May 1999.
2. It is conceded that the respondents were not license...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
HM Attorney General v Flack, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 29, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 422
-- 1 --
Case No: CO/3416/1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Jay QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Applicant
William Hoskins (instructed by Langshaw Kyriacou) appeared for the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Pill:
1. This is an application, made with appropriate authority, under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. A civil proceedings order is sought against Ian Richard Flack ("the respondent").
2. Section 42(1) provides that the court may make such an order if it is satisfied that the respondent has:
"... habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground --
(a) instituted vexatious proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or (b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings whether in the High Court or any inferi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Parker v Director Of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 429
Case No: CO/3299/00
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED
(Bristol Crown Court)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 7 December 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
and
MR JUSTICE SACHS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Paul Garlick QC; Mr Richard English (instructed by Gordon & Penney for the Appellant)
Mr Neil Ford QC; Mr Mark Worsley (instructed by CPS Bristol for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Waller:
Introduction This is an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Bristol which dismissed an appeal by Lee Christopher Parker from his conviction by the magistrates of an offence under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The point raised is of importance. The section provides for it being an offence to drive a motor vehicle after consumption of so much alcohol that the proportion of alcohol in the breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescr...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Lowry v Honourable Society Of Middle Temple, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 06, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 427
VISITORS TO THE INNS OF COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 6th December 2000
B e f o r e:
The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown
The Honourable Mr Justice Bennett
The Honourable Mr Justice Hart
Garrett T. Byrne Esq.
and
Mrs Monica Fisher
Christopher John Lowry
(Appellant Student)
and
The Honourable Society
of the Middle Temple
(Respondent)
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Mukherjee Appeard on behalf of the Appellant
Mr S Ford Appeared on behalf of the Respondent
REASONS
AS APPROVED BY THE COURT
CROWN COPYWRIGHT©
This is an appeal by Mr C...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Kingdom Of Belgium, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 293
- 2 -
Case Nos: CO/236/2000
CO/238/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 15 February 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
MR JUSTICE LATHAM
and
MR JUSTICE DYSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr J. Sumption QC & Mr P. Sales (instructed by Treasury Solicitor of London SW1) for the Respondent
Mr R. Drabble QC & Miss Frances Webber (instructed by Messrs. Bindman & Partners, Solicitors of London W1X 8QF) for Amnesty International and 5 other applicants
Mr N. Pleming QC, Mr P. Sands, Mr R. Singh & Miss H. Mountfield (instructed by Messrs Leigh Day & Co, Solicitors of London EC1M 4LB) for The Kingdom of Belgium
Mr C. Nicholls QC & Mr J.B. Knowles (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Napley, Solicitors of London EC1M 4AJ) for Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, an interested party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Simon Brown:
Introduction
It is sixteen months since Senator Pinochet was arrested. What should happen to him now? Should he be extradited to Spain to stand trial for the grave crimes of which he is accused? Or should he be allowed to return home to Chile? Many passionately hold one view, many the other. All, however, would surely agree upon one thing. It is high time the decision was taken: Senator Pinochet has spent quite long enough in this country. But the decision must, of course, be taken lawfully, and that is the issue now before us.
This challenge, the latest in a whole succession of legal proceedings, is to the Secretary of State's proposed decision not to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain on the ground that he is unfit to stand trial. More particularly at issue is the Secretary of State's entitlement to take such a decision (as he is "minded" to do) without first giving Spain and other requesting states sight of the medical report which is critical to it. Shorn of the applicants' more exorbitant demands - that they be allowed to examine Senator Pinochet themselves, that they have an opportunity to question the four specialists who prepared the Secretary of State's report, that the report be disseminated more widely than to the four requesting states - this is the essence of their complaint. What they ask is that the report now be disclosed to the requesting states so that at least they may comment upon its conclusions.
There are two applicants before us, one the Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium), a requesting state, the other a group of six human rights organisations headed by Amnesty International (Amnesty). Their joint application for permission to move for judicial review came initially before Maurice Kay J who dismissed it on 31 January 2000: in the case of both applicants on the merits and in Amnesty's case on the additional ground that they lack "sufficient interest" i.e. standing. His judgment, right or wrong, is a model of clarity and thoroughness extending to forty-five pages of transcript. On the core issue he concluded:
"... that it is simply not arguable that the non-disclosure of the medical report [to the requesting states] is unlawful, unfair or irrational."
The application was renewed before us. During the course of the hearing we decided that it certainly merited permission and thereafter we proceeded to deal with it as a substantive motion.
With that brief introduction let me now outline the facts as shortly as may be
The Facts
We shall assume our readers' familiarity with the earlier stages of this case: Senator Pinochet's arrest in London on 16 October 1998 pursuant to a Spanish warrant and the extensive subsequent litigation as to whether he enjoys state immunity. I can pick up the story with the final House of Lords decision on 24 March 1999 essentially to the effect that the offences alleged in Spain's request were "extradition crimes" only if committed after September 1988, and that Senator Pinochet had no immunity in respect of such crimes committed after December 1988. Following that decision, the Secretary of State on 14 April 1999 issued a fresh Authority to Proceed which Senator Pinochet thereafter unsuccessfully sought to challenge.
The committal hearing before the Bow Street magistrate took place between 27 and 30 September 1999. On 8 October 1999 Senator Pinochet was committed on all charges to await the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether he should be extradited to Spain. A habeas corpus application was made on Senator Pinochet's behalf on 22 October 1999 which presently stands fixed for hear...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 444,(2001) 3 LGLR 8,[2000] COD 338,(2000) 164 JP 485
SMITH BERNAL
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC Admin 444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
Date: Wednesday 10 May 2000
B e f o r e:
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(Lord Bingham of Cornhill)
and
MR JUSTICE SILBER
B E T W E E N:
_______________
CITY OF BRADFORD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
Appellant
- v -
ERIC WILSON BOOTH
Respondent
_______________
Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 071-421 4040 071-421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_______________
MR JOHN BLAIR-GOULD (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council) appeared on behalf of
THE APPELLANT
THE RESPONDENT was not represented and did not appear
_______________ J U D ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Mayne & Anor v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 368
- 10 -
Case Nos: CO/786/00 & CO/750/00
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
13th July 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE JACKSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Perkoff for Quentin Mayne (instructed by Clyde & Co, Guildford) and Malcolm Mr. G. Foster for Chitty Wholesale (instructed by Charles Russell Baldocks, Guildford)
Christopher Vajda QC and Mary McCarthy (instructed by the Legal Department of MAFF for the respondents)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Kennedy: This is a defendants' appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of Mr Roger Davies, a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting at Staines who in November 1999 considered informations which alleged that the appellants on various dates between October 1995 and February 1996 were concerned in the export of nine lorry loads of beef from the United Kingdom to France without the meat being accompanied by valid Export Health certificates contrary to Regulation 6 of the Products of Animal Origi...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Russell & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v HMP Frankland, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 365
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
10th July 2000
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
GOVERNOR OF HMP FRANKLAND
Respondent
ex parte
(1) ANDREW RUSSELL
(2) PERRY WHARRIE
Applicant
_________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
________
Ms Phillippa Kaufmann (Instructed by Messrs Bhatt Murphy, 23 Pitfield Street, London N1 6HB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr Steven Kovats (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application made pursuant to permission granted by me on the 14th January 2000 for an order quashing the policy ("the Policy") of the Governor ("the Governor") of HMP Frankland ("the Prison") in respect of the provision of food to prisoners placed in the segregation unit of the Prison ("the Unit") who refuse to wear prison clothes. The Governor provides prisoners with three meals a day at the central servery, but he has made it a rule that prisoners placed in the Unit who refuse to wear prison clothes shall not be allowed to collect their meals from the servery. If the Governor obtains the necessary authority, the segregation of a prisoner in the Unit can be continued month by month for an indefinite period. The Applicants were prisoners at the Prison who, when placed in the Unit, were subjected to the Policy. They have since been transferred to other prisons, but may at any time be transferred back to the Prison. They seek to challenge its legality and a declaration that ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Murray, R (on the application of) v Derbyshire County Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 06, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 393
Case No: CO/1493/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 6th October 2000
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Ex parte David Murray
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Applicant)
Mr Evans(instructed by David W. Tysoe, Solicitor and County Secretary) for the Respondent)
Mr Katkowski QC (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) representing Fitzwise Limited
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Aproved by the Court
Crown Copyright
Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 1 Derbyshire County Council ("the Council") is the local planning authority in relation to waste disposal facilities in its area. There is an established landfill site known as the Hall Lane Site close to the village of Barrow Hill which is just outside the town of Staveley. On 20 March 2000 the Council, through its Environmental Services Planning Development Subcommittee, granted planning permission for an extension in the use and duration of the Hall Lane Site. This involved a larger area, the extraction of 120,000 tonnes of clay, the incidental extraction of 1000 tonnes of coal and the provision of a fourth waste cell with an additional 650,000 tonnes of waste disposal capacity and extending the life of the landfill operation by about one year to December 2005. The Applicant lives in Barrow Hill. He and other local residents objected to the planning application on environmental and amenity grounds. Following the grant of planning permission, he now seeks to challenge that decision by way of an application for judicial review. The Respondent to the application is the Counci
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Beresford, R (on the application of) v City Of Sunderland, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 418
1
Case no: CO/2064/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London,
wc2a 2ll
Tuesday, 14 November, 2000
Before:
MRS JUSTICE SMITH
-------------------
The Queen
-v-
THE CITY OF SUNDERLAND
Appellant
ex parte
Respondent
PAMELA BERESFORD
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Mr D. Edwards (instructed by Southern Stewart & Walker 157 Prince Edward Road, South Shields, Tyne & Wear) for the Appellant
Mr P. Petchey (instructed by Mr. Colin Langley, City of Sunderland, Civic Centre, Sunderland SR2 7DN) for the Respondent
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Smith:
Introduction.
1. This is an application for judicial review, brought by permission of Moses J, of the decision of the Licensing Committee of the Council of the City of Sunderland on 27th April 2000, when they refused the application of Mrs Pamela Beresford and 3 other residents of Washington, Tyne and Wear, to have registered land known as the `Sports Arena' at Washington, as a town or village green pursuant to section 13 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (the Act).
2. The Act provides a statutory framework for the registration of common land and town and village greens. Under section 2, local authorities were appointed as registration authorities for the purposes of the Act and by section 3 are required to maintain a register of common land and town and village greens within their area. Washington is within the City of Sunderland.
3. The Act and regulations made thereunder provided that all common land and town and village greens were to be registered within 5 years. Any land not so registered by 2nd January 1970 was deemed not to be common land or a town or village green. However, by Section 13 of the Act, the register could be amended to include any land which became common land or a town or village green after that date. An application to amend the register was to be made to the registration authority. Any person aggrieved by the inclusion of any la...
[/align]
