England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]

[هيثم الفقى]

[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]