England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Lucie M v Worcestershire County Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 28, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1292 (Admin)



Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday, June 28, 2002
Before

MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between
LUCIE M
Appellant

and


(1) WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
(2) WILLIAM EVANS
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 John Friel (instructed by Elaine Maxwell & Co) for the Appellant
Mr Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Legal Department, Worcestershire CC) for the First Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©



20

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins:
I Introduction
1. J M is now about 13½ years old and lives in Malvern, Worcestershire. He has severe learning difficulties, and his parents (his mother being the appellant) are dissatisfied with a decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), the effect of which is that he will have to attend a special school, run by the local educational authority ("the Authority"). The parents (and also J) want him to go to a privately run specialist school in Devon, F College, which has a much smaller number of pupils and can provide the direct occupational and speech and language therapy which they say he requires. The cost to the local authority of sending J to F College would be between £57,000 and £75,000 p.a. 2. The challenge to the decision of the Tribunal is centred on the rejection of the case put forward on his behalf that he should receive direct therapy by an occupational therapist, that he should receive direct speech and language therapy, and that The schoolwas unsuitable for J's needs. In particular it was said that the Tribunal had not taken proper account of the evidence that he would not go to the school and could not be persuaded to go there, and that the school did not have full provision to meet his needs, because it was the Authority's policy not to provide direct speech therapy, and there were no adequate facilities available to provide occupational therapy. The main focus of the challenge was on lack of adequate reasoning. But it was also suggested that in relation to its findings on occupational therapy the...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Decra Plastics Ltd. v Waltham Forest, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3359/2002
CO/3749/2002
Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 13 December 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Clive Moys (instructed by Edwin Coe, Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr Richard Langham (instructed by Legal Department, London Borough of Waltham Forest) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Richards:
1. The claimant company, Decra Plastics Limited ("Decra"), challenges the Waltham Forest (Prescribed Route) (No.1) Traffic Order 2002 ("the traffic order"), which was made by the defendant council, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, on 2 July 2002 and was due to come into operation on 22 July 2002, though its operation has been suspended by injunction pending the resolution of the challenge. The challenge is brought both by way of statutory challenge under paragraph 35 of schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and by way of judicial review. Strictly speaking, the statutory challenge is to the traffic order itself whereas the judicial review challenge is to the decision to make the order. The substantive issues, however, are the same and nothing turns on the dual procedure.
2. The traffic order, which is referred to loosely in the documents as a closure order, prohibits vehicular traffic from entering part of a road known as South Access Road. To the north lies the Markhouse Avenue residential area. To the south lies the borough's main industrial area which includes Forest Business Park, the Roxwell Industrial Estate and the Argall Avenue Industrial Estate. In between, and immediately adjacent to South Access Road, are a number of council facilities, including a sports ground, a household waste and recycling centre, a council depot and a tip site.
3. The council explains that the order is the final part of a programme of highway and traffic regulation works designed to rationalise commercial traffic movements and to enhance residential amenity in this part of the borough. Prior to those works the only means of access by traffic to much of the industrial area (including Forest Business Park) and to the council's facilities was via South Access Road and the residential area to the north. Only the southern part of the industrial area had access from the south, along Argall Avenue. There was a long history of complaints from residents about the volume of commercial traffic through the Markhouse Avenue residential area. Moreover the council wished to redevelop the tip site but took the view that it would be inappropriate to do so if all the traffic had to pass along South Access Road and through the residential area. Accordingly it was decided to provide suitable means of access from the south to the relevant parts of the industrial area and to certain of the council facilities. 4. The principal elements in the programme were (i) the construction, as part of the Leyton Relief Road project, of a north-south spur, namely Argall Way, between Argall Avenue (East) and Lea Bridge Road, so as to connect the industrial area to Lea Bridge Road and the strategic road ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
WB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 13, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1927 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4978/01
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1927 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 13 September 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marc Beaumont (instructed by Messrs Shulmans) for the Claimants
Helen Mountfield (instructed by Department of Legal Services, Leeds City Council) for the Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Scott Baker:
1. The Claimants WB and KA are children attending, or who were until recently attending, All Saints Church of England Junior School, Otley. The decision challenged is that of the Defendants, the Leeds School Organisation Committee, of 10 September 2001 to discontinue the school. The substantive application for judicial review comes before me following the order of the Court of Appeal on 20 June...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Goldfinch (Projects) Ltd. v National Assembly for Wales & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 21, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1275 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4855/01
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1275 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 21 June 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by Halliwell Landau) for the Claimant
Mr Rhodri Williiams (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Scott Baker:

1. The Claimant applies under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) as a person aggrieved by the decision of an inspector dismissing its appeal against the Second Defendant's refusal of planning permission. The inquiry was held on 9 and 10 October 2001 and the inspector's decision is dated 22 October 2001. 2. The site in question is about 1.98 hectares and is located to the west of Sealand Road and about 0.5 km south of Saughall in Flintshire. A company called Caxios Limited has occupied the site since about 1980 but has recently sold it to the Claimant. The existing and permitted use is general industrial. The site is in open countryside and has developed over some 40 years from an old railway station. Large metal pipework is manufactured in a building of some size. There is also a substantial two storey office ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Colonel M, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 05, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin)

CO/2769/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London

Friday 5 July 2002
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN

_______________

THE QUEEN on the application of

COLONEL M
Claimant
- v -

ASHWORTH HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
(Now MERSEY CARE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUST)
Defendant
and

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH

(2) THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT COMMISSION
Interested parties
_______________

Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_______________
MR NIGEL PLEMING QC and MISS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by Hogans
Solicitors, Merseyside, L35 0LP) appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT

MR JOHN HOWELL QC and MISS PHILLIPPA KAUFMANN (instructed by Messrs
Reid Minty, London W1K 4PS) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT

MR PHILIP SALES and MR BEN HOOPER (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE INTERESTED PARTIES
______________
J U D G M E N TFriday 5 July 2002
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN:
Introduction
1. The claimant is a patient detained under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the Act'') at Ashworth Special Hospital (``Ashworth''). He was admitted to Ashworth on 1 March 1994 from the Three Bridges Regional Secure Unit. He had previously been a patient at Ashworth between July 1984 and March 1992.
2. Ashworth is one of three hospitals which provide high security psychiatric services for persons who ``require treatment under conditions of high security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities'': see section 4 of the National Health Services Act 1977, as amended. The other two such hospitals are Broadmoor and Rampton.
3. On 1 April 2002 the defendant, the Mersey Care NHS Trust, took over responsibility for the provision of high security psychiatric services at Ashworth from the Ashworth Hospital Authority, the original defendant in these proceedings.
4. Section 118 of the Act provides so far as relevant for present purposes:
``(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice --
(a) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners, managers and staff of hospitals and mental nursing homes and approved social workers in relation to the admission of patients to hospitals and mental nursing homes under this Act and to guardianship and after-care under supervision under this Act; and
(b) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners and members of other professions in relation to the medical treatment of patients suffering from mental disorder.
....
(3) Before preparing the code or making any alteration in it the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of the code and any alteration in the code before Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the code or any alteration in it to be withdrawn the Secretary of State shall withdraw the code or alteration and, where he withdraws the code, shall prepare a code of substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
....
(6) The Secretary of State shall publish the code as for the time being in force.''
5. The current code was published in March 1999. In the foreword the then Secretary of State, Mr Dobson, said, inter alia:
``People with mental health problems deserve good care and support. They are often vulnerable, may have difficulty in expressing their needs and, in some cases, may not recognise that they need help. These patients, carers, and the general public, should be able to rely on health and social services which provide effective care and treatment.
....
The Code provides essential reference guidance for those who apply the Act. Patients and their carers are entitled to expect professionals to use it.''
6. Paragraph 1 in the Introduction to the Code explains:
``This revised Code of Practice has been prepared in accordance with section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales, after consulting such bodies as appeared to them to be concerned, and laid before Parliament. The Code will come into force on 1 April 1999. The Act does not impose a legal duty to comply with the Code but as it is a statutory document, failure to follow it could be referred to in evidence in legal proceedings.''
7. Under ``Guiding Principles'' paragraph 1.1 says:
``The detailed guidance in the Code needs to be read in the light of the following broad principles, that people to whom the Act applies (including those being assessed for possible admission) should:
*receive recognition of their basic human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); *be given respect for their qualities, abilities and diverse backgrounds as in...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Woods v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1484 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4080/2001
[2002] EWHC 1484 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday 18 July 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Richard Gordon QC and Mr S Donovan (instructed by Goodmans) for the Claimant
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the Defendant

Hearing dates : 17 and 18 June 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.


.............................
Mr Justice BURTON
Mr Justice Burton:
1. The Claimant, Christine Woods, is the mother of a baby boy, who was born on 30 September 1989 and died the following day. His body was transferred to Alder Hey Children's Hospital on 4 October 1989. A post mortem was performed on 9 October 1989. Ten years later the Claimant was informed, as many other parents similarly learned, that a number of her baby's organs had been removed and retained without her consent. In this application she has been represented by Richard Gordon QC and Scott Donovan.
2. On 3 December 1999 Lord Hunt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, established an independent and confidential inquiry under s2 of the National Health Service Act 1977, to investigate the removal, retention and disposal of human organs and tissues following post mortem examinations at the Alder Hey Hospital, operated by the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust.
3. The terms of reference of the inquiry, which was chaired by Michael Redfern QC, included the following:
· To inquire into the circumstances leading to the removal, retention and disposal of human tissue, including organs of the body, from children at [Alder Hey] who have undergone post mortem.
· To inquire into the extent to which the Human Tissue Act 1961 has been complied with.
· To examine professional practice and management action and systems, including what information, and in what form, was given to the children's parents, or, where relevant, other family members, in respect of the removal, retention and disposal of tissue.
· To examine the role of the NHS and other persons or bodies involved.
4. The Report was published on 30 January 2001. A copy of it was passed to the General Medical Council ("GMC") on the day it was published, and it was reported at the time that Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government Chief Medical Officer, had referred it to the GMC for consideration of disciplinary proceedings against doctors named in the Report. In any event, the GMC proceeded to consider whether the Report raised any issues of serious professional misconduct about doctors registered with the GMC which required further investigation by the GMC. Specifically the position of thirteen doctors was considered. 5. The provisions of the GMC for c...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
U, R (on the application of) v Durham Constabulary, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 29, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2486 (Admin)



Case No: CO/1979/2002 &
CO/1918/2002

Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWCA 2486 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Friday, 29th November 2002

Before :

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
and
MR JUSTICE FIELD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Marc Willers (instructed by Parker Arrenberg Dawson & Cobb) for the Applicant ``U''
Miss Anne Stud for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Mr Geoff Knowles (instructed by Gordon Brown Associates) for the Applicant ``R''
Miss Anne Stud for the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary

Mr Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State (Interested Party)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©

Lord Justice Latham:
1. This judgment is the judgment of the Court. These two applications raise important questions of principle and practice in relation to the Final Warning Scheme (the Scheme) established by sections 65 and 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 s. 56 (the Act). The Scheme is part of the strategy devised to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young persons. Its aim is to divert children and young persons from their offending behaviour before they enter the court system. It replaced, for children and young persons, the systems of cautions which had previously been in place with a more structured approach intended to prevent re-offending. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, a reprimand is normally given for a first offence and a final warning for a second offence; thereafter the young offender should generally be charged. Following a final warning, the police have a statutory duty to refer the young offender to a Youth Offending Team in order to determine whether or not to provide an intervention pr...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Ngamguem, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1550 (Admin)

CO/3511/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1550 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2

Monday 8 July 2002
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

- - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NGAMGUEM


-v-


THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

- - - - - -

(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 ERIC FRIPP (instructed by ANTHONY LOUCA SOLICITORS, LONDON NW16TT) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

MR TOM WEISSELBERG (instructed by THE TREASURY SOLICITOR, LONDON) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL
1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: The claimant left Cameroon in February 2001 and within a day of his arrival in the United Kingdom he claimed asylum on 12th March 2001. This claim was refused and the claimant appealed to an Adjudicator against that decision. The Adjudicator rejected the claimant's appeal in a decision dated 22nd May 2001. The claimant produced his own form of application for leave to appeal to the IAT, but nothing came of that application.
2. On 31st August 2001 the claimant's solicitor wrote to the Secretary of State (``the defendant'') enclosing a letter dated 30th August 2001 from the Secretary of the Archdiocese of Douala, Cameroon. The author of the letter is sometimes referred to as the Chancellor of the diocese. The solicitor's letter of 31st August 2001 explained how the letter of 30th August 2001 from the Chancellor of the Archdiocese had come about. It was sent to the Secretary of State along with a number of criticisms that were made of the conclusions of the Special Adjudicator. The solicitor pointed out that the letter from the Archdiocese was new and independent documentary evidence that ought to enable the Secretary of State to cancel, at least temporarily, the removal directions whilst the claimant's case was reconsidered in the light of what had been said. 3. By a letter dated 1st September 2001 the Secretary of State rejected that contention. The Secretary of State said that he had received a letter ``purporting to be from the personal secretary o...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Confederation of Passenger Transport UK v Humber Bridge Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 01, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2261 (Admin)

Case No: CO/642/2002
Neutral Citation Number [2002] EWHC 2261 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 1 November 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :


- and -

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
Interested Party

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Elisabeth Laing (instructed by Pellys, Solicitors) for the Claimant
Frances Patterson QC (instructed by Kingston Upon Hull City Council) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Newman :

Introduction
1. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK ("the Confederation") is an organisation representing the majority of, but not all, operators of public service vehicles (PSVs) in the UK. The Humber Bridge Board ("the Board") is a statutory body having the power to administer the Humber Bridge. The Board's powers are contained in two Acts, namely the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and the Humber Bridge Act 1971 (respectively the 1959 Act and the 1971 Act). The Bridge opened to traffic on 24 June 1981.
2. This application for judicial review by the Confederation raises an issue as to whether since l997 the Board has had the power to levy and collect a toll on large buses crossing the bridge. By an agreed amendment to the claim the application relates to the continuing state of affairs so far as the levying and collection of tolls on large buses is concerned, which for reasons which will become apparent in connection with the state of affairs since 2002, gives rise to somewhat different legal considerations from those which arise in connection with the 1997 to 2000 period. As to that period, the application raises an interesting point as to how far the court can supply, by a process of statutory interpretation, words which have been omitted in error by the draftsman of a Statutory Instrument. So far as the 2002 Statutory Instrument is concerned, the question is whether the drafting steps comprised in it, taken to correct the error in the previous Instrument, achieve that end. 3. The...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Gurung & Anor v Ministry of Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 27, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin)

Case No: 3743/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2463 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Law Courts
Openshaw Place
Ringway
Preston PR1 2LL

Wednesday 27 November 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE McCOMBE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nicholas Blake QC & Aileen McColgan (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the claimants
Philip Sales & Karen Steyn (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Mr Justice McCombe:


(A) Outline of the Application
1. This is an application for judicial review by Mr Pahalam Gurung (``Mr Gurung''), Mr Hukumsing Pun (``Mr Pun''), Mr Gaurisor Thapa (``Mr Thapa'') brought by permission of Hooper J, granted on 28 August 2002. All three Claimants are Nepalese nationals. They are now aged 81, 85 and 82 respectively. They each were recruited in Nepal in the Army raised by the British colonial power in India known as the Government of India for service in ``the Indian Army'' and became members of the Gurkha rifle brigades. Mr Thapa describes the process of his recruitment as follows:
2. ``......The Gallawalas (`The Recruiters') came to my village and told me that I had the chance to become a Lahore (meaning a soldier). I was young, thought that this was a good idea and agreed. I was asked to leave Nepal for the place of enrolment which was Gorakhapur in India. I believed that I was being enrolled into the British Indian Army. This was for two very good reasons: first, when I got to Gorakhapur all the officers and soldiers were British and second that impression was backed up by my knowledge that at the time India was ruled by the British and so it was not strange for me to be enrolled in India by British soldiers and officers of the Indian Army.
3. After I was enrolled I had about one years training. I was trained by British officers and soldiers. As I successfully passed the training period I was asked to take an oath to the King of Britain. We were all asked to put on our battledress and we as a company (which is about 150 men) attended a joint ceremony of oath taking on the parade ground. The commanding officer, a colonel, read out the oath to the British King in Hindi. We were all asked to repeat the oath after him. With this passage of time and bearing in mind my age I cannot now remember the words we were asked to repeat. I do recall that I was giving an oath to obey British command and to go where I was asked by the British and to do what the British asked me to do, that is, to follow British orders.'' 2. Each of the Claimants served in the Army in the campaigns against the Japanese in the course of the Second World War. Each was captured by the Japanese and remained a prisoner of war (``P.O.W'') until t...
[/align]