England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Mapere, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2000, [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin),[2001] Imm AR 89

SMITH BERNAL
CO/4766/1999
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Monday, 3rd July 2000

B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN

- - - - - - -


REGINA

- v -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
EX PARTE MAPERE

- - - - - - -

(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 ALBERT FALUYI (instructed by Nathaniel & Co, London, E8 4AA) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR P SALES (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN:This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Immigration Officer of 29th November 1999, refusing the applicant leave to enter the United Kingdom for one year for the purpose of embarking on a course of study, and granting only temporary admission into the United Kingdom. 2. The applicant comes from Zimbabwe. He claims to have a legitim...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Persaud, R (on the application of) v University Of Cambridge, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 374


- 22 -



Case No: CO/772/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 21st July 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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gregory Jones & Mr A Warner (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby for the Applicant)
Robert Jay QC& Mr C Thomann (instructed by Mills & Reeve for the Respondent )


Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 1. The Applicant is a scientist of undoubted ability. In 1992 she was awarded a first class honours degree in astronomy after three years at University College, London. Her ambition was to work in the field of astrophysics. In October 1992 she was admitted to the University of Cambridge as a Graduate Student in order to carry out research leading to the award of a Ph. D. She commenced work on "Broad Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei". Her research supervisor was Dr. Andrew Robinson. The expected date for the completion of her research was September 1995. For the first year she made normal progress. However, in the second year things began to go wrong. According to the Applicant the problem stemmed from conflict with Dr. Robinson. She considered that he had involved her in collaboration without her knowledge and was more interested in using her work for his own purposes. Dr. Robinson, on the other hand, considered that she had made limited progress in the second year and had become increasingly uncommunicative. In the summer of 1994 he wrote to Mr. Paul Aslin, the Secretary to the Institute of Astronomy, to express his concerns. In September 1994 Mr. Aslin involved Dr. Paul Hewett in the matter. There followed a s...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
M L, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Heal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 397


- 18 -



Case No: CO/4858/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 11 October 2000

B e f o r e :

THE HON MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Richard Gordon QC & Fenella Morris(instructed by Peter Edwards & Co for the Applicant)
Mr Philip Sales (instructed by The Department of Health for the Respondent)

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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright



Mr Justice Scott Baker:
The Applicant is a patient at Rampton Hospital. He seeks to challenge Health Service Circular HSC 1999/160 dated 23 July 1999 which sets out Directions and Guidance for visits by children to patients in high security hospitals namely Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Patients in these hospitals suffer from mental disorders and need to be treated and cared for in conditions of special security because of their dangerous, violent or criminal tendencies.
The statement of Jennifer Anne Gray sets out in detail the background to this challenge and the circumstances leading to the promulgation of the circular. Section 4 of the National Health Service Act 1977 requires the Secretary of State for Health to provide special hospitals for detained mentally disordered patients. There are three such hospitals of which Rampton, with which this case is directly concerned, has a catchment area that comprises Yorkshire and parts of eastern and central England. It has an average patient population of around 450. Patients are housed in high security wards and the average stay is 7½ years, although some patients remain a good deal longer. Ov...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Bancoult, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Foreign & Commonweal Office, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 03, 2000, [2001] QB 1067,[2000] EWHC Admin 413




Case No: CO/3775/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 3 November 2000

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE LAWS
MR JUSTICE GIBBS





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

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

Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, Laurens Fransman QC and Anthony Bradley (instructed by Sheridans for the Appellant)
David Pannick QC, Philip Sales, Cecilia Ivimy (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the Respondents)

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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©




Lord Justice Laws:

Introductory

1 The Chagos Archipelago is in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Its islands and Mauritius were ceded by France to Great Britain in 1814. From that date until 1965 the Archipelago was governed as part of the British colony of Mauritius, though Mauritius itself is some 1,000 - 1,200 miles distant from the Archipelago. On at least some of the islands there lived in the 1960s a people called the Ilois. They were an indigenous people: they were born there, as were one or both of their parents, in many cases one or more of their grandparents, in some cases (it is said) one or more of their great-grandparents. Some may perhaps have traced an earlier indigenous ancestry. In the 1960s by agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America it was resolved that there be established a major American military base upon the chief island of the Archipelago, Diego Garcia. There is no doubt but that the defence facility which the base provides is of the highest importance. In a letter of 21 June 2000 from the US Department of State it is described as "an all but indispensable platform" for the fulfilment of defence and security responsibilities in the Arabian Gulf, the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa. In order to facilitate the establishment of the base, the Archipelago was first divided from Mauritius and constituted (together with certain other islands) as a separate colony to be known as the "British Indian Ocean Territory" ("BIOT"). That was done by the British Indian Ocean Territory Order 1965 ("the BIOT Order"). Then in 1971 the whole of the Ilois population of BIOT (and other civilians living there) were compulsorily removed to Mauritius. Their removal was effected under a measure called the Immigration Ordinance 1971 ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance was made by the Commissioner for BIOT ("the Commissioner"), who is the second respondent in these proceedings for judicial review. He was an official created by s.4 of the BIOT Order. He made, or purportedly made, the Ordinance under powers conferred by s.11 of the BIOT Order. As a matter of fact he made it, as is effectively accepted by Mr David Pannick QC for the respondents, upon the orders of the Queen's Ministers in London. The first respondent is the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The principal issue in the case is whether there was any lawful power to remove the Ilois from BIOT, in the manner in which that was done. There is also a question whether this court has any jurisdiction to entertain the case. The applicant is an Ilois from Peros Banhos in the Archipelago. Leave to seek judicial review was granted by Scott Baker J on 3 March 1999 after a hearing on notice. No point is now or was then taken by either respondent as to time or delay.

2 Though it will be necessary to examine other legislation, it is convenient by way of introduction to set out the relevant terms of the BIOT Order and the Ordinance. I should first say that the BIOT Order was made on 8 November 1965 by "Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in that behalf by the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895, or otherwise in Her Majesty vested". The Act of 1895 merely regulates the alteration of a colonial boundary, when that is sought to be done: it affords no source of the vires of the BIOT Order for presently relevant purposes. It was common ground at the Bar, and it seems to me plainly to be right, that the BIOT Order is an Order in Council made under the powers of the Royal Prerogative.

3 Ss.3 - 5 of the BIOT Order provide:

"3. As from the date of this Order -

the Chagos Archipelago, being islands which immediately before the date of this Order were included in the Dependencies of Mauritius, and
the Farquhar Islands, the Aldabra Group and the Island of Desroches, being islands which immediately before the date of this Order were part of the Colony of Seychelles,
shall together form a separate colony which shall be known as the British Indian Ocean Territory.
4. There shall be a Commissioner for the Territory who shall ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Legal Aid Area No 1 (London) Appeal Committee v McCormick, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 351

Case No CO/5099/98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand

Friday 26 May 2000

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Elias


Between:

THE LEGAL AID AREA No 1 (LONDON) APPEAL COMMITTEE
(Respondents)

-and-

Ex parte McCORMICK

(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 M Belloff Q.C. and Mr M Collings appeared on behalf of the Applicant

Ms B Lang Q.C. and Mr T Weisselberg appeared on behalf of the 1st Respondent
__________________________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©









JUDGMENT

The Applicant in this case was an Executive director of Atlantic Computers plc. He held that position during the take-over of that company by British and Commonwealth Holdings in 1988. Unfortunately that transaction resulted in both companies being placed in administration. Thereafter the Applicant faced four separate sets of legal proceedings. He was prosecuted and acquitted of insider dealing; he was the subject of an application for disqualification as a company director made by the Secretary of State; and he was sued in two civil actions arising out of the take-over. All these proceedings have now come to an end. Between 28 February and 24 July 1996 he made four applications...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Barry, R (On The Application Of) v Liverpool City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 321


- 16 -




Case No: CO/1770/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Liverpool Crown Court
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts
Liverpool L2 1XA


Friday 7th April 2000

B e f o r e :

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

Application for permission to apply for judicial review


__________________________________
(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 Vincent Fraser (instructed by Liverpool City Council for the Respondent)
Mr John de Bono (instructed by Kilner Polson for the Applicant)
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



Mr Justice Maurice Kay: Liverpool City Council (the Council) is the licensing authority for the grant of public entertainment licences within its area pursuant to section 1 and schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Such licences are required for "public dancing or music or any other public entertainment of a like kind" (schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)). Currently, there are over three hundred and fifty such licences in respect of premises in Liverpool. They customarily have door staff who control entry to and security on the premises. For some years there has been concern in Liverpool and elsewhere about the quality of door staff on premises with public entertainment licences. This is apparent from Home Office and Police studies and is summarised in the present pr...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Bogou, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 292


- 13 -


Case No: CO/2972/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
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 :

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

Eleonor Gray (instructed by The Secretary of State for the Respondent)
Eric Fripp (instructed by Roelens & Co. for the Applicant)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



Mr Justice Maurice Kay: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review, permission having been refused on the papers by Scott Baker J. The Applicant is a citizen of the Ivory Coast. She arrived in the United Kingdom with three children on 14 July 1995, having travelled from the Ivory Coast via France using a false passport. On 24 July 1995 she claimed asylum. On 5 March 1997 she was interviewed. She claimed that she and her husband had suffered persecution in the Ivory Coast by reason of their involvement with an opposition party known as the FPI. She described a number of incidents. On 29 December 1991 there had been an incident in which a car had been driven at the Applicant, her husband and their youngest daughter, on which ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Nationwide Access Ltd & Anor v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 290

11


Case No : CO/1953/99



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST



Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Monday, 14 February 2000


Before:

MR JUSTICE DYSON


NATIONWIDE ACCESS LTD Appellants
PTP AERIAL PLATFORMS LTD
v
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE Respondents

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040 Fax No 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Julian Ghosh (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell for the Appellants)
High McKay (instructed by Solicitor for HM Customs & Excise for the Respondent)


Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE DYSON:
Introduction
These are joined appeals from a decision of the VAT & Duties Tribunal, Chairman His Honour Stephen Oliver QC ("the Tribunal"), released on 29 March 1999 dismissing appeals under section 12A of the Finance Act 1994 against assessments to hydrocarbon duty. The short point of construction that lies at the heart of the appeals is: what is a "mobile crane" within the meaning of paragraph 9, Schedule 1 of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 ("HODA")? The vehicles operated by the two appellants are known as the "Bronto Skylift" and "Simon Galaxy". Assessments to duty were made o...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
B, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge County Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC 641 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL
NO: CO/4849/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Friday, 11th August 2000
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN

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


R e g i n a


-v-


UXBRIDGE COUNTY COURT
EX PARTE B

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG
Telephone No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040 Fax No: 0171 831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - -

MS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by R H Campbell Taylor, 3 Bradbury St, London N16 8JN) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR RABINDER SINGH (Amicus Curiae) (instructed by Hillingdon Legal Services, Uxbridge) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N TJUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: The decision sought to be impugned by this application for judicial review is the order of the ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Toth & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 361



Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
23rd June 2000
B e f o r e

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

and

THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Respondent

EX PARTE ARPAD TOTH
Applicant

DR DAVID JARMAN
Interested Party
- - - - - - - - - -
(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 Timothy Straker QC & Mr Clive Rawlings (Instructed by Messrs Russell-Cooke Potter & Chapman, 2 Putney Hill, Putney, London SW15 6AB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr Mark Shaw (Instructed by Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse, 35 Vine Street, London EC3N 2AA) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Miss Mary O'Rourke (Instructed by the Solicitor of The Medical Defence Union Ltd, 3 Devonshire Place, London W1N 2EA) appeared on behalf of Dr Jarman.

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application by the applicant ("Mr Toth") for judicial review of two decisions ("the Decisions") of the respondent ("the GMC"), the first dated the 23rd March 1998 ("the First Decision") and the second dated the 23rd July 1998 ("the Second Decision"). Mr Toth made a complaint ("the Complaint") to the GMC against his general practitioner Dr Jarman. Under the rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings by the GMC, the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules Order 1988 ("the Rules") made under the Medical Act 1983 ("the Act"), complaints against registered medical practitioners ("practitioners") have to go through and survive two filters or processes of examination before they are heard by the Professional Conduct Committee ("the PCC"). The first is examination by a member of the GMC, (colloquially and hereinafter referred to as a "screener") to decide whether the complaints "need not proceed further". If the screener does not so decide, the Preliminary Proceedings Committee ("the PPC") must then decide whether the complaints "ought to be referred for inquiry" to the PCC. Only if the PPC does so decide do the complaints then proceed before the PCC. By the Decisions the screener decided that the Complaint did not need to be investigated. By this application Mr Toth challenges the legality of the Decisions. Critical for this purpose is the statutory role of the ...
[/align]