 | | | |
| Public Law | |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|  R (Gentle & Ors) v Prime Minister & Ors (2006) | |
| Rabinder Singh QC appeared for the families of four soldiers killed on duty in Iraq who are seeking a judicial review of the government’s decision not to hold an independent inquiry into the invasion of Iraq. |
|
| R (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another; Regina (Derwin and Others) v Same Regina (Friend and Another) v Same. (2006) | |
| Concerned whether the Hunting Act engaged rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and the EC Treaty |
|
| Gillan and Quinton v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another (2006) | |
| Concerned police powers to stop and search, where the claimants were a student demonstrator and a journalist present at a protest against the Docklands ExCel Centre arms fair. |
|
| R v Jones; R v Milling; R v Olditch; R v Pritchard; R v Richards; Ayliffe and Others v DPP; Swain v DPP (2006) | |
| Concerned whether protesters against the Iraq war could justify their conduct on the ground that they were preventing a crime or an offence by the government. |
|
| R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence (2005) | |
| Concerned whether the Far Eastern prisoner of war ex-gratia compensation scheme of the Ministry of Defence was unlawful and indirectly discriminatory, where British citizens not born in the UK, or whose parents or grandparents were not born there, were denied such compensation. |
|
| R (Scholes) v Home Secretary (2006) | |
| Whether Home Secretary acted compatibly with Art 2 in refusing to direct public inquiry into sentencing policy
following suicide in custody of highly vulnerable 16 year old, Joseph Scholes, who killed himself in a Young Offender Institute. |
|
| R (Headley and Hindawi) v Home Secretary (2006) | |
| The House of Lords held that the legislative regime governing the release of foreign prisoners violated A14 ECHR. |
|
| R (Roberts) v Parole Board (2005) | |
| The House of Lords considered whether the Parole Board was entitled to adopt a closed hearing and Special Advocate procedure for the parole hearing of a mandatory lifer. |
|
| A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) | |
| Judgment given in A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department; A & Ors (FC) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (conjoined appeals) |
|
| R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) | |
| Following the Court of Appeal quashing a conviction on the ground of abuse of process, the Claimant sought compensation for miscarriage of justice. The House of Lords applied Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1977. Philippe Sands QC appeared for the Claimant. |
|
| Lambert Watson v The Queen (2004) | |
| A 9 judge Board of the Privy Council ruled that the mandatory death penalty for murder was inhuman punishment contrary to Jamaica's constitution and international human rights standards. The present existing law clause did not apply to immunise this punishment from judicial amendment to ensure conformity with these standards. Henceforth all cases of capital murder in Jamaica required judicial sentencing hearings. Nicholas Blake QC and Julian Knowles appeared for Mr Watson. |
|
| R (Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2003) | |
| The Court of Appeal considered the State's obligation to provide sex offenders with treatment for their behaviour. The case raised important issues about prisoners' rights to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Tim Owen QC appeared for C and Rabinder Singh QC and Sam Grodzinski represented the Secretary of State. |
|
| R (Gurung) v MoD and R (Purja) v MoD (2003) | |
| In these two cases, the differential treatment afforded to Gurkha soldiers in the British Army were examined in respect of eligibility for a POW ex gratia payment and same conditions of service and pension rights. The first case has resulted in payment of the disputed payment to Gurkha POWs and the second has led to a fundamental review of conditions of service. Nicholas Blake QC and Aileen McColgan appeared in both cases. Rabinder Singh QC and Kate Cook appeared in R (Purja) v MOD. |
|
| R (National Association of Health Stores and Jennifer Seagrove) v Secretary of State for the Health (2005) | |
| Rhodri Thompson QC and Sam Grodzinski acted for the actress Jenny Seagrove and the NAHS in their challenge to the Government’s ban on the ancient Pacific herbal remedy, Kava Kava. The case raised important Constitutional issues in relation to ministerial responsibility. |
|
| R (CND & Ors) v Prime Minister & Ors (2002) | |
| Rabinder Singh QC and Charlotte Kilroy appeared in this case which investigated the legality of possible military action by the UK against Iraq. |
|
| R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (2002) | |
| This landmark decision of the Court of Appeal established that judicial review could issue to quash a refusal of the Foreign Office to afford assistance to a British national detained abroad in violation of his human rights, although the British Government was not responsible for the detention. This was the case where the regime at Guantanamo Bay was first described as a legal black hole. Nicholas Blake QC and Philippe Sands QC appeared for Mr Abbasi. |
|
| R (Hoverspeed Ltd & Ors) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (2002) | |
| Rhodri Thompson QC, Rabinder Singh QC and Jessica Simor appeared for a group of Channel shoppers challenging the compatibility of customs officials' powers of stop and search with EU law. |
|
| R v London Underground Ltd & Anor ex parte Transport for London (2001) | |
| Rabinder Singh QC, David Bean QC, Kate Cook, Janet Kentridge and Sam Grodzinski acted for and advised LUL on various aspects of this case dealing with the legality of PPP for the London Underground. |
|
| R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) | |
| Tim Owen QC acted for Daly in this House of Lords case dealing with searches of prison cells and the correct test for proportionality under the Human Rights Act. |
|
