Menu My portfolio: 0

Court: Administrative Court

Sikh Federation UK challenge to Census Order 2020 dismissed

R (on the application of Gill) v Cabinet Office [No.3] [2020] EWHC 2931 (Admin)

Usually, there is a census of the population of the UK every decade. Since the 1991 census, information as to the ethnicity of respondents has been sought. Responses to the ethnic group question in the census form are provided by means of ticking the appropriate box (“tick-box”). The claimant is the Chair of the Sikh […]

No permission to appeal extradition, where applicants’ appeared by video link

Rahim & Anor v Assize Court of Bolzano (Italy) [2020] EWHC 2748 (Admin)

This case involved permission to appeal the applicants’ extradition to Italy under European Arrest Warrants and an application to add an additional ground of appeal relating to the fairness of a recent appeal hearing in Italy, which confirmed the applicants’ convictions and the sentences imposed by the first instance Italian Assize Court. The additional ground […]

Extradition order quashed, allowing appellant to care for terminally ill partner and children

Karaqi v Public Prosecutor's Office Of The Athens' Court Of Appeal, Greece [2020] EWHC 2650 (Admin)

This was an appeal brought by the Appellant against an order for his extradition to Greece. The Appellant was convicted of armed robberies in Greece in 1995 and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. In 1996, the Appellant escaped from prison in Greece. He came to the UK in 1997 and used his own name to […]

Defendant sentenced to 16 months after persistent harassment of Judge

Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB)

This hearing considered a penalty for contempt of court hearing in the ongoing proceedings of Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2658 (QB). The court considered the Defendant’s culpability for the breaches of the Order of 10 December 2019 not to write defamatory statements about the Claimant on websites, to be extremely high.  The breaches began […]

Granting of planning permission stands for development of nuclear power station, despite environmental concerns

Girling v East Suffolk Council [2020] EWHC 2579 (Admin)

In this case, the claimant asks for an order quashing the grant of planning permission for the development of a nuclear power station named Sizewell C, on the following two grounds:

the Council unlawfully failed to consider the need for, and alternatives to, the proposal for the purposes of paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states: –

“Consideration of applications should include an assessment of:

a) the need for development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

the Council failed to reach a lawful conclusion that the environmental information was “up to date” contrary to regulation 26 of the Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017 No. 571) (“the 2017 Regulations).

Held: the application for judicial review is dismissed.

In the circumstances of this case, where the Council was legally entitled to conclude that, viewed overall, there was no material harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but rather benefits to it. It is not accepted that the Council acted irrationally by not requiring a quantitative assessment of the time saving for the Sizewell C project or to consider that matter.

Furthermore, a “reasoned conclusion” of the authority is taken to be up to date if the authority judges that its conclusion addresses the likely significant environmental effects. Here the Council judged that the surveys relating to breeding birds were sufficiently reliable for present purposes. It is impossible to read the officer’s report as indicating that the Council was not satisfied that its “reasoned conclusion” under regulation 26(1) was up to date, whether in relation to the whole or any part of the environmental information.