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.
Home Department permitted to provide material relating to alleged terrorist to US Government, under Mutual Legal Assistance
R (on the application of Elgizouli) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 2516 (Admin)
The Divisional Court has handed down a judgment in a case involving a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide material to the US Government, pursuant to a request for Mutual Legal Assistance (‘MLA’).
MLA is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. In this case, the requested material related to the alleged terrorist activities of the claimant’s son, Shafee El Sheikh.
The principal issues for determination were whether the decision to provide MLA was compatible with the Data Protection Act 2018 and whether the decision was irrational. In particular, the issue was whether it was strictly necessary and proportionate to transfer personal data to a third country in support of a foreign prosecution in circumstances in which the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr El Sheikh in this jurisdiction.
Held: the Divisional Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. The Court considered that the prospect of a domestic prosecution was not relevant to the question of whether it was necessary and proportionate to transfer data to a third country, and that it was not arguably irrational for the Secretary of State to fail to have regard to such a prospect in deciding to provide MLA.
Court upholds lawfulness of Loans for Mortgage Interest scheme
JD and Vincent v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWHC 1976 (Admin)
As part of the coalition government’s welfare reforms, Support for Mortgage Interest, a benefit paid to assist those on other income-related benefits with the interest they were required to pay on their mortgage, was replaced with Loans for Mortgage Interest, which provides the same level of support, but which has to be repaid on sale of the relevant property or death. Two groups of disabled claimants brought challenges to the new scheme on the grounds that it was discriminatory contrary to Article 14 ECHR and under the Equality Act 2010, and for failure to comply with the public sector equality duty.
The first set of claimants were severely disabled women suffering from multiple sclerosis whose partners were in receipt of Carer’s Allowance, as well as one of their children. They contended that the scheme as a whole, alternatively the requirement to repay on sale failed, without objective and reasonable justification failed to treat differently disabled people with partners in receipt of CA and/or those with dependent children, contrary to the Thlimmenos principle under Article 14 ECHR, read together with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In respect of this claim, the Court (Mrs Justice Andrews) held that the move from a benefit to a loan did not fall within the ambit of any Convention rights and so Article 14 was not engaged in that respect. Further, the Court did not consider that the Claimants were in a significantly different position to the comparator class, which includes many other people who would only be able to repay the loan on sale and for whom that could also cause hardship. The Court also considered that the best interests of children had been appropriately considered in accordance with the UNCRC.
The second claim was brought on behalf of a man with multiple physical and learning disabilities who lacks capacity. On his behalf it was contended that the automatic nature of the repayment on sale requirement discriminates against disabled people, or those at an enhanced risk of needing to move because of their disability-related needs. In respect of this claim, the Court considered that the automatic nature of the repayment on sale requirement was justified as not manifestly without reasonable foundation. It also held that disabled persons at enhanced risk of having to move was too nebulous a group to constitute a “status” for the purposes of Article 14 ECHR. The PSED challenge in both cases was rejected on the basis that the government had had the requisite due regard when formulating the new scheme.