Overall scheme of art 5 imposed an implied ancillary duty to the Secretary of State to facilitate prisoner’s rehabilitation and release
R (Haney, Kaiyam & Massey) v Secretary of State for Justice and another case [2014] UKSC 66
Joined appeals relating to prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection or life imprisonment which raised the issue of whether the court was bound to follow the ECtHR ruling in James v UK. The Court unanimously allowed Haney and Massey’s appeals under art 5. It stated that it was not bound by James v UK. […]
Supreme Court unanimously allows appellant’s appeal against the CA’s findings regarding discrimination claims
Hounga v Allen & Anor [2014] UKSC 47
The appellant, a young woman from Nigeria, came to the UK under arrangements made by the respondent’s family. She gained entry under a false identity (of which she was aware) and was given a 6-month visitor’s visa. In reality, she remained for the following 18 months in the respondents’ home, working as a domestic worker without […]
British national facing capital charges in Indonesia has appeal unanimously dismissed by UK Supreme Court
Sandiford, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] UKSC 44
The appellant is a British national who was convicted of drug trafficking offences in Indonesia and sentenced to death. She is currently awaiting execution in prison in Bali. The respondent claimed to have a strict “bright line” policy never to provide legal funding in criminal proceedings abroad, even where the death penalty may apply. The […]
Court dismisses deprivation of liberty claim by prisoner on home detention curfew recalled to prison
Whiston, R (on the application of) [2014] UKSC 39
On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1374 The appellant was released from prison on a home detention curfew, and then recalled to prison under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 255. He sought to claim this was a deprivation of liberty under ECHR, art 5(4). The Court held that under Strasbourg jurisprudence where a person was […]
Application of CJEU guidance relating to Aarhus Convention duty to ensure environmental cases “not prohibitively expensive”
R (Edwards & Anor) v Environment Agency & Ors (No 2) [2013] UKSC 78
A reference to the CJEU had been made relating to the obligation under the Aarhus Convention to ensure that environmental cases are “not prohibitively expensive”. The following could be extracted from the CJEU’s ruling, inter alia: the cost must not be objectively unreasonable; the court could consider whether the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success; that a claimant was not deterred from carrying on the proceedings was not determinative.