‘The Court of Appeal has criticised a judge for her “blatantly unfair conduct”, finding that an interchange with a father demonstrated a “complete failure of proper judicial process”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th June 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Protection has found that if a local authority does not apply for an order under the inherent jurisdiction, a parent can challenge the deprivation of liberty of their child in a specialist school by bringing a writ of habeas corpus. Joshua Swirsky analyses the ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st April 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This case concerns the impact of the coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic on the execution of European Arrest Warrants (EAWs). Extradition is presently impossible due to travel restrictions that have been imposed across Europe. The judgment considered the legality of repeated short-term extensions to the ten-day period in which extradition on an EAW must take place. Under Article 23 of the Framework Decision, extradition can be lawfully postponed where there are serious humanitarian reasons to do so, or where removal is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any Member State. The court held that the coronavirus pandemic is capable of satisfying either criteria. A requested person is not entitled to be notified of any application to extend the extradition period, or to make representations at a hearing. However, in the present circumstances it is good practice to notify a requested person of any extension and to allow them access to legal representation.’
5SAH, 23rd June 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators, but in this post I will suggest that, far from being completely novel, the distinctions it appears to draw are familiar within the law of habeas corpus. This comparison will, I suggest, cast light upon the shifting and somewhat complex idea of “nullity” in UK public law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent important judgments in private law children cases.’
Family Law Week, 26th July 2018
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘An application for habeas corpus by a pressure group was completely “hopeless” and “entirely misconceived”. The appellant’s challenge to the decision of the judge below was equally devoid of merit. Third party applications are only appropriate where the prisoner is incommunicado or where the impediment preventing the prisoner from acting is ignorance or disability. It was entirely inappropriate in these circumstances, where the prisoner had been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings which resulted in her imprisonment, or where her detention had already ended before the application for habeas corpus was made.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th November 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
K v Kingswood Centre and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1332; [2014] WLR (D) 443
‘The notice period of a discharge order made for the purposes of section 25 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and served in accordance with regulation 3(3)(b)(i) of the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 started to run from the time when it was received by the officer authorised by the hospital managers and not from the time when it was received at the hospital’s fax machine.’
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Conservative cabinet minister Ken Clarke has been accused of misleading parliament as confusion mounts over the government’s plans to introduce secret courts ahead of this week’s crucial vote in the House of Lords.”
The Guardian, 24th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Last Wednesday the Supreme Court gave judgment in this case in which Yunus Rahmatullah, who’s being held by American forces in Afghanistan, applied for habeas corpus against the British government.”
Head of Legal, 6th November 2012
Source: www.headoflegal.com
“Only a few weeks after giving the Birkenhead lecture entitled ‘Dissenting judgments – self indulgence or self sacrifice?’ (See David Hart QC’s previous post), Lord Kerr delivered the leading judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahmatullah. Given that the issue of a man’s liberty was at stake, it could be no real surprise for Lord Kerr or anyone else that there were two dissenting judgments in the cross-appeal provided by Lord Carnwath and Lady Hale. They made clear that in their view the UK should have done more to secure the release of detainee Yunis Rahmatullah and in doing so raised questions as to the proper limits of judicial intervention into the ‘forbidden area’ of foreign policy.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd November 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Where, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court was uncertain whether the respondents had sufficient control of the applicant to be able to produce him, it could properly issue the writ so that on the return that question could be determined with fuller knowledge.”
WLR Daily, 31st October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Supreme Court has ruled that the law of habeas corpus should not be used to order the US to return a Pakistani national held in US custody to the UK.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st October 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A UK supreme court ruling on the unlawful detention of Yunus Rahmatullah exposes the complicity of Britain with the US.”
The Guardian, 31st October 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The UK Supreme Court has ruled against a legal charity which argued a Pakistani national in US custody should be handed over to the UK.”
BBC News, 31st October 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The radical Islamist preacher Abu Qatada, who has spent more than six years in detention, will on Tuesday launch a fresh bid for release. Qatada’s lawyers will apply to the high court for a writ of habeas corpus and permission to launch a judicial review of his continuing detention while he fights deportation to Jordan to stand trial on terrorist charges.”
The Guardian, 30th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Suspects could be detained in prison without knowing the reasons if the ancient writ of habeas corpus is trumped by government plans for secret courts, according to civil liberties campaigners.”
The Guardian, 13th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Britain must secure the release of a Pakistani man captured by UK special forces and held by the US in Afghanistan’s notorious Bagram jail without trial for more than eight years, his lawyers told the supreme court this week.”
The Guardian, 3rd July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The country’s second most senior judge was yesterday forced to admit defeat in attempts to secure the release of a terrorism suspect from American custody.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd February 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“‘Human Rights Act to blame!’ is a frequent refrain in the media, as well reported on this blog. Often, though, the outcome that has attracted media ire is not one that has much to do with the Human Rights Act at all. The decision to release Abu Qatada on bail is one such example.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th February 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Where a relevant detaining authority initially had control over an applicant for a writ of habeas corpus, and subsequently claimed to have lost that control, a factual issue for the court’s determination was raised, and it would be wrong for the court simply to accept the detaining authority’s claim in the context of an application for the issue of the writ.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024