‘A public inquiry will be held into the Manchester Arena terror attack so that evidence from the security services and counter-terrorism police can be heard in camera.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd October 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews a range of recent important public law cases.’
Family Law Week, 9th August 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has agreed to pay more than £100,000 in compensation to a man who spent six years in prison after being wrongly convicted of perverting the course of justice in a gangland murder investigation.’
The Guardian, 6th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A ruling on whether ‘secret’ evidence from convicted murderer Wang Yam can be heard at the European court of human rights has far wider significance.’
The Guardian, 22nd September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Campaigners fighting for the release of convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber have started a petition asking for documents relating to his case to be released.’
BBC News, 15th August 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Service Confidence Procedure (“SCP”), which was the statutory misconduct regime for police officers, was amenable to judicial review, but in circumstances where reasons for it were subject to a decision that they could not be disclosed due to public interest immunity, then the threshold for judicial interference was very high.’
WLR Daily, 7th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This was an application by the widow of Alexander Litvinenko for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to order the setting up of a statutory inquiry into his death in London in November 2006. The Secretary of State had been asked to set up such an inquiry by Sir Robert Owen, the judge appointed to conduct the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death as Assistant Coroner.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London [2013] EWHC 3724 (Admin). The Foreign Secretary successfully appealed against an order for disclosure of secret documents to the Inquest for the death of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The government has successfully won a court order blocking the release of secret information in relation to the death of the former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko. Alexander Litvinenko fell ill after a meeting with former KGB contacts in London in 2006. It is the latest legal twist in what is becoming an ever-more complicated legal fight between his widow, the proposed coroner and ministers over what should or should not be made public about the nature of his death.’
BBC News, 27th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A court could make a declaration under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 permitting a closed material application to be made to the court before a public interest immunity claim had been made or determined.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“CF v Security Service and others and Mohamed v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others [[2013] EWHC 3402 (QB). The High Court has today made the first court ruling on the use of the Justice and Security Act 2013 in a civil claim for damages.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“In Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531 the claimants (respondents in the Supreme Court) were bringing civil claims for damages against the defendants (appellants in the Supreme Court) alleging complicity by the defendants in their mistreatment by foreign powers (including detention at Guantanamo Bay). The defendants as part of their defence wished to place before the court ‘security sensitive material’ – presumably the evidence of intelligence agents, or similar, denying the complicity – which for security reasons could not be disclosed to the claimants. Thus the defendants submitted that the court hold a “closed material procedure”. They envisaged that the evidence would be placed before the courts in closed session, i.e. a session from which the claimants and their representatives (and the public) were excluded. In the closed session the claimants would be represented by “special advocates” appointed by the court who would have access to the evidence but would not be able to take instructions from the claimants. Such procedures are controversial since they threaten the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice. On the other hand, the national interest would doubtless be impaired, in some cases, if intelligence agents gave evidence and their methods and secrets were exposed in open court.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 29th July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Doubts have emerged about the conviction of a contract killer following a trial in which special court orders were used to keep sensitive information out of the public domain.”
The Guardian, 21st July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“It was a matter for the court in the exercise of its case management powers, having regard to the overriding objective to deal with cases justly, whether persons directly affected by judicial review proceedings should be joined as interested parties.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Austin (Herbert): [2013] EWCA Crim 1028; [2013] WLR (D) 257
“It was the Crown’s responsibility to carry out the duties of disclosure. Judicial involvement could only properly be triggered by an application under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 by the prosecutor or by the defence. There was no provision for a trial judge to superintend the decisions of disclosure made by the prosecution on his own motion by inspecting unused material himself.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Bancoult v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Divisional Court, Richards LJ and Mitting J, 16-24 April 2013, judgment awaited. A quick update at the end of the recent judicial review on 24 April by Mr Bancoult on behalf of the Chagossian islanders, but before judgment. The challenge was to the designation of the waters around their islands as a ‘no take’ Marine Protected Area, i.e. one which could not be fished.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“MPs will vote on Monday on the final form of the government’s justice and security bill, which radically expands the use of so-called secret courts.”
The Guardian, 3rd March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The identity of a third party and the allegations of sexual abuse which she made in confidence against the father of a child who was the subject of contact proceedings would be disclosed in those proceedings since to do so would not violate her right to protection from inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and would be a proportionate interference with her right to respect for her private life under article 8, since it was justified by the need to protect the parents’ and child’s rights to a fair trial and respect for their family life, guaranteed by articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“There have been a number of important privacy judgments in recent weeks, particularly concerning Article 8 ECHR in cases with child protection elements.”
Panopticon, 13th December 2012
“R (on the application of the Metropolitan Police Service) v the Chairman of the Inquiry into the Death of Azelle Rodney and Interested Parties [2012] EWHA 2783 (Admin).
The public inquiry into the death of Azelle Rodney, which commenced in 2010, was still under way when it was interrupted by the present dispute. It concerned the issue whether police surveillance footage taken from the air, showing Azelle Rodney’s movements in the two hours before his death, should be disclosed to the legal team representing his mother at the Inquiry.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024