Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: house of lords Year: 2005 Page 2 of about 21 results (0.016 seconds)

Mar 17 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Hasan (Respondent) (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cri ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. this appeal by the crown against the decision of the criminal division of the court of appeal (rix lj, crane j and judge maddison: [2003] ewca crim 191, [2003] 1 wlr 1489, sub nom r v z) raises two questions. the first concerns the meaning of "confession" for the purposes of section 76(1) of the police and criminal evidence act 1984. the second concerns the defence of duress. anonymity 2. at trial in the central criminal court, the name of the defendant aytach hasan ("the defendant") and the names of the main participants in the proceedings were given in open court. but two of those participants (frank sullivan and claire taeger) were then awaiting trial and the trial judge, his honour judge paget qc, properly made an order under section 4(2) of the contempt of court act 1981 prohibiting the publication of their names or any information concerning them or their forthcoming trial. this trial has now taken place and the order has been discharged. in the court of appeal the names of the defendant, then the appellant, and the main participants were anonymised and the case was reported as r v z. an order was made under section 11 of the 1981 act prohibiting any publication, save in a complete report of the judgment or in a legal journal, of the fact that the defendant had spoken to a police officer about sullivan and taeger and of that officer's report of the conversation. having invited submissions from the parties, i am of the clear opinion .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2005 (FN)

A and Others (Appellants) (Fc) and Others Vs. Secretary of State for t ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Dec-08-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. may the special immigration appeals commission ("siac"), a superior court of record established by statute, when hearing an appeal under section 25 of the anti-terrorism, crime and security act 2001 by a person certified and detained under sections 21 and 23 of that act, receive evidence which has or may have been procured by torture inflicted, in order to obtain evidence, by officials of a foreign state without the complicity of the british authorities? that is the central question which the house must answer in these appeals. the appellants, relying on the common law of england, on the european convention on human rights and on principles of public international law, submit that the question must be answered with an emphatic negative. the secretary of state agrees that this answer would be appropriate in any case where the torture had been inflicted by or with the complicity of the british authorities. he further states that it is not his intention to rely on, or present to siac or to the administrative court in relation to control orders, evidence which he knows or believes to have been obtained by a third country by torture. this intention is, however, based on policy and not on any acknowledged legal obligation. like any other policy it may be altered, by a successor in office or if circumstances change. the admission of such evidence by siac is not, he submits, precluded by law. thus he contends for an affirmative answer to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2005 (FN)

Roberts (Fc) (Appellant) Vs. Parole Board (Respondents)

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Jul-07-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. on 12 december 1966 the appellant, mr harry roberts, was convicted on three counts of murder, having pleaded guilty to two counts and been convicted of the third. the victims in each case were police officers, killed in cold blood at shepherd's bush in august 1966 when, in the course of their duty, they stopped a car in which the appellant and two accomplices were travelling to commit an armed robbery. the trial judge rightly described these crimes, which aroused widespread public outrage, as heinous and suggested that the case was one in which the appellant might never be released. he formally recommended that the appellant serve a term of at least 30 years, and in due course the home secretary of the day fixed 30 years as the appellant's punitive or tariff term. that term expired in 1996, when the appellant was aged 60. the fifth review of his case by the parole board, still current, began in september 2001, and this appeal concerns the procedure to be followed in that review. the issue to be determined by the house is agreed to be whether the parole board, a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction, is able, within the powers granted by the criminal justice act 1991, and compatibly with article 5 of the european convention on human rights (a) to withhold material relevant to the appellant's parole review from the appellant's legal representatives and (b) instead, to disclose that material to a specially appointed advocate, who would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Mushtaq (Appellant) (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Cr ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Apr-21-2005

lord steyn my lords, 1. i have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord rodger of earlsferry. i am in complete agreement with it. i would also make the order which lord rodger proposes. lord hutton my lords, 2. the facts of this case and the course of the appellant's trial have been fully set out in the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord rodger of earlsferry and i gratefully adopt his account. the procedure adopted at the trial whereby the judge conducted a voir dire to decide whether the confession was admissible before it was put in evidence before the jury and the police officers were subsequently cross-examined before the jury when allegations of oppressive conduct were put to them, was described and approved in 1972 in paragraph 67 of the eleventh report of the criminal law revision committee (cmnd 4991): "the fact that the judge has decided at the trial within the trial that the confession is admissible will not prevent the defence from cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution, or themselves giving evidence, at the trial proper about the way in which the confession was obtained with the object of convincing the jury that they should pay no attention to it. even if the same evidence is given as that given at the trial within the trial, this will not prevent the jury from taking a different view from that which the judge took at the trial within the trial - even on the question, for example, whether there was any threat or inducement. this is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2005 (FN)

College of Estate Management (Respondents) Vs. Her Majesty's Commissio ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Oct-20-2005

lord steyn my lords, 1. i have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord walker of gestingthorpe. i agree with his analysis of the case. i would also allow the appeal. lord hutton my lords, 2. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord walker of gestingthorpe. i agree with it and for the reasons which he gives i would also allow the appeal. lord rodger of earlsferry my lords, 3. i have had the advantage of considering in draft the speech which my noble and learned friend, lord walker of gestingthorpe, is to deliver. i agree with it but add some short observations of my own since the house is to allow the appeal while rejecting one of the main planks in the commissioners' argument in support of it. 4. article 13a(1)(i) of council directive 77/388/eec ("the sixth directive") requires member states to exempt from value added tax inter alia young people's education and vocational training, including the supply of services and of goods closely related thereto, if provided by certain bodies. the united kingdom has complied with this obligation by enacting section 31(1) of, and group 6 in schedule 9 to, the value added tax act 1994 ("the act") which make the provision by an eligible body of education an exempt supply (item no 1(a)). also exempt (item no 4) is the supply by the eligible body of any goods or services, other than examination services, which are closely related to the provision of education, provided that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2005 (FN)

N (Fc) (Appellant) Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Res ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : May-05-2005

lord nicholls of birkenhead my lords, 1. this appeal raises a question of profound importance about the human rights obligations of the united kingdom in respect of the expulsion of people with hiv/aids. the appellant, a woman 30 years of age, comes from uganda. she was born there in december 1974. she came to london on a flight from entebbe in march 1998. she was refused leave to enter this country. her claim for asylum was rejected. the secretary of state proposes to expel her. but there is a tragic complication: she suffers from advanced hiv/aids ('full blown aids', in the old terminology). 2. when the appellant arrived here she was very poorly. within hours she was admitted to guy's hospital. she was diagnosed as hiv positive, with an aids defining illness. in august 1998 she developed a second aids defining illness, kaposi's sarcoma. the cd4 cell count of a normal healthy person is over 500. hers was down to 10. 3. as a result of modern drugs and skilled medical treatment over a lengthy period, including a prolonged course of systematic chemotherapy, the appellant is now much better. her cd4 count has risen to 414. her condition is stable. her doctors say that if she continues to have access to the drugs and medical facilities available in the united kingdom she should remain well for 'decades'. but without these drugs and facilities her prognosis is 'appalling': she will suffer ill-health, discomfort, pain and death within a year or two. this is because the highly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and Others ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Feb-24-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. i have had the benefit of reading the opinions of my noble and learned friends lord nicholls of birkenhead and lady hale of richmond. i agree with them both, and for the reasons they give i would dismiss this appeal. lord nicholls of birkenhead my lords, 2. corporal punishment of children is a controversial subject. it arouses strong feelings, both for and against. in this country there is now a total ban on the use of corporal punishment in all schools. the claimants in these proceedings contend this ban is incompatible with their convention rights under the human rights act 1998. 3. the present state of the law has developed in stages over the last 20 years. in the 1970s two mothers, mrs campbell from strathclyde and mrs cosans from fife, objected to their children being subjected to corporal punishment in state schools. their complaint to the european court of human rights was upheld. the state had failed to respect their 'philosophical convictions' on this subject, contrary to article 2 of the first protocol to the european convention on human rights: campbell and cosans v united kingdom (1982) 4 ehrr 293. that was in 1982. parliament then changed the law, by the education (no 2) act 1986, section 47. since 1987 school teachers in maintained schools (state schools) have had no right to administer corporal punishment to school pupils. this ban applied also to children attending non-maintained schools (independent schools) who received .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2005 (FN)

Synthon Bv (Appellants) Vs. Smithkline Beecham Plc (Respondents)

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Oct-20-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. i have had the privilege of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend lord hoffmann. i am in full agreement with it and would, for the reasons he gives, allow the appeal and restore the decision of jacob j. lord hoffmann my lords, the invention 2. paroxetine is a compound used to treat depression and related disorders. it has for some time been marketed in the form of its hydrochloride hemihydrate salt under the name paxil or seroxat. these proceedings arise out of the more or less simultaneous discovery in about 1997 by the appellants synthon bv, a dutch pharmaceutical company, and the respondents, smithkline beecham plc ("sb"), a uk pharmaceutical company, that a different paroxetine salt, paroxetine methanesulfonate ("pms"), has properties which make it more suitable for pharmaceutical use. it is more stable, less hygroscopic and much more soluble, so that it can be prepared in higher concentrations. the synthon disclosure 3. on 10 june 1997 synthon filed an international application under the patent cooperation treaty for a patent which claimed a broad class of sulfonic acid salts including pms. this was published on 17 december 1998. the specification said that a known useful salt of paroxetine was the hydrochloride in various forms but that each of them had, to a greater or lesser extent, disadvantages for safe handling and formulation. the object of the invention was to provide a compound with improved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Ashworth Hospital Authority (Appellants) and Another Ex Par ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. i am in complete agreement with it, and for the reasons she gives would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. lord steyn my lords, 2. i have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. i agree with it. i would also make the order which she proposes. lord phillips of worth matravers my lords, 3. i have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend baroness hale of richmond. for the reasons which she gives i also would allow the appeal and make the order which she proposes. baroness hale of richmond my lords, 4. the issue in this case is whether a patient detained for treatment under the mental health act 1983 can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as suffering for the purpose of the order or application authorising his detention. the history 5. the patient was convicted of manslaughter in 1987. at the time of his offence he was acutely mentally ill with symptoms of a florid psychotic illness. the court made a hospital order with a restriction order of indefinite duration under sections 37 and 41 of the 1983 act. he was classified in the order as suffering from mental illness, namely schizophrenia. he was first admitted to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2005 (FN)

Regina Vs. Parole Board (Respondents) Ex Parte Smith (Fc) (Appellant) ...

Court : House of Lords

Decided on : Jan-27-2005

lord bingham of cornhill my lords, 1. these appeals concern the procedure to be followed by the parole board when a determinate sentence prisoner, released on licence, seeks to resist subsequent revocation of his licence. the appellants contend that such a prisoner should be offered an oral hearing at which the prisoner can appear and, either on his own behalf or through a legal representative, present his case, unless the prisoner chooses to forgo such a hearing. they base their argument on the common law and on articles 5 and 6 of the european convention, relying on both the criminal and civil limbs of article 6. the respondent parole board accepts that in resolving challenges to revocation of their licences by determinate sentence prisoners it is under a public law duty to act in a procedurally fair manner. it accepts that in some cases, as where there is a disputed issue of fact material to the outcome, procedural fairness may require it to hold an oral hearing at which the issue may be contested. it accepts, through leading counsel, that it may in the past have been too slow to grant oral hearings. but it strongly resists the submission that there should be any rule or presumption in favour of an oral hearing in such cases, contending that neither the common law nor the european convention requires such a rule or such a presumption. justin west: the facts 2. the appellant west was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for affray on 27 october 2000. he was thus a short-term .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //