Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: house of lords Page 4 of about 489 results (0.246 seconds)

Mar 11 2009 (FN)

in Re Mce (Appellant) (Northern Ireland), in Re M (Appellant) (Norther ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. On 6 February 2006 a solicitor called Manmohan Sandhu appeared before the Antrim Magistrates’ Court charged with incitement to murder, and four counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The court was told that the case against Mr Sandhu was based on covert electronic surveillance carried out by the police of conversations between himself and clients who were purporting to consult him in the serious crime suite at Antrim Police Station. The fact that the case against Mr Sandhu was based upon such evidence received considerable media coverage and comment. It also led to requests being made of the police on behalf of each of the appellants for assurances that no such monitoring was taking place in respect of consultations that they were about to have with their lawyers or, in the case of M, his consultant psychiatrist. The police declined to give such assurances. 2. My noble and learned fr...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2009 (FN)

R Vs. G and Another (Respondent) (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal C ...

Court : House of Lords

Lord Rodger 1. This is the considered opinion of the committee. 2. There are two appeals before the House which raise issues relating to the interpretation of section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). Since some of the argument is based on a comparison between section 57 and section 58, it is convenient to begin by setting out the relevant parts of both. 3. Section 57(1)-(3) provides: “(1) A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. (2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. (3) In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved that an article - (a) was on any premises at the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2009 (FN)

R (on the Application of Ahmad) (Respondent) Vs. Mayor and the Burgess ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of my noble and learned friends Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I am in full agreement with them and for the reasons they give I would allow the appeal and make the order that Lord Neuberger proposes. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the illuminating opinions on this appeal that have been prepared by my noble and learned friends Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and find myself fully persuaded by the reasons they have given for allowing this appeal and making the order which Lord Neuberger proposes. 3. I was for some time attracted by the submission, addressed to your Lordships by Mr Luba QC, counsel for the respondent, Mr Ahmad, that the appellant Council’s section 167(1) scheme for determining priorities in allocating housing accommodation was, in one particular respect, irrational and t...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2009 (FN)

Generics (Uk) Limited and Others (Appellants) Vs. H Lundbeck a/S (Resp ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 1. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speeches of each of your Lordships. They reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. I share both the conclusion and the reasoning and would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. Section 1(1) of the Patents Act 1977 lays down four conditions that must be satisfied if a patent for an invention is to be granted. The first of these is that “the invention is new". This condition is easy enough to understand if the invention is a process whereby something or other can be made or done. But I find it less easy to understand if the claimed invention is of a chemical product where, as here, the existence of the product is known, its chemical and molecular structure is known and, up to a point, its characteristics are known. The present case concerns a claim to a product patent. The product is the (+) enantiomer of citalopram. Citalopram is an organic compound,...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2009 (FN)

Rb (Algeria) (Fc) and Another (Appellants) Vs. Secretary of State for ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. These appeals relate to three men whom the Secretary of State for the Home Department wishes to deport on the ground that each is a danger to the national security of the United Kingdom. Each contends that the Secretary of State cannot do so because deportation will infringe his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’). RB and U are Algerian nationals. They contend that deportation to Algeria will infringe their rights under article 3 of the Convention in that it will expose them to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Mr Othman is a Jordanian national. He contends that if he is deported he will face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, a real risk of a flagrant breach of his right to liberty under article 5 of the Convention and a real risk of a flagrant breach of his right to a fair trial under article ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2009 (FN)

Mitchell (Ap) and Another (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants) ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. On 31 July 2001 the late James Dow Mitchell was attacked by his next door neighbour James Drummond. A stick or an iron bar was used in this attack, and Mr Mitchell was hit about the head and severely injured. On 10 August 2001 he died as a result of his injuries. The deceased, who was aged 72, and Drummond, who was in his mid 60s, were both tenants of the defenders, the local housing authority. Drummond was arrested and charged with the murder. On 12 July 2002 the Crown accepted his plea to culpable homicide. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Later it was reduced to five years on appeal. The lenient way in which Drummond appears to have been treated must not be allowed to disguise the tragic circumstances of the deceased’s death and the distress which it must have caused to the deceased’s family. 2. The pursuers are the deceased’s widow and his daughter. They claim damages from the defenders for the loss, injury and dama...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2009 (FN)

Sugar (Appellant) Vs. British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (Re ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) provides for a general right of access to information held by public authorities. That right is subject to exceptions. The Act makes provision for its enforcement by the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) and for a right of appeal from a decision of the Commissioner to the Information Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). Schedule 1 to the Act lists the public authorities to which the Act applies. A small number of these are listed in respect only of certain specified information. One of these is the first respondent (“the BBC”), which is listed as “The British Broadcasting Corporation in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature". 2. The BBC holds a report that it commissioned in respect of its coverage of the Middle East (“the Balen Report”). The appellant, Mr Suga...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2009 (FN)

Marks and Spencer Plc (Appellants) Vs. Her Majestyand#8217;s Commissio ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. I am in agreement with his conclusion that the House can now dispose of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 23 of his opinion. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe dealing with the implications and consequences of the manner in which the Court of Justice of the European Communities dealt with the five questions referred to that Court by the House’s order of 12 July 2006. I am in agreement with the conclusion reached by my noble and learned friend that the House can now dispose of the long drawn out appeal, that was heard by the House as long ago as July 2005, by making the order he suggests in paragraph 23 of his opinion. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe My Lords, The background to the second reference under Article 234 3. On...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2009 (FN)

Z T (Kosovo) (Respondent) Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Departme ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 1. Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘section 94’) makes provision for the Secretary of State, on refusing an appeal in an asylum claim or a human rights claim or both, to certify that the claim or claims is or are clearly unfounded. The effect of so certifying is that the claimant is precluded from bringing an appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (‘the AIT’) against the Secretary of State’s decision from within the United Kingdom. This appeal raises the following issues of procedure: (1) Where the Secretary of State has so certified, how should she approach the consideration of further submissions made by the claimant from within the jurisdiction? (2) How should the court, in proceedings for judicial review, approach the decision made by the Secretary of State in relation to those further submissions? The initial claim 2. The respondent, ZT, is a Kosovar Ashkali, which is a ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2009 (FN)

Holmes-moorhouse (Fc) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) Vs. Lo ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. When parents separate, a court may make a shared residence order which stipulates that their children are to reside with both parents in their separate households. On 9 August 2005, the judge in the present case ordered the father to leave the family home in Richmond upon Thames by 20 September 2005 and provided that he and the mother were to have shared residence of three of their children. The order said that they should spend alternate weeks and half of their school holidays with each parent. 2. The father had no other accommodation available to him and so on 18 August 2005 applied to the Housing Services of Richmond London Borough Council for assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, which imposes upon housing authorities duties in respect of accommodation for people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The nature of the duty varies according to whether or not the applicant has priority need. If he does, the duty is to secure that ac...

Tag this Judgment!


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