In this week’s Digest, the Supreme Court gave judgment in three cases on whether diplomats are immune from claims for their employees, the radical cleric Anjem Choudary was refused application to appeal his conviction, and the Court of Appeal considered costs in private prosecutions.

In the matter of an application by Jason Loughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] UKSC 63

Judgment (available here) handed down by Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court on 18 October 2017

This appeal arose out of judicial review proceedings commenced in Ireland. The question for the court concerned the circumstances in which sentences, which had been passed on offenders who had assisted the authorities, should be referred back to the sentencing court under s. 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

 

Benkharbouche  v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya (Appellant) v Janah (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 62

Judgment (available here) handed down by Lord Sumption in the Supreme Court on 18 October 2017.

This appeal concerned whether Libya and Sudan were entitled to rely on the State Immunity Act 1978 in the actions brought by the respondents for breach of contract and EU rights; the appeal was unanimously dismissed – Libya and Sudan were not entitled to rely on that provision

 

Reyes v. Al-Malki and another [2017] UKSC 61

Judgment (available here) handed down by Lords Sumption and Wilson in the Supreme Court on 18 October 2017.

This appeal concerned whether the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 applied to the respondents to give them diplomatic immunity such that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the appellant’s claim. The respondents had cross-appealed on the grounds they had not been validly served with the claim form; the appeal was allowed, the respondents did not have diplomatic immunity, and the cross-appeal dismissed.

 

Armes v. Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60

Judgment (available here) handed down by Lord Reed in the Supreme Court on 18 October 2017.

This appeal raised the question of whether a local authority could be liable, either on the grounds of (a) breach of a non-delegable duty or (b) vicarious liability, for the abuse that a foster child had suffered at the hands of foster parents; the appeal was allowed by a majority of 4 – 1 (Lord Hughes dissenting) on the basis of vicarious liability.

 

Anjem Choudary and Mohamed Mizanur Rahman v. Regina [2017] EWCA Crim 1606

Judgment (available here) handed down by Sharp LJ in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 19 October 2017. Alison Morgan and Ben Lloyd appeared for the Crown. 

These proceedings concerned renewed applications for permission to appeal against convictions for offences contrary to s. 12(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000; the application was unanimously refused as there were no grounds on which the convictions could be considered unsafe. The judgement is complex.

 

R (R) v. The National Police Chief’s Council and another [2017] EWHC 2586 (Admin)

Judgment (available here) handed down by Green J in the High Court on 17 October 2017.

These judicial review proceedings concerned whether the disclosure to and use of information by the police, which was held on and retrievable from police records, interfered with the claimant’s article 8 rights; the claim succeeded.

 

Kalah Liban v. Secretary of State from the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2551 (Admin)

Judgment (available here) handed down by Laing J in the High Court on 18 October 2017.

This decision relates substantively to a challenge to the defendant’s refusal to (i) accept the claimant’s representations regarding a fresh claim and (ii) revoke a deportation order made in November 2012. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted in respect of (i), but was refused in respect of (ii).

 

Alisson Soares Pimenta v. Government of The Republic of Brazil [2017] EWHC 2588 (Admin)

Judgment (available here) handed down by Hamblen LJ in the High Court on 19 October 2017.

This is the appeal against a decision of the Deputy Senior District Judge to refer the appellant’s case to the Secretary of State to consider his extradition; the decision was challenged on the grounds extradition was incompatible with his rights under Article 3 and/or Article 6 of the ECHR; the appeal was dismissed.

 

Home Office consultation: Offensive and dangerous weapons new legislation

On 14 October 2017 the government published a consultation relating to legislative proposals on offensive and dangerous weapons. The consultation can be found here.

 

Other news

Cherif Bassiouni dies (22 October 2017)

Russia puts British Putin critic on Interpol wanted list (21 October 2017)

#metoo raises awareness (21 October 2017)

Victoria votes to approve voluntary euthanasia bill (20 October 2017)

Does Trump’s ownership of hotels violate the constitution? (19 October 2017)

Previous post Case report: SFO v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017
Next post Glorification of terrorism