Sixth Further evidence submitted by the
Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General
1. I am grateful to the Committee for the
opportunity to submit this supplemental memorandum. I welcome
the work of the Committee which has focussed attention on the
role of the Law Officers in a thoughtful way.
2. Since my previous evidence there have
been some significant developments on which I would like to comment,
notably evidence given by others to the Committee, and the creation
of a new Ministry of Justice.
3. So far as the further evidence is concerned,
two key elements emerge strongly from a number of different sources:
— The crucial importance of accountability
to Parliament which is best met by the Law Officers being members
of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. This point has been
strongly made by experienced witnesses and from each of the political
parties.
— The key role of the Attorney General
in maintaining the Rule of Law, which is best met by the Law Officers
being members of the Government. The creation of the Ministry
of Justice underscores the need for an Attorney General within
Government. In future he might well be the only senior lawyer
within Government.
Accountability
4. In my written and oral evidence I emphasised
the need for accountability and stated my belief that this was
best achieved by having Law Officers who were members of Parliament
and indeed members of the Government who could be called to account
in Parliament.
5. I note the strong support for this position
from (amongst others) the former Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd of Duncansby
QC, who makes the following important point:
"Accountability to Parliament is not simply
about attending occasionally and answering questions. The interaction
between Members of Parliament and the Law Officers is also of
great benefit. It allows MPs or MSPs to approach you informally
and raise a constituency or other matter and it allows the Law
Officer to gauge political reaction to current issues—More
generally it does help inform considerations of the public interest
when these matters come to be considered".
6. I should underline one point: the importance
of accountability in relation to prosecution decisions. This is
key, and I have underlined it by the example of the BAE case where
I and the Solicitor General have, between us, participated in
six Parliamentary debates and answered scores of questions. But
there are other examples over the years, eg the Paul Burrell case,
the Jubilee Line prosecution, Trooper Williams and other military
prosecutions, the "shaken baby" cases and so on.
7. In this connection the observations of
the Lord Advocate in her lecture "The Lord Advocate in the
21st Century" are well made, where she underlines why prosecution
is a necessary function of Government and the importance of accountability
to Parliament. She observes: "The prosecution of crime is
one of the most fundamental tasks of government in the widest
sense—It lies at the heart of the social contract between
citizen and state." The Lord Advocate goes on:
"[T]hose exercising these vital functions
must be held properly to account for the manner in which they
exercise their responsibilities—Indeed, it is only if the
prosecution function is carried out as part of government that
proper accountability is secured. If the system of prosecution
breaks down, it is the Lord Advocate who has to account for that
to Parliament. And that is correct—It would be wrong to
seek to allocate that function to some semi-detached outside body."
8. The creation of the new Ministry of Justice
has not changed this position. Very importantly it does not disturb
the position of the prosecutors—who remain outside the control
of an ordinary political Minister. It is constitutionally crucial
for the independence of the prosecutors to be maintained. For
that reason—and rightly—they are left under the superintendence
of the Attorney General. This, as I explained before, is a mechanism
of some subtlety securing accountability to Parliament but freedom
from political influence, by which cases are considered on the
basis of an objective view of the evidence and the law. These
arrangements work well in practice.
9. It is notable that in only one case in
the nearly six years I have been privileged to hold this office
(the BAE case) has there been any sustained suggestion that a
decision has been politically driven. There are no cases in which
a prosecutor has complained or even hinted of having been put
under any inappropriate pressure. In relation to the BAE case
itself, the Director of the SFO has publicly said that he had
"no problem with the way the government has handled this";
and that I acted "absolutely professionally" and played
"with a straight bat."
10. As to methods of improving accountability
the Committee will of course be aware of my earlier suggestions.
Any changes will need to take account of important issues such
as the necessary independence of prosecution decisions and the
confidentiality of some information. I would also draw attention
to my recent appearance before the Intelligence and Security Committee
which has provided a useful way of giving information which cannot
be publicly disclosed.
Rule of Law
11. I remarked in my previous evidence,
and in my Birmingham lecture, why I thought that, by focussing
on the role of the Lord Chancellor, in many ways too little attention
had been paid to the role of the Attorney General in maintaining
the Rule of Law. As I noted it is the Attorney General and not
the Lord Chancellor who advises the Government on the law. The
Attorney General also (for example) has a special duty in relation
to the propriety and ECHR compatibility of legislation. It is
the Attorney General who has been called upon by Parliament and
the judges to exercise functions in the interests of the Rule
of Law, and it is in that capacity that I have examined cases
of miscarriage of justice.
12. I note the strong support for this position
from Lord Goodhart, the distinguished Liberal Democrat Peer and
present Chairman of the Council of Justice, where he says that,
in the light of changes in the role of the Lord Chancellor, "it
is important that more attention should be given to the role of
the Attorney General in upholding the Rule of Law".
13. The creation of the Ministry of Justice
has significantly increased that importance. It is clear that
the Ministry of Justice will now be a major policy department
and its Secretary of State need no longer be a lawyer. In these
circumstances the case for retaining the role of the Attorney
General as a senior lawyer in Government becomes in my view all
the stronger. For better or worse Government operates in a world
where the law, and the need for the Rule of Law, plays an increasingly
important role. It is necessary to mention only such issues as
the balancing of individual rights against collective security;
measures to combat terrorism; data protection; freedom of information;
devolution and other constitutional change; the growing importance
of international law; and many others. These issues bear upon
every aspect of Government. It is right that there should be a
lawyer at the heart of Government to deal with them and ensure
that the law is properly respected.
Creation of the Ministry of Justice
14. In addition to the aspects discussed
above, it should be made clear that the creation of the Ministry
of Justice does not change my responsibilities as Attorney General
or those of any of my Departments. This is expressly confirmed
in the Cabinet Office policy document "Machinery of Government:
Security and Counter-Terrorism, and the Criminal Justice System""
of 29 March 2007, which states in relation to my Office: "Existing
functions remain, including superintendence of the prosecuting
authorities and other existing criminal justice responsibilities".
15. The new arrangements preserve the trilateral
structure for the formulation and delivery of criminal justice
policy, involving me (with the Solicitor General and my Departments)
working as joint partners with the other two criminal justice
departments (the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice).
16. As the Prime Minister said in his Written
Ministerial Statement of 29 March 2007:
"The existing trilateral arrangements have
been a success in delivering improvements to the criminal justice
system, and will continue under the new structure. To facilitate
this, there will continue to be a shared National Criminal Justice
Board, based in the Ministry of Justice, which will work trilaterally
between the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney
General's Office."
17. As I have previously explained to the
Committee, these trilateral arrangements illustrate the value
of involving the police and the prosecutors—who know what
works on the front line—in both the formulation and delivery
of criminal justice and sentencing policy. Amongst the improvements
already achieved under those arrangements are better treatment
for victims and witnesses; improvements in bringing offenders
to justice; giving the CPS responsibility for charging decisions;
and much closer working relations between investigators and prosecutors.
It will be important for the trilateral relationship to be maintained.
18. My advisory, public interest, Rule of
Law and other non-criminal justice functions are similarly unchanged
by the creation of the new Ministry.
19. The creation of the Ministry of Justice
did not result in any additional functions being conferred on
the Attorney General's Office (though there are discussions continuing
on certain international issues). My own view is that in future
consideration should be given to whether some functions (such
as human rights and constitutional law) might sit better with
the Law Officers than with the Ministry of Justice. However that
is for the future.
Transparency International
20. The evidence from Transparency International
(TI) dated January 2007 calls for comment. It is based on a number
of surprising factual mistakes and misunderstandings.
21. First, reference is made to my statement
in connection with the "cash for honours" case that
there are certain offences for which my consent is required to
prosecute, and that this role cannot be delegated by the Law Officers
to any third party. It is wholly wrong for TI to infer that in
saying this I was confirming that "the consent is of an essentially
political character". I have made it clear that the function
of deciding whether to consent to criminal prosecutions is not
a political one, but is exercised by the Attorney General according
to the law, the evidence and the public interest, entirely independent
of Government or of political considerations.
22. The same is true of my superintendence
role over the prosecuting authorities, so far as relating to individual
cases. It is not correct to say, as TI do, that this role "emanates
from [the Attorney General's] membership of the government".
It is a role specifically conferred by Parliament in statute on
the Attorney General. It is exercised wholly independently of
Government.
23. In relation to the BAE Systems/Al Yamamah
case, TI refer to my "role in the decision to discontinue
the criminal investigation". It should be stressed yet again
that the decision to discontinue the investigation was taken not
by me but by the Director of Serious Fraud Office, as he has repeatedly
made clear. The SFO exercises its functions—including both
its investigatory and prosecution functions—under my statutory
superintendence[15]15.
So it is simply wrong to say there is no statutory basis for my
role. Again it is a role I exercise, in relation to individual
cases, wholly independently of Government.
24. Finally, TI make reference to my Parliamentary
statement on the BAE case of 14 December 2006, in which I quoted
from the SFO press release announcing the Director's decision
to halt the investigation. This referred to the need to "balance
the Rule of Law against the wider public interest". I have
since acknowledged that the SFO statement was capable of being
misunderstood. Rather, the merits of bringing a particular prosecution
needed to be balanced against wider considerations of national
security. I have made it clear to Parliament (1 February 2007)
that "there is no question of saying that the Rule of Law
in general should be set aside for wider interests of expediency
or political or national interest."
Making legal advice public
25. The Committee already has my views on
this topic. They are largely supported by the Information Commissioner
who (in his Enforcement Notice in the Iraq legal advice case)
stated:
"The arguments for maintaining legal professional
privilege are strong and therefore the circumstances in which
the public interest will favour disclosure of information that
is legally privileged are likely to be highly exceptional."
26. It is of course important that the legal
basis for the Government's action is known but this can be done
without breaching the important confidentiality of legal advice.
Of course, as I said in oral evidence, if there were a matter
of major importance where the Prime Minister of the day wished,
exceptionally, to make public the advice he had received, that
would be for him to decide.
27. But in that context I draw attention
to the position adopted by the Opposition in the debate in the
House of Lords on the Government's response to the report of the
House of Lords Constitution Committee on "Waging War: Parliament's
Role and Responsibility" (1 May 2007). In the course of that
debate, Lord Kingsland said this:
"It is essential that the legal position
is made absolutely clear before any deployment of troops, now
crucial to the individual soldier. Since the development of the
law under the International Criminal Court, the soldier is entitled
to know where he stands and must have confidence that the conflict
is legal. It is right that the Attorney General comes to Parliament
to make a statement about the legality of war. It would not, of
course, be appropriate for Parliament to see the advice that the
Attorney General gave to the Government. Inevitably, any responsible
Attorney General is bound to have to assess all the arguments,
some of which might be contrary to the final position that he
takes. If that document should become public, it is as sure as
night follows day that there would be a very big dispute about
its merits. Nothing could be more damaging to the confidence of
the soldier who is about to fight. The Government have to take
a view about the legal position. If, ultimately, they are proved
wrong, that is a matter for future accountability. The only way
they can do that is on one piece of advice from the Attorney General
which is summarised and is clear—it should not express doubts—about
the legality of the conflict or otherwise."
28. That analysis is wholly consistent with
the Government's approach to the decision in 2003 to take military
action against Iraq (although, as is well known, my legal advice
in that case was eventually made public following a partial leak).
11 May 2007
Annex
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COURT APPEARANCES
(Updated as at 09.05.07)
R v Considine; R v Davis
Issue
The extent of the information that a sentencing
court may take into account when assessing whether an offender
is "dangerous" under section 229 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003. In particular, whether a court may take into account
previous criminal conduct which has not been the subject of prosecution
when making the assessment of dangerousness. The issues arose
in the context of two appeals against sentence.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
Awaited
Outcome
The court dismissed the appeals against sentence
but the reasoned judgment is awaited.
R on the application of Hurst v Commissioner
of Police for the Metropolis
The Attorney General appeared for the Lord
Chancellor as interested party.
Issue
Extent of coroner's duty under Human Rights
Act in respect of deaths occurring before coming into force of
HRA—retrospectivity of HRA.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
Awaited outcome
Outcome
Awaited
The General Medical Council v Professor Roy
Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390
The Attorney General intervened in this case
in the public interest.
Issue
The extent to which expert witnesses are immune
from fitness to practice proceedings brought by their regulating
body in relation to their conduct as an expert witness.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgement
26 October 2006
Outcome
That expert witnesses were not immune from fitness
to practice proceedings in relation to their conduct as expert
witnesses.
Webster & French
Issue
Sentence referred by the Attorney General as
an unduly lenient sentence.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
8 June 2006
Outcome
Sentence held to be unduly lenient, and increased.
Attorney General's Reference No. 80 of 2005
sub nom R v Wedlock-Ward (Adam Arthur)
[2005] EWCA Crim 3367
Issue
Sentence referred by the Attorney General as
an unduly lenient sentence.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
16 November 2005
Outcome
Court held that the original non-custodial sentence
was unduly lenient and replaced it with a sentence of 2 years'
imprisonment.
Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others
[2005] ECWCA Civ 1191
The Attorney General appeared for the Secretary
of State (Intervener).
Issue
Whether the Registered Designs Regulations 2001,
reg. 12, had been validly made by the Secretary of State under
section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
20 October 2005
Outcome
The Court held that they were validly made.
Jackson and others v Attorney General (Hunting
Act 2004)
[2005] UKHL 56
Issue
Whether the legislative process provided for
under the Parliament Act 1911 can validly be used to amend the
provisions of the 1911 Act itself, and hence whether the Parliament
Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 (which was passed under the
1911 Act as amended by the 1949 Act) are valid Acts of Parliament.
Court
House of Lords; Court of Appeal; Divisional
Court
Date of Judgment
13 October 2005
Outcome
Decided in favour of the Attorney General
Trial of Zardad
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of the
Crown.
Issue
First torture case in UK legal history. Attorney
General consented to prosecute, and decided to lead the prosecution
in order to mark the case's importance
Court
Old Bailey
Date of Judgment
19 July 2005
Outcome
Initially the jury could not reach a decision.
There was a retrial in 2005 and the defendant was convicted.
R v Z (Proscription of Real IRA)
[2005] UKHL 35
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Crown.
Issue
Whether the Real IRA was a proscribed organisation
for the purposes of s.3 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Court
House of Lords; Court of Appeal, Northern Ireland
Date of Judgment
19 May 2005
Outcome
It was held that the Real IRA was a proscribed
organisation.
A (FC) and others v Secretary of State for
the Home Department; X (FC) and others v Secretary of State for
the Home Department
[2004] UKHL 56
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Home Secretary.
Issue
Whether the UK's derogation from Article 5,
ECHR, and the protective detention powers in relation to suspected
foreign terrorists in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
2001, were lawful. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission
was satisfied that there was a public emergency which justified
the derogation and that in principle the protective detention
powers were lawful. However, because those powers only applied
to suspected foreign nationals, the Special Immigration Appeals
Commission held that they were discriminatory. On appeal, the
Court of Appeal held that the legislation and underlying derogation
were lawful. It also held, allowing the Home Secretary's appeal,
that the differential treatment of suspected foreign terrorists
as compared with suspected UK terrorists was justified and that
there was no discrimination. The applicants appealed this decision.
Court
House of Lords; Court of Appeal; SIAC
Date of Judgment
16 December 2004
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated
Derogation) Order 2001 quashed and declaration of incompatibility
made in respect of section 23 of ATCSA (Article 5 and 14).
R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator;
Thi Lien Do v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2004] YJGK 26
Issue
Whether the domestic court had to consider Convention
rights, other than Article 3, might be engaged in the removal
of a person to the receiving State.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
17 June 2004
Outcome
Other Convention rights could be engaged in
the removal of a person from the UK, even if the anticipated treatment
by the receiving State did not reach the minimum requirements
of Article 3. However, on the facts of these cases, the applicants
had not shown that other rights (namely Article 9) had been breached.
R (on the application of Razgar) v Secretary
of State for the Home Department
[2004] UKHL 27
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Government
Issue
Razgar was an asylum seeker who resisted a removal
decision on the grounds that it would violate Article 8 because
he was undergoing psychiatric treatment in the UK. The Secretary
of State argued that Article 8 was not violated and the applicant's
claim unfounded under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 s.72(2)(a).
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
17 June 2004
Outcome
Held that the foreseeable consequences for the
mental health of an asylum seeker on removal could engage Article
8, even if the removal did not violate Article 3.
Attorney General's Reference No. 92 of 2003
sub nom R v Pells (James Philip)
[2005] ECWCA Crim 3367
Issue
Sentence referred by the Attorney General as
unduly lenient. Offender had committed racially aggravated assault
occasioning actual bodily harm.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
22 March 2004
Outcome
Court held original sentence of 12 months' detention
was unduly lenient and increased the period of detention to 30
months.
In Re McKerr
[2004] UKHL 12
Issue
State's obligations under Article 2 in relation
to pre-HRA deaths.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
11 March 2004
Outcome
The duty to investigate unlawful killings under
Article 2 did not arise in domestic law in relation to deaths
before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force.
R v C; R v H
[2004] UKHL
Attorney General appeared on behalf of the
Crown.
Issue
What the judge must consider when ruling on
a claim of public interest immunity.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
5 February 2004
Outcome
It was held that the judge had failed to consider
in detail the material that the prosecution had sought to withhold.
The House of Lords emphasised the overriding principle that derogation
from the principle of full disclosure had always to be the minimum
necessary to protect the public interest and must never imperil
the overall fairness of the trial.
Opening of the Gaul Inquiry on 13 January 2004
Issue
Inquiry into the FV-Gaul Fishing Vessel incident
Court
Public Inquiry
Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs v ASDA Stores Limited
[2003] UKHL 71
Attorney General appeared on behalf of DEFRA.
Issue
Whether section 14 of the Agriculture and Horticulture
Act 1964 as amended created a criminal offence that was currently
applicable. The Divisional Court had ruled that criminal law had
to be clear and it was necessary to have clear words in domestic
legislation which imposed criminal liability by reference to present
regulations and those made or amended in the future. DEFRA appealed
this decision.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
18 December 2003
Outcome
DEFRA succeeded in their appeal. The House of
Lords indicated that courts should not approach the interpretation
of statues/regulations implementing Community legislation as if
they did not embrace future Community law changes.
Reference by Her Majesty's Attorney General
for Northern Ireland Nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 of 2003 sub nom R v Robinson,
Humphreys, McGuone and James)
[2003] NICA 2
Issue
Unduly lenient sentence references by the Attorney
General against sentences for death by dangerous driving and other
serious driving offences in Northern Ireland.
Court
Court of Appeal, Northern Ireland
Date of Judgment
11 July 2003
Outcome
Court held that all the original sentences were
unduly lenient and imposed increased sentences.
Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
[2003] UKHL 40
The Attorney General appeared for the Secretary
of State.
Issue
Appeal against a declaration of incompatibility
against the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 127(3).
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
10 July 2003
Outcome
It was held that the court had been wrong to
make the declaration because the events and the cause of action
took place before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force.
R (on the application of Q and others) v Secretary
of State for the Home Department
[2003] EWCA Civ 36
Issue
The procedure and application of section 55
of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (claims for
support from asylum seekers).
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
18 March 2003
Outcome
The Court held that there were procedural deficiencies
in the process for refusing claims for support, which could result
in unfairness. However, once they were remedied, there was no
reason why section 55 should not operate effectively and the "real
risk" that an asylum seeker might be reduced to a state of
degradation did not itself engage Article 3.
Attorney General's Reference Nos. 58 to 2002
sub nom R v Coudjoe, Day, Gordon, McGlacken, Simons, Proverbs,
O'Too, Thorney and Boakye
[2003] EWCA Crim 636
Issue
Sentences referred by the Attorney General as
unduly lenient. The offenders had been members of a gang called
the "Pit Bull crew" and had all been convicted of gun
related or drugs offences.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
21 February 2003
Outcome
Court held that Gordon, Thorne, Boakye and Simons'
sentences were unduly lenient and imposed increased sentences.
Attorney General's References Nos. 120, 91
and 119 of 2002 sub nom R v (1) CCE (2) NJK (3) TAG
[2003] EWCA Crim 5
Issue
These separate cases all involved, in varying
degrees, sexual abuse of children (rapes, indecent assaults),
with one case having an additional element of physical abuse,
by either the father or someone in a position of some responsibility
over the children. The issue was whether the sentences imposed
by the Crown Court were unduly lenient.
Court
Court of Appeal
Date of Judgment
21 January 2003
Outcome
In each of the three cases the Court concluded
that the sentences were unduly lenient. The sentences were increased
from a custodial sentence of 6 months to one of 13 months' from
a (non-custodial) rehabilitation order for 3 years to a custodial
sentence of 3 years; and from a custodial sentence of 8 years
to one of 13 years.
R v Lyons and Others (Guinness case)
[2002] UKHL 44
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
Issue
Whether the original convictions of "the
Guinness Four"" were to be set aside because the European
Court of Human Rights had subsequently held that the admission
of answers given under compulsion was a breach of Article 6.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
14 November 2002
Outcome
Judgment given for the Director of the SFO.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte Saadi and others [2002] UKHL 41
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Home Secretary.
Issue
Whether or not the detention of asylum seekers
at the Oakington Detention Centre was lawful. It had previously
been held by Collins, J. that it was contrary to ECHR to detain
asylum seekers who were not at risk of absconding.
Court
Court of Appeal; House of Lords.
Date of Judgment
31 October 2002 (HL)
Outcome
Judgment was given for the Home Secretary in
both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte (1) Yogathas (2) Thangarasa
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Home Secretary.
Issue
Appeals relating to decisions of the Secretary
of State to order the return of the appellants (Tamil asylum seekers)
to Germany as a safe third country under the Dublin Convention.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
17 October 2002
Outcome
Judgment given for the Home Secretary
Peter Robinson v SoS for Northern Ireland and
Others
[2002] UKHL 36
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Issue
Whether the election of David Trimble and Mark
Durkan was lawful, being 2 days over the 2 week period provided
by s.16(8) Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Court
House of Lords
Date of Judgment
25 July 2002
Outcome
Judgment given for the Home Secretary
Persey v Secretary of State for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs and others
[2002] ECWHC 371 (Admin)
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Issue
This was a judicial review challenge to the
decision to hold the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries in private.
The Divisional Court had previously held in relation to the Shipman
Inquiry that it was open to the courts to order a public inquiry.
The Court in Persey made remarks indicating that decisions of
this kind (whether or not to hold an inquiry in public) are political
ones, in which the courts should not intervene. The Court accepted
the principle that, while it is for the courts to say whether
Government is acting unlawfully, it is not for the courts (but
the electorate) to say whether Government is governing well. The
Court also ruled that the right to freedom of expression (under
Article 10, ECHR) does not include a right to receive information.
Court
Administrative Court
Date of Judgment
15 March 2002
Outcome
Judgment was given for the Secretary of State
Hatton and Others v UK
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the UK Government.
Issue
The Third Section of the European Court of Human
Rights had earlier found that the regime for permitting night
flights at Heathrow (because of the associated noise pollution)
was in breach of Article 8, ECHR. This was because in setting
the night-flight limits the Government had (in the view of the
Third Section of the ECtHR) failed to strike a fair balance between
the economic well-being of the UK and the applicants' right to
peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The decision had implications,
not just for night flights, but also for other sections (eg roads,
railways) where a balance had to be struck between economic interests
and environmental concerns. The UK appealed against the decision.
Court
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)
Date of Judgment
8 July 2003
Outcome
The State had not violated Article 8, but the
absence of a domestic remedy gave rise to a violation of Article
13.
Kingsley v UK
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the UK Government.
Issue
Whether someone whose rights were violated under
Article 6 ECHR was necessarily entitled to monetary compensation
apart from costs. On the applicant's appeal, the Grand Chamber
held that the finding of a violation under Article 6 was itself
sufficient to afford "just satisfaction"" in respect
of the applicant's non-pecuniary loss and no damages were to be
awarded.
Court
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)
Date of Judgment
28 May 2002
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the UK Government on the
issue of monetary compensation and just satisfaction.
Van Schaijk v Directeur van de Rijksdienst
voor de Keuring van vee en Vlees (Foot and Mouth Disease)
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the UK Government.
Issue
The extent of the powers conferred on Member
States by Article 10(1) of Directive 90/425
Court
European Court of Justice
Date of Judgment
10 March 2005
Outcome
The Directive confers on Member States the power
to adopt additional measures to control the disease, in particular
to order the slaughter of animals on a holding near to a holding
containing inflected animals.
Ireland v UK (the MOX Plant case)
The Attorney General appeared on behalf of
the UK Government.
Issue
Whether the Irish Government should be granted
various injunctions ("interim measures") it had applied
for, including an injunction to prevent the commissioning of the
MOX Plant at Sellafield.
Court
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Date of Judgment
3 December 2001
Outcome
Judgment was given in favour of the UK Government,
in that Ireland failed to obtain an injunction to prevent the
commissioning of the MOX Plant. Both governments were also ordered
to exchange information about discharges from the plant and to
cooperate on measures to prevent marine pollution.
15 Criminal Justice Act 1987, section 1(2). Back
| 
