House of Lords Journal 239 (Session 2005-06)


Previous Next

Wednesday 26th July 2006

The House met at a quarter before ten o’clock.

The following Lords Spiritual and Temporal were present:

Bingham of Cornhill, L.
Brown of Eaton-under-
Heywood, L.
Carswell, L.
Grocott, L.
Hale of Richmond, B.
Mance, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Scott of Foscote, L.
Sheffield, Bp.
Walker of Gestingthorpe, L.

PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Judicial Business

1.Jones (Respondent) v. Whalley (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice)—It was moved by the Lord Bingham of Cornhill, That the 73rd Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of 10th May 2005 be set aside and the adjudication of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at St Helens on 25th October 2004 restored; that the certified question set out in the Order of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of 27th May 2005 be answered in accordance with the opinions expressed in this House; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days. [2006] UKHL 41
2.O (FC) (Appellant) v. Crown Court at Harrow (Respondents) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice)—

Page 1088

2005-06

Volume 239      

3.In re O (Appellant) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice)—

(Consolidated Appeals)—

It was moved by the Baroness Hale of Richmond on behalf of the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, That the 74th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Orders of the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division in respect of the claim for judicial review and in respect of the application for a writ of Habeas Corpus, both of 16th April 2003, be affirmed and the appeals dismissed; and that the three certified questions set out in a further Order of the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division of 16th April 2003 be answered in accordance with the final paragraph of the speech of the Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. [2006] UKHL 42

4.In re G (children) (FC)—It was moved by the Lord Scott of Foscote on behalf of the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, That the 75th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 6th April 2006 be set aside except so far as regards the order prohibiting publication of the names and addresses of the parties and children and of information likely to lead to their identification; that the Order of Mrs Justice Bracewell in the Family Division of the High Court of Justice of 15th February 2006 be varied so that for paragraph 3 thereof there shall be substituted the following paragraph: “3. The children shall reside in the household of CW for the following periods, unless otherwise agreed: (a) during term-time, on alternate weekends from 6.30 pm on a Friday (with effect from the first Friday after return to school in each term) until 6 pm on a Sunday; (b) for one-half of each half-term holiday; (c) for one-half of each Easter Holiday, alternating the Easter festival; (d) for one-half of each summer holiday; (e) for one-half of the Christmas holidays, alternating the Christmas festival (Christmas 2006 with CW). The children shall reside with CG, which shall be their primary home, at all other times.”; that there be a further Family Assistance Order in the same terms as set out in paragraph 10 of the said Order of Mrs Justice Bracewell save that it shall have effect from 26th July 2006; and that the question of costs and of any consequential amendments to the said Order of Mrs Justice Bracewell be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days. [2006] UKHL 43
5.R (on the application of Bellamy) (Petitioner) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)—The petition of Paul Anthony Sean Bellamy praying for leave to appeal was presented without payment of the fee, such fee having been waived by the Appeal Committee pursuant to Standing Order XIII; the said petition was referred to an Appeal Committee (lodged 21st July).
6.In re Duffy (FC) (Petitioner) (Northern Ireland)—The petition of John Joseph Duffy praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
7.Appeal Committee—The following Order was made pursuant to the 117th Report—

Gover and others (Petitioners) v. Propertycare Limited (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d); and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

The House was adjourned.