Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. These three appeals, arising on somewhat differing facts, present a common question. The appellants are former or serving prisoners. The question is whether the early release provisions to which each of the appellants respectively was subject discriminated against him, unjustifiably, in breach of article 14, in conjunction with article 5, of the European Convention on Human Rights. Sean Clift 2. The first-named appellant (Sean Clift) is a British national. On 30 April 1994 he was sentenced at Lincoln to 18 years' imprisonment for very serious crimes including attempted murder, which carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Under the legislative regime applicable to his case he became eligible for release on parole on 13 March 2002 and entitled to release on 18 March 2005. On 25 March 2002 the Parole Board recommended his release on parole but the Secretary of State rejected that recommendation on 25 October 2002. The Parole Board reconsider...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. The pursuer raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Aberdeen in which he claimed damages against his employers for personal injuries suffered on 6 September 1999 while he was working offshore on a semi-submersible production platform. His sole case of fault was that the accident was caused by his employers' breach of regulations 4 and 20 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) ("the Work Equipment Regulations"). 2. On 16 October 2003 the sheriff (D J Cusine) held that his employers were not in breach of either of those regulations and that in any event the accident was caused wholly by the pursuer's own fault. The pursuer appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session against the sheriff's interlocutor. On 16 March 2005 an Extra Division (Lord Penrose, Lady Cosgrove and Lord Reed) altered the sheriff's finding of contributory negligence by finding that the pursuer was 50% to blame for the accident but otherwi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote. For the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeal and make the orders which he proposes. 2. Mareva (or freezing) injunctions were from the beginning, and continue to be, granted for an important but limited purpose: to prevent a defendant dissipating his assets with the intention or effect of frustrating enforcement of a prospective judgment. They are not a proprietary remedy. They are not granted to give a claimant advance security for his claim, although they may have that effect. They are not an end in themselves. They are a supplementary remedy, granted to protect the efficacy of court proceedings, domestic or foreign: see Steven Gee, Commercial Injunctions, 5th ed (2004), pp 77-83. 3. In recognition of the severe effect which such an injunction may have on a defendant, the procedure for seeking and making Mareva injunctions has over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, Introduction 4. In R v Rezvi [2003] 1 AC 1099, 1146, 1152, Lord Steyn said: "It is a notorious fact that professional and habitual criminals frequently take steps to conceal their profits from crime. Effective but fair powers of confiscating the proceeds of crime are therefore essential." Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I agree with the observations made by him, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal to the extent proposed by him. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I adopt with gratitude the explanation which has been given by my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry of the background to this appeal and of the circumstances which have narrowed the issues which need to be considered by your Lordships to dispose of it. For the reasons which he gives, with which I am in full agreement, I would allow the appeal and make the order that he proposes. 3. I should like to add a few observations on the question whether the First Division erred in law when on 11 March 2005 they ordered Mr Tony Cameron, Chief Executive, Scottish Prison Service, and Mr Ian D F Gunn, Governor of H M Prison, Peterhead, to attend when the case called B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. I agree that, for the reasons he gives, a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice in the terms proposed by him. LORD STEYN My Lords, 2. I have read the judgment prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. I agree with it. In particular I agree with the opinion which Lord Hoffmann expressed on the question referred. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, Introduction 1. The main question in this appeal is whether a court of a Member State may grant an injunction against a person bound by an arbitration agreement to restrain him from commencing or prosecuting proceedings in breach of the agreement in a court of another Member State which has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under EC Regulation 44/2001 ("the Regulation"). After hearing the arguments of counsel, I am of opinion that an answer to this question is not obvio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. In this case the defendant, with others, was charged, with conspiracy to defraud. She made an application, under section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, for disclosure of documents in the possession of the prosecution. The application was made in the course of a preparatory hearing ordered under section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Judge Hodson refused the application. The issue on this appeal is whether the judge's ruling is susceptible of appeal under section 9(11) of the 1987 Act. 2. This issue raises two questions. The first concerns the scope of a judge's powers at a preparatory hearing. The appeal provision in section 9(11) of the 1987 Act applies only to rulings and orders made at a preparatory hearing. If, as a matter of strict law, Judge Hodson's disclosure ruling was not made 'at' the preparatory hearing, in the sense of 'as part of' the preparatory hearing, then section 9(11) is not in point. In that e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The High Court of Justice of Madrid seeks the surrender of the appellant, Mr Dabas, to face a criminal charge of complicity in Islamic terrorism in connection with the Madrid train bombings of 11 March 2004. It has issued a European arrest warrant, pursuant to which District Judge Anthony Evans, sitting in the Bow Street Magistrates' Court, ordered the surrender of the appellant. The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Latham LJ and Jack J) affirmed that decision: [2006] EWHC 971 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 145. 2. The appellant resists surrender on three grounds. For reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, whose summary of the relevant materials and provisions I gratefully adopt, I would reject the appellant's arguments based on the second and third grounds. On those I have nothing to add. I have felt more doubt about the first issue raised by the appellant, which is whether the certificate referred to in section 64(2)(b) and (c...
Tag this Judgment!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 Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons she gives, with which I agree, I would dismiss this appeal. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reason she gives with which I agree, I too would dismiss the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE 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 set out in her opinion, with which I agree, I would dismiss the appeal and answer the certified question as she proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. The issue in this appeal is whether using the words "bloody foreigners" and "get back to your own country" can transform the offence of using abusive words and behaviour with intent to cause fear or provoke violence, cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. This is an appeal from an interlocutor of an Extra Division of the Court of Session (Lords Marnoch, Hamilton and Philip, Lord Marnoch dissenting) dated 11 January 2005 (2005 SLT 64), dismissing an appeal by the appellants, J and H Ritchie Limited, against an interlocutor of Sheriff Principal Iain Macphail QC dated 31 July 2003, by which he allowed an appeal by the respondents, Lloyd Limited, against an interlocutor of the sheriff (Sheriff Kevin Drummond QC) dated 7 January 2003. In that interlocutor the sheriff granted decree for the sum sued for by the appellants in their action for repayment of the price paid for an item of agricultural equipment which they had purchased from the respondents and had rejected on the ground that it was not in conformity with the contract. The appellants carry on a farming business at North Arkleston Farm, Paisley. The respondents carry on business as suppliers of agricultural machinery at various locations in Scotlan...
Tag this Judgment!