Case name: Evans v HM Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21 What's it all about? The case involved a failed attempt by the former Attorney General to prevent the disclosure of information that the Upper Tribunal had ruled ought to be made public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). A Guardian journalist had, ten years … Continue reading Evans v HM Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21
Author: StephanieEze
A blog was inevitable. I have a little bit to say about a lot.
Mohammed and Others v Secretary of State for Defence [2015]
Happy New Year to all of our readers and subscribers from all of us here at the Law Lessons 4 Life Team! We really value our readership and would like to thank you for coming back to our site time and time again. We have been out of action for more than a year, but … Continue reading Mohammed and Others v Secretary of State for Defence [2015]
Bensaid v the United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 82
Another week, and yes, another seminal case! This week we are looking at Bensaid, in which it was accepted that a case where there was a real risk the applicant would ‘relapse into hallucinations and psychotic delusions involving self-harm’ could in principle fall within the scope of Article 3 (at para 37). For more info … Continue reading Bensaid v the United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 82
Pretty v the United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 427
Another week, another seminal case. In Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1, it was held , for the first time, I might add, that Article 3 ‘treatment’ can include mental suffering (at para 54). For more information on the Pretty case, please read it in full here: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/427.html
N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 26565/05 [2008] ECHR 453
Another week, another big case related to medical law and immigration. Just like the previous case of D, in N v UK, the European Court of Human Rights found that there must be a real risk of imminent death in the receiving country (at para 23). Looking at D based on its facts, the Court found … Continue reading N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 26565/05 [2008] ECHR 453
D. v. the United Kingdom (1997) ECHR 25
This case of D is probably one of the most well-known and widely-sighted cases. In the case of Article 3 medical claims based on physical illness, the threshold was set by D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423. It meant that the previous threshold test for Article 3 medical claims were unattainably high - Firstly, … Continue reading D. v. the United Kingdom (1997) ECHR 25
AM (Zimbabwe) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 17
This week, I am talking about mental health, and starting with a recent case that made all the difference - AM Zimbabwe. Previous mental health cases had found that individuals had to be at risk of imminent death at the point of the proposed removal to a third country in order to successfully resist removal. … Continue reading AM (Zimbabwe) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 17
R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46
In 2020 the Supreme Court gave judgment on the question of the standard of proof to be applied at an inquest where the death might have been caused by suicide or unlawful killing. Traditionally, in order to be satisfied that either conclusion should be returned the criminal standard of proof was required. However, that all … Continue reading R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46
R (Friends of the Earth et al) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52
Last year the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal and held that the Government policy on airport expansion at Heathrow was not unlawful on climate change grounds. The policy decision under challenge was an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) made in 2018, which set out the decision-making framework within which further … Continue reading R (Friends of the Earth et al) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52
Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14
On the same day as the decisions in Barclays and Morrisons, the Supreme Court also held that a defendant hospital trust liable in damages for clinical negligence must pay for the cost of a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad despite such arrangements being unlawful in the UK. As a result of admitted negligence, the claimant developed avoidable cervical cancer. … Continue reading Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14
Law Lessons 4 Life 