Wednesday
19 Nov 2008

Contact

Strong administration, with an approachable and friendly ethos

Areas of Work

Human Rights

1 Temple Gardens is instructed in human rights including:

  • Asylum
  • Degrading Treatment
  • ECHR
  • European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950
  • Human Rights Act 1998
  • Judicial Review
  • Prohibition of Discrimination
  • Proportionality
  • Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
  • Soldiers

Members of Chambers have appeared in the leading human rights cases including:

SSHD v Mahmoud Abu Rideh (QBD) [2007] EWHC 804 - a control order was quashed when its cumulative effect on an individual suspected of terrorist-related activities had been to deprive him of his right to liberty under Art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. For Art. 5 purposes, an individual's mental health problems before his detention and restriction were not taken into account (Robin Tam QC and Andrew O'Connor).

R (on the application of Christine Hurst) v HM Coroner for Northern District London (HL) [2007] UKHL 13 - the Court of Appeal had been wrong to find that no matter when the death occurred, since the coming into force of s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, s.11(5)(b)(ii) of the Coroners Act 1988 had to be interpreted to require an inquest to comply with the United Kingdom's international obligations under Art.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (Ian Burnett QC).  

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB (CA) Times, August 18, 2006 - under s.3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the provisions for review by the court of the making of a non-derogating control order by the secretary of state complied with the requirements of Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (Ian Burnett QC).

R (on the application of Bermingham & Ors) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office & (1) Attorney-General (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department (DC) (2006) 3 All ER 239 - in a case where the category 2 territory had been designated under s.84 of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge conducting an extradition hearing under the 2003 Act possessed an implied jurisdiction to find that the prosecutor was abusing the process of the court, but no finding of abuse could be justified in the circumstances where the prosecutor's failure or refusal to disclose evidential material beyond what was in the extradition request, as the prosecutor did not have to establish a case to answer under the statutory scheme (Ian Burnett QC).

A v SSHD (No 2) (HL) [2005] 3 WLR 1249 - the House of Lords broke new ground by deciding for the first time that there is a general rule that evidence that has been obtained by torture is inadmissible in United Kingdom courts, irrespective of where, by whom or on whose authority the torture was inflicted. By a 4-3 majority, the House of Lords also ruled on the approach to be taken by a court before which there is evidence allegedly obtained by torture (Ian Burnett QC and Robin Tam).