M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377

Facts:
  • M was a citizen of Zair (RotC) who arrived in the UK seeking asylum
  • His repeated applications were rejected, as were his applications for judicial review
  • Due to a misunderstanding, the judge mistakenly thought that counsel for the Secretary of State had given an undertaking that M's removal would be postponed pending consideration of his latest application
  • Learning of M's deportation, the judge ordered his return
  • M instituted committal proceedings against the Home Office and the Secretary of State for breaching the undertaking not to remove him

Issue:
  • Crown departments, ministers or officials acting in the courts of their duties could not be impleaded for contempt of court
  • The Court of Appeal allowed M's appeal, finding the Secretary of State guilty of contempt of court, and both sides appealed

Held:
  • Crown officials could be personally liable for a tort committed or authorised by them, despite the action being carried out in their official capacity
  • While the Crown itself cannot be found guilty of contempt of court, a minister in his official capacity can

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c...
Read more

According to the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018, all recent refugees arriving in the UK seeking asylum are to be kept detained until their claims are processed and it can be ascertained that they do not pose a terrorist threat. The local detention centres are run by a private firm, ‘Home Away from Home.’ Estela, a recently arrived asylum seeker has been detained in one of the privately run facilities, and has had her room searched regularly by ‘Home Away from Home’ private security guards in case she has any contraband in her possession. As she has to wait outside while they are searching her room, Estela fears that the security guards may go through her private correspondence whilst searching. Advise Estela on any claims she may make on the grounds of the HRA 1998, including reference to any procedural requirements. [Note: This is a hypothetical scenario and the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018 is not real legislation.]

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Estela could argue that these actions were illegal under Article 5 and 8. Estela has sufficient interest in the matter so therefore fulfills this requirement. This Act breaches Convention rights, as the public authorities must act fairly and without bias. Estela could therefore seek judicial review under procedural impropriety, and that the Act is therefore unlawful.
Read more

YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] 3 W.L.R. 112

Facts: The appellant (Y) appealed against a decision that a private care home was not performing the functions of a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b) when providing her with care and accommodation. Y was a resident of a care home run by a healthcare company (S). Her placement had been arranged by the respondent local authority pursuant to its duties under the National Assistance Act 1948 s.21. The local authority funded the placement in large part, a top-up fee being paid by Y’s family and a nursing-care element being funded by the NHS. Following allegations about the conduct of Y’s family during visits, S had proposed to transfer Y to a different home. In response she had invoked s.6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act and the ECHR 1950 Art.8. Issue: Whether a care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under sections 21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is performing “funct...
Read more