You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

R (Adam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department : R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: R (Tesema) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66

As soon as an asylum seeker, who had been refused asylum support by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, made it clear that there was an imminent prospect of a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 3 because the conditions that he was having to endure were on the verge of reaching the necessary degree of severity, the secretary of state had the power under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 55(5)(a), and the duty under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(1), to act to avoid it.

Re M (Children) (2005)

When making an interim care order in relation to a two-year-old child, where it was impossible to fix the final hearing for a further 10 months, the judge had failed to balance the effect of long term removal on the child with the risk of short term harm if left with the parents.

R v Malcolm Hobbs (2005)

A specified minimum term of eight years' imprisonment following a life sentence for the attempted rape of a boy of 10 years of age was manifestly excessive given the defendant's previous good character, his early guilty plea and a failure by the trial judge to take account of the period of time he had spent on remand.

Secretary of State for the Department of Health v MH (by her litigation friend, Official Solicitor [2005] UKHL 60

Where a patient's detention under the Mental Health Act 1983, s 2 had been extended indefinitely under s 29(4) of the Act they could request the secretary of state to refer their case to a mental health review tribunal or challenge the lawfulness of their detention via judicial review. Thus the means existed of operating s 29(4) in a way that was compatible with a patient's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Art 5

John Mallory Garbutt v Andrew Edwards [2005] EWCA Civ 1206

The failure of a solicitor to give the client an estimate of costs in accordance with the Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code did not render the contract of retainer unenforceable and it was a question for the discretion of the judge assessing costs in any particular case whether to take into account any failure by the receiving party's solicitor to provide an estimate as required by the code.

Pages

Opsray