Police Human rights Tort Criminal


Police



Police officers seeking order for anonymity before testifying at inquest - coroner satisfied that officers' fears for their and their families' lives genuine but refusing application since fear not justifiable objectively - coroner's duty to consider subjective fear and objective test together



R (A and another) v Inner South London Coroner: QBD (Mr Justice Mitting): 24 June 2004



Two police officers while on patrol had shot and fatally wounded the deceased and were therefore prospective witnesses at an inquest relating to the death of the deceased. They applied to the coroner for orders that their identity and that of their families be not disclosed and that they should give evidence behind a screen, on the ground that they had been threatened with death by persons close to the deceased and feared for their lives and those of their families. The coroner refused the application on the ground that, although she was satisfied that the applicants' fear was subjectively genuine, she was not satisfied that their fear was reasonably justified objectively. The officers sought judicial review on the ground that that decision infringed their rights under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Ian Stern (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker, London) for the officers; Stephen Kamlish QC and Martin Soorjoo (instructed by Imran Khan & Partners, London) for the family of the deceased; John Beggs (instructed by the Director, Metropolitan Police Legal Services) for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.


Held, quashing the coroner's decision and granting the application to maintain anonymity until after the inquest, that, although the risk to the officers might be small at the time the application was made, it might increase as the inquest took place and the officers' increased fear for the lives of themselves and their families might impair their evidential integrity, which would not be of help to the inquest; and that, since there had been threats to the officers, the coroner, having accepted that their fear was genuine, should have considered that subjective fear together with the objective test of reasonableness, which she failed to do.



 Human rights



Secretary of state certifying as unfounded claim under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - state must be willing and able to provide protection to person in claimant's category - court deciding state's inability had to find systemic failure at very least relating to category into which claimant fell



R (Atkinson) v Secretary of Sta te for the Home Department: CA (Lords Justice Thorpe, Scott Baker and Wall): 1 July 2004



The claimant, a Jamaican national, brought an application for judicial review of the secretary of state's decision to certify as clearly unfounded his claims for asylum and for human rights under article 3. The judge dismissed the application. The claimant appealed.


Richard Drabble QC and David Jones (instructed by Irving & Co, London) for the claimant; Michael Fordham QC and Kate Gallafent (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the secretary of state.


Held, allowing the appeal and quashing the certification, that the evidence did not raise doubt about the Jamaican state's willingness to provide protection, the real focus was on its ability to do so; that the difficult question was where to draw the line that defined what was an appropriate standard; that it was not enough that some individuals would be failed by the state's criminal justice system or that the state had not been effective in removing risk; but that there had to be a systemic failure that related at the very least to a category of persons of whom the individual under consideration was one; that on the evidence, the claimant's appeal to an adjudicator could succeed, although it might not necessarily do so; and that, accordingly, the certification would be quashed.



 Tort



Jurisdiction - claimant's husband dying in Egypt - damage suffered by claimant of loss of dependency on husband and funeral expenses - claimant able to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction



Booth v Phillips and others: QBD (Mr Nigel Teare QC): 17 June 2004



The claimant's husband died while working as chief engineer on board a vessel in Egypt. The first defendant was the master of the vessel at the material time, and the second to fourth defendants were the owners and managers of the vessel. The claimant, in her own right and as executrix of her husband's estate, claimed against the first defendant in negligence, and against the other defendants in negligence and for breach of her late husband's contract of employment. She was given permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the second to fourth defendants pursuant to rule 6.20 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Those defendants applied for that order to be set aside.


Grahame Aldous (instructed by Humphreys & Co, Bristol) for the claimant; Lawrence West QC (instructed by Eversheds, Cardiff) for the defendants.


Held, dismissing the applications, that rule 6.20(8) of the Civil Procedure Rules provided that permission to serve out may be granted for a claim in tort where damage was sustained within the jurisdiction, or the damage sustained resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction; that there was no reference to the damage being the damage which completed the cause of action, in this case the death of the claimant's husband; that the rule's ordinary and natural meaning was harm that had been sustained by the claimant, whether physical or economic; and that, accordingly, the damage sustained within her own jurisdiction, namely the loss of her dependency on her husband, and in her right as executrix of his estate, namely, funeral expenses, fell within rule 6.20(8)(a).



 Criminal



Criminal injuries compensation - claimant seeking compensation for injuries sustained when placed with foster parents - claimant ineligible because living together as members of same family



R (M by his litigation friend Kathleen Connell) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel: QBD (Mr Justice Newman): 28 June 2004



The claimant, by his litigation friend, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel on 14 July 2003 that he was ineligible to claim compensation for injuries incurred in the 1970s while in the care of foster parents by virtue of paragraph 7 of the 1969 scheme which continued to apply to his claim.


Joanne Harris (instructed by Kingsley Napley, London) for M; Jason Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the panel.


Held, dismissing the application, that whether a person placed by a local authority with foster parents as a child, who sought to claim compensation for injuries arising when in their care, was eligible depended on an assessment of the legal framework giving rise to the relationship between the parties; that the question was one of fact and law; that by reason of the foster parents' obligations under the appropriate boarding out regulations, the claimant was required to be treated as a member of the family; that as a matter of fact he was so treated; that accordingly, as victim and offender were living together at the time as members of the same family, the claimant was ineligible to make a compensation claim.



The law reports are prepared by the reporters to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales; telephone: 020 7242 6471; fax: 020 7831 5247; http://www.lawreports.co.uk