Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Al-Hasan (FC) (Appellant) Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Carroll (FC) (Appellant) (Conjoined Appeals) (HTML version), (2005)

Status: [2005] UKHL 13

Linked as:

Extract

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2004-05

[2005] UKHL 13

on appeal from: [2001] EWCA Civ 1224

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL

FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Al-Hasan (FC) (Appellant)

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Carroll (FC) (Appellant)

(Conjoined Appeals)

WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2005

The Appellate Committee comprised:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Baroness Hale of Richmond

Lord Carswell

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Al-Hasan (FC) (Appellant)

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Carroll (FC) (Appellant)

(Conjoined Appeals)

[2005] UKHL 13

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

1. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in full agreement with it, and for the reasons which he gives I would allow both appeals and make the orders which he proposes.

LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY

My Lords,

2. I have had the privilege of considering in draft the speech which is to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Like him, I have not found this an easy case but, for the reasons he gives, I have come to the view that the appeal should be allowed.

3. In the hearing before the House the focus came to be, not on any background knowledge which Mr Copple would have had about the search, but on his presence when the governor approved the general order for a squat search. For that reason, while the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to this case, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, on the significance of an adjudicator's prior involvement in the subject of the dispute which he has to decide, may be helpful in formulating the approach of the common law in a case like the present.

4. As Lord Brown notes, in Pabla Ky v Finland, 22 June 2004, the complaint about the adjudicator's prior involvement was thin indeed and the application was rejected. The decision is worth noting, however, because, at para 29, the European Court emphasised, by reference ...

See the full content of this document