• About us
   
• About legal aid
   
• Community Legal Service (CLS)
   
• Criminal Defence Service (CDS)
   

Full reports

On this page:

• How to use this page
• Representation at Inquests
• Tribunals and Enquiries
• Environmental Challenges
• Other Judicial Review Proceedings
• Multi Party Actions
• Other Personal Injury Claims
• Other Proceedings

How to use this page

This page lists the full reports made to the LSC by the Public Interest Advisory Panel.

The panel reports on cases that may raise public interest issues. They are grouped below by category.

PIAP/07/383 - PIAP/08/405

Full reports for PIAP/07/383 to PIAP/08/405 (which appeared in summary in Focus 56) are available to download from the green documents panel on the right hand side of this page.

i. Representation at Inquests

PIAP/002

Nature of Case

Representation at inquest. Death in police custody. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Application on behalf of client involved in events leading up to the death.

Report of Panel

The Panel did acknowledge that there was a general public interest in this inquest, in that it will investigate the circumstances and actions of the police leading up to the death. However, the Panel were not satisfied that there was any significant wider public interest in representation being provided for the client in this case. The Panel noted that there would be very significant representation for other interested parties, and noted the coroner's views that it was desirable for the client to be represented. Whilst these may add to the client's understandable desire to have representation, nevertheless they did not make that representation in the public interest. The Panel noted that a certificate for malicious prosecution existed which might cover attendance at the inquest and therefore it is only the additional need for actual representation during the client's evidence and cross-examination of other witnesses which required to be considered. This did not alter the Panel's general view that there was no public interest involved in the question of this client's representation. Finally, the Panel did not accept the contention that representation at the inquest would have a significant effect on police behaviour or on other actions against the police. This could, potentially, be an outcome of the client's civil action, but was most unlikely to be the result either of the inquest or of the client being represented at it.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/007

Nature of Case

Representation at inquest. Death following spraying by police with CS gas. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted the wider public concern about the use of CS gas by the Police. Following the inquest it is possible that further recommendations will be made by the Coroner as to future guidelines or training for officers in the use of CS gas. There could be real benefits to the public, and in particular to individuals particularly vulnerable to CS gas. Further, the Panel were satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, representation for the client would assist in that process.

Conclusion

Sigificant wider public interest.

Rating: High.

PIAP/008

Nature of Case

Representation at Inquest. Alleged victim of Dr Harold Shipman. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

The Panel were satisfied that there is a very strong public interest in investigating and learning lessons from the Shipman case, which raises many issues concerning protection for the public from harm by medical practitioners. However, these would be matters dealt with in depth in the enquiry. The inquests would be more concerned with the individual circumstances of each death. Whilst those issues are of immense importance to the families concerned, there is no reason to suppose that funding representation at those inquests would be likely to produce additional significant benefits for other members of the public.However, the Panel noted and supported the decision by the Lord Chancellor to provide funding in any event under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 in light of the overwhelming importance of the case to the client.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0015

Nature of Case

Representation at inquest. Death of mental patient who walked from hospital and committed suicide. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

The Panel recognized at the outset that the care and supervision of persons detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act is a matter of public importance. The fact that the Coroner decided to appoint a jury for this case is also an indication of the importance and sensitivity of this area.However, the issue for the Panel under the 'wider public interest' test as set out in the Funding Code is whether, in this individual case, representation for the clients would be likely to produce benefits for other persons. Potential benefits might flow if the Coroner were to make any general recommendations to the Secretary of State arising from the circumstances of this case, but it is unclear whether this is likely and in particular whether representation for the clients at this inquest is necessary to ensure that the full circumstances emerge.It may be that this inquest will deal simply with the particular tragic circumstances of this case and whether the death could have been prevented. There is, however, very little evidence in the papers before the Panel to suggest that this case arose out of a systemic problem at the hospital or within the procedures for the supervision and care of mental health patients more generally. Although there were references to concern within the community there was little evidence to support this or to indicate that the Coroner is likely to consider such wider issues. The Panel suggested that expert bodies such as Inquest or Mind might be able to help the clients.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0027

Nature of CaseRepresentation at inquest. Young child killed on live railway line. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

The Panel recognized that this was a particularly tragic death and the inquest is of course of immense importance to the family. However the Panel had only a limited role, namely considering whether representation for the family at the inquest would have a significant wider public interest.The mere fact that public bodies were involved in this accident and could be called to account for their actions did not in the Panel's view establish a wider public interest as that term is defined in the guidance and the Funding Code. It would be necessary to show specific benefits to individuals other than the clients in this case.The Panel considered whether anything might come out of this inquest which would help to improve safety on the railway, for example general recommendations to avoid similar occurrences in the future. The Panel took into account the views of the Coroner and considered in particular the issues which were likely to be relevant to the scope of the inquest. A range of views was expressed by members of the Panel as to the likelihood of wider public benefits flowing from this inquest. However the majority view of the Panel was that the investigation in this case would essentially by concerned with the circumstances of this individual event and on the evidence available it was unlikely that anything flowing from the inquest would bring benefits to other members of the public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/01/36

Nature of Case

Representation at inquest. Death of the applicant's daughter following alleged wrongful detention by the police under a warrant that had previously been executed but not recorded on the police computer. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that several aspects of this case gave rise to a public interest. First of all, it is apparently common knowledge that warrants of arrest can be executed without the fact of execution being properly recorded. This appears to be a defect in the system which appears to have contributed to the disastrous outcome in this case. Secondly, there is a public interest in the treatment of those who are ill or otherwise vulnerable during periods of detention, and questions arise as to the operation of the appropriate checks and balances in this case. Thirdly, the deceased was, it seems, unlawfully removed from an environment in which she was receiving some care and control, and to which she had been committed as a condition of bail pending sentencing by the court. This raises a further serious question as to the duty on those responsible for this state of affairs to ensure she was returned to that safe environment.The Panel considered that no other person likely to be represented at the inquest would obviously share the same interest as the applicant in these issues being fully explored. Representation might therefore assist the Coroner in making recommendations on these matters which could be of benefit to future cases. The Panel were therefore satisfied that this case has a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/44

Nature of Case

Representation at inquest. Child and grandmother killed at dangerous road crossing. Application for exceptional funding.

Report of Panel

The Panel had very great sympathy for the family in the circumstances of this case. Nevertheless the function of the Panel was to consider whether (at the time the application was made) it was likely that representation at the inquest would produce benefits for others so as to constitute a significant wider public interest. With regret the Panel considered that there was no such wider public interest in representation in this case.It could not be said that the building of a footbridge over the road, which clearly will improve the safety of local residents and thereby be of public interest, resulted from the representation at the inquest. Indeed it appears that the council had already agreed to construct the bridge before the inquest took place. The Panel therefore could not see that any significant benefits to the public flowed from representation at the inquest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/75

Nature of the Case

Application for exceptional funding for representation at inquest. Failure in communications in Ambulance Service resulted in delays before reaching deceased.

Report of the Panel

Whilst the Panel felt very sympathetic towards the applicant the majority view of the Panel was that this case was probably an example of an individual incident of negligence on the part of the Ambulance Service as opposed to a symptom of a systemic failure in the Service. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that it was only the family of the deceased that would benefit from representation at the inquest. The Panel also noted that, in any event, court proceedings for damages might be a more appropriate avenue by which the family could investigate issues of negligence.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/86

Nature of the Case

Son should be improved and that the policy in relation to leaving vulnerableInquest held following suicide in prison custody. Deceased's family dissatisfied with level of investigation. Application for investigative help to seek advice on methods of obtaining further investigation.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that an internal prison service report had been prepared following the death. The report had shown that record keeping at the pri suicide-risk inmates alone should be reviewed. Following the inquest the coroner made recommendations to the Secretary of State for improvements to be effected at the prison in line with the prison service report. The coroner also drew attention to the inadequate arrangements for the passing of information from the probation service to the prison. The Panel considered that in the circumstances an effective investigation into the death had already taken place but that even if such an investigation were now ordered it was unlikely that any significant additional benefits would flow to the public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/94

Nature of the Case

Application for exceptional funding for representation at inquest. Alleged negligence and racial discrimination by hospital and ambulance service.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that although the case involved an allegation of negligence against the ambulance service and the hospital relating to the incorrect medical diagnosis that the deceased had been given, the case did not show any systemic failure in the system operated by the Ambulance Service or by the hospital. Nor could the Panel find any evidence in the case to support the allegations of racism. In those circumstances the Panel considered that funding representation at the inquest would not be of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/107

Nature of the Case

Application for exceptional funding for representation at inquest into death in hospital of overdose victim. Alleged systemic failure in hospital system for treatment of patients.

Report of the Panel

The Panel expressed their deep sympathy for the family in this case but unfortunately could not find that funding for representation before the coroner was of any significant wider public interest.The Panel considered that whether or not the death might give rise to a civil claim against the health authority, there did not appear to be any benefits to the wider public that would flow from the family's representation at the inquest. In particular, although the applicant's solicitors contended that the death illustrated a systemic failure in the system of care at the hospital, the Panel was unable to agree with that proposition. The Panel could not identify in this case any evidence of such systemic failure. Nor did the Panel feel that it was likely that the coroner would be persuaded to make any recommendation under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules so as to benefit the wider public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/190

Nature of the Case

Representation of concerned families at second inquest into deaths caused by the New Cross fire. Exceptional funding application.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed that representation at the inquest might assist in righting the initial wrongs committed by the failure to provide a proper inquest in the first instance, and that it would also afford the families their opportunity to have the deaths investigated properly. The Panel also noted that a properly conducted inquest would yield important though intangible benefits not just for the many people whose lives were affected by the fire, but also for the wider black community, both within and outside the town concerned. The failure to properly investigate the deaths of the young persons has contributed to a lack of confidence amongst ethnic minorities in public bodies.

In the Panel's view, there would be a serious detrimental effect if public funds were not provided for representation, although the appropriate extent of funding was not a matter for the Panel. There is a memorial every year at which hundreds, if not thousands of people attend, and the Church is always involved. This wider interest has been reflected by letters written to the Commission in support of funding by religious leaders and local and national politicians. There is a widely shared view that the wrong must be put right.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

ii. Tribunals and Enquiries

PIAP/009

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal from decision of Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to Lands Tribunal. Legal issue as to whether arbitration clause in lease deprives Tribunal of jurisdiction to determine service charge dispute, even if both parties wish Tribunal to resolve it. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the legal point raised in this case as to the jurisdiction of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Whilst this issue may affect a significant number of people, the effect will only be to determine the forum before which issues of reasonableness of charges will be determined. Clients will still hae a remedy in such cases. Further, arbitration need not necessarily be more costly or less convenient than proceedings before the Tribunal. The issues are only likely to affect those cases where both sides wish the Tribunal to determine the case. It therefore concerns only a relatively small proportion of all leaseholders.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0025

Nature of Case

Representation before Social Security Commissioner. Entitlement to payment in respect of an overseas burial. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that the case raised important issues which might bring benefits to others particularly to people with significant religious, cultural and/or family ties overseas as well as raising significant points of law in regard to the Human Rights Act.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant.

PIAP/0028

Nature of Case

Proceedings before Social Security and Child Support Commissioners. Legal issue as to whether Child Support Tribunal was bound by previous decisions. Application for exceptional funding under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Report of Panel

It was clear to the Panel that this case raised significant legal issues. The more difficult question for the Panel was whether those legal issues were sufficiently important, in terms of benefiting significant numbers of clients in future Child Support cases, that they constituted a significant wider public interest.It is clearly desirable for the legal issue as to res judicata for Child Support Tribunals to be resolved. There is however no obvious substantial benefit to clients in general from resolving the issue one way or another. There are always competing arguments as to the desirability of decisions being final as against allowing them to be reopened.On balance the Panel accepted that there were likely to be a significant number of clients who might benefit if the arguments being put forward in this case are established. In the Panel's view those benefits were enough to conclude that this case has a significant wider public interest as defined in the Code and guidance. In accordance with the Commission's general guidance the existence of competing interests on behalf of other clients will not generally be regarded as depriving a case of having a significant wider public interest. Nevertheless, this was a borderline case.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant.

PIAP/01/43

Nature of Case

Hearing before Social Security Commissioner. Compatibility of Social Security Appeal Tribunal with ECHR.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that this hearing concerned the important question of whether Social Security Appeal Tribunals are compliant with Article 6 of ECHR. The Panel agreed that the importance of this issue had not been diminished by the House of Lords decision in Alconbury which had dealt with a different decision making process. If it were determined that the tribunal was not compliant with Article 6 and lacked the necessary independence and impartiality, significant changes would need to be made to the procedures and nature of the tribunal. This would affect about 250,000 people a year. These legal issues clearly had a wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/01/53

Nature of Case

Representation before Planning Inspectorate. Application to authorise land for residential use. Exceptional funding application.

Report of Panel

The Panel recognised the importance of these hearings to the clients and the complexity of the legal arguments. However the Panel's function was to consider the likelihood of the decision in these cases producing benefits for gypsies and travellers in similar circumstances to the applicants. The Panel considered carefully the solicitors' submissions to that effect. However the Panel concluded, with regret, that it was not likely that the outcome of this appeal to the Planning Inspectorate would significantly affect future planning and enforcement decisions taken by planning authorities. The Panel considered it more likely that the issues in this case would be determined on their own merits without establishing any general precedent.In the circumstances the Panel was not satisfied that there was any significant wider public interest in representation being provided before the Planning Inspectorate. However the Panel did not rule out the possibility that if these matters were to come to the High Court the possibility of establishing a precedent on the legal issues might in principle have a wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/56

Nature of Case

Representation before Social Security Commissioner - welfare benefit scheme - application for exceptional funding.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that this case concerned important legal issues as to whether certain elements of Jobseekers' Allowance benefit were discriminatory against men. The case had already been considered by the Court of Appeal which had decided that Jobseekers Allowance does fall within the scope of Directive 79/7, but the case had been remitted back to the Social Security Commissioner to consider the evidence on the question of discrimination.If successful it is likely that the benefit rules would be changed and increased benefits might well be payable to fathers. However there was of course no guarantee that the overall level of benefit would be increased even if this case were successful. The case might however have implications for benefits other than Jobseekers' Allowance, including aspects of Income Support.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/62

Nature of Case

Representation before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to consider whether the applicant's schizophrenia was caused or aggravated by her military service. Exceptional funding application.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that to establish as an issue of general principle that schizophrenia could arise from the applicant's conditions of service would be a matter of great public importance. The Panel's concern was whether this issue would be resolved in a way which would be promulgated and be of benefit to others, particularly as it appeared that the Ministry of Defence would not be bound by a decision of the tribunal in this respect.On balance the Panel was persuaded, in particular by the representations from MIND, that this case was one of significance. If a decision favourable to the claimant were reached by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, MIND and other organisations would ensure that it was promulgated so that others in a similar situation could have claims for a pension or else a cause of action against their employers. In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that the case had a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/66

Nature of Case

Representation at an appeal to the Social Security Commissioners against the Benefits Agency discontinuing benefits in regard to the applicant's property on the grounds that he was non-resident. Exceptional funding application.

Report of Panel

The importance of the hearing was said to be that it would resolve the legal issue of whether benefit can lawfully be stopped in relation to a period of imprisonment where the conviction leading to that imprisonment is subsequently quashed on appeal. The Panel agreed that this was an important issue and that any definitive finding as to whether the current benefit rules were inconsistent with either the Criminal Justice Act 1968 or the Human Rights Act 1998 would be a matter of great importance. However the applicant would face difficulties in his arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998 to the extent that the events complained of pre-dated the coming into force of that Act. However the Panel was very doubtful that these issues were likely to be effectively resolved at this stage of the present case. Firstly the Panel noted that the tribunal considered only the period from July onwards. This was because the applicant did not make (or re-make) his income support claim until October and it can only be backdated by up to three months. It therefore appeared to the Panel that the Commissioner would only consider the period of imprisonment (and hence the legal issue referred to above) if this procedural problem could be overcome.Secondly the applicant could only succeed in his argument if he first established on the facts that the property in question was his home during the relevant period. Whilst it is open to the Commissioner to make his own findings of fact and deal with all the issues there was no guarantee that this would occur. The hearing before the Commissioner might simply refer the matter back to a fresh tribunal hearing, especially as it was accepted that the first hearing was defective on procedural grounds.In all the circumstances, and with some regret, the Panel was not persuaded that it was likely that the hearing before the Commissioner would resolve legal issues of general public importance and accordingly the Panel was not satisfied that this matter had a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/91

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal against the decision of the High Court in a planning appeal. The applicant wishes to appeal a Planning Inspector's decision to refuse him planning permission to keep his home, a mobile home, on his land.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that any public interest in this case would derive primarily from its potential to develop the law regarding the extent to which time limits imposed in planning appeals could be challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998. However the Panel was not persuaded that this case was an appropriate vehicle to test those issues. The Panel noted the detailed Judgment of the Administrative Court which considered carefully the human rights arguments put forward on behalf of the client. The court in particular concluded on the facts of this case that the six week deadline for appealing had not given rise to any hardship in this case. The delay in appealing had been due to other delays which were not directly connected with the individual circumstances of the client.In all the circumstances the Panel concluded that there was little prospect of this case successfully establishing new law either on the issue of time limits or on the jurisdiction of the planning inspector.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/93

Nature of the Case

Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Alleged breach of section 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Refusal of employer to offer applicant employment as a volunteer trainee adviser due to the symptoms of his mental illness.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that this case raised important legal issues as to the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in employment matters. These concerned whether an employer is entitled to discriminate on the basis of the symptoms of a person's disability as opposed to the disability itself, and the extent to which such an employer may have a defence of justification under the 1995 Act. If this case is successful in the Employment Appeal Tribunal the protection afforded by the 1995 Act for persons with a mental or physical disability would be significantly enhanced.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant to High

PIAP/02/118

Nature of Case

Appeal before Social Security Commissioner re: recoupment of overpaid income upport. Exceptional funding application.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted with surprise that the Secretary of State was seeking to argue that the Commissioner should not entertain legal arguments which had not been raised before the tribunal. The Panel considered that, if the Secretary of State succeeded on that preliminary point, it would represent a radical departure from current practice under which the Commissioner is expected to consider all relevant legal arguments. This might disadvantage significant numbers of applicants who had not argued all the points available to them before the tribunal. In addition the Panel considered that the substantive legal issues raised in this appeal in relation to failure to disclose and the principle of Non Est Factum were important matters, the clarification of which would be beneficial.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/163

Nature of Case

Challenge to burden of proof imposed on patient appealing to MHRT under Mental Health Act 1983 s.72(4A) - patients subject to supervised discharge orders.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that it appeared that only those people who had been "taken and conveyed" under the terms of a s.25A order would have an arguable ECHR Art 5 challenge to the imposition on them of the burden of proof in appeals against such orders. This was because although the range of requirements imposed on a patient under a s.25A order varied, only the power to take and convey appeared to involve a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of ECHR Art 5. It also appeared that the number of potential beneficiaries of the applicant's proposed challenge was considerably smaller than the total number of s.25A orders. The Panel also noted that the applicant was not now subject to any form of order under the Mental Health Act and that she had not at any time been taken and conveyed under a s.25A order. It therefore appeared that this case was not an appropriate vehicle to test the burden of proof issue raised by the applicant.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/169

Nature of Case

Appeal to EAT concerning applicability of s.78 Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA) to employment relationship between private-hire taxi driver and radio controller in taxi business.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that a determination of the preliminary issue in this case had the potential both to clarify the meaning of section 78 RRA and to broaden its scope, meaning that it may then apply in a greater range of quasi-employment relationships than is currently the case. Although the Panel was aware of other proceedings which were considering the scope of the RRA in a different context, it was clear that the case had the potential to benefit a significant number of other individuals and it was therefore of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/170

Nature of Case

Proposed challenge to a Public Authority's ability to decline to follow recommendations of MHRT made under s.72(3)(a) that patient be transferred to another hospital with a view to facilitating discharge at a later date.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that this case had the potential to produce real benefits to many detained patients who obtain recommendations from MHRTs on the most appropriate course of their treatment, yet cannot then get these implemented by the responsible authorities. The Panel considered that whether or not the claim for a declaration of incompatibility was successful, the proposed action in this case still had the potential to clarify the legal status of a recommendation by an MHRT and the legality, under ECHR Articles 3, 5 and 6, of a failure to implement the same.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

iii. Environmental Challenges

PIAP/004

Nature of Case

Judicial review of Environment Agency concerning legal framework relating to disposal of nuclear waste at a military site.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed with the views of the solicitor and counsel for the applicants that this judicial review had a significant wider public interest. The issue of justification in particular raised questions as to the safeguards which are required in the disposal of nuclear waste. This is a matter of great importance, both to those living near military sites and to the public at large. Further, the case has the potential to clarify the role of the Environment Agency as a regulator and its relationship with government, both in relation to military and civil activities.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: High

PIAP/0026

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Need for public enquiry into decommissioning of nuclear submarines.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that the subject matter of this case, namely the regulation of radioactive discharges arising from decommissioning of nuclear submarines, is a matter of general public interest and concern. However the central issue in this case is the extent to which, under the Human Rights Convention, the public have a right to have an input into decision-making on these matters. The case raised not just public health issues but important legal issues. If the Article 6 arguments were successful in this case that might have ramifications in other areas of activity.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: High

PIAP/01/33

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Proposed challenge to a planning decision to allow the building of a waste disposal incinerator.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the two aspects of the case giving rise to public interest. The first concerns the extent to which Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to planning decisions, in this case a decision to approve the development of a large municipal waste incinerator.The Panel was satisfied that this aspect of the case raised important issues, both in terms of the potential public health implications of the decision and more significantly the important legal issues. If it were established that planning decisions of this type were required to be taken by an independent and impartial tribunal, separate from the County Council, that would have very great significance for the entire process.The Panel did have some concern as to whether this issue might be resolved in other cases before this application came to trial (see for example an earlier case before the Panel, PIAP/00/4). The Panel therefore recommended that if funding is available the solicitors should immediately report to the regional office any decided authority which might affect the merits or the potential public interest of this case.The Panel went on to consider the wider issues raised in this case, in particular the scope of judicial review challenges following the Human Rights Act 1998. This concerned the extent to which the court on judicial review needed to examine the merits and proportionality of the decision-taking in far greater depth than has traditionally been the case. The Panel accepted that this was an issue of the utmost importance but were very doubtful that it was an issue that would be resolved by the present case. It is understood that the Alconbury case would be heard in the House of Lords in late February 2001. Whilst this case concerned the extent to which the availability of judicial review could make an administrative process as a whole compatible with Article 6, the House of Lords was also likely to consider in greater detail the specific role of the court in judicial review.For these reasons it was primarily the first ground, Article 6, on which the Panel was satisfied that this case had a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/40

Nature of CaseJudicial review of Environment Agency concerning legal framework relating to disposal of nuclear waste at military site. SECOND REFERRAL.

Report of the Panel

This case had previously been before the Panel (PIAP 00/04). Since then the judicial review had been unsuccessful at first instance and permission was sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Panel therefore considered the issues as they were likely to be raised in the appeal. The Panel remained of the view that the case as a whole raised important legal issues as to the procedures for production and decommissioning of nuclear warheads. The case remained in the middle band of public interest, namely with a rating of "High".The Panel noted that the Special Cases Unit requested the Panel to assess public interest in relation to three specific issues. The Panel were concerned that it is not always feasible to look at a particular issue in isolation from others and ascribe a particular public interest to it. The Panel also noted that it was open to the court at the permission stage to limit the substantive appeal to one or more of the matters put forward.Nevertheless, in reaching the conclusion that the appeal as a whole had a high public interest the Panel were most impressed by the arguments as to justification and whether Chapter 3 of the Eurotom Treaty was applicable to military activities. By contrast the public interest of the arguments as to international law was less straightforward. These were the most difficult and controversial arguments being raised in this appeal. The issue before the Court of Appeal is not to determine whether Trident is lawful under international law, but instead whether it is a requirement that the Environment Agency should consider that issue in discharging its functions. Although an important issue, the practical benefits of this question to the public are less apparent than other aspects of the case.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/01/46

Nature of Case

Judicial review of Environment Agency decision to grant waste management licence to permit storage of meat and bone meal.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered first the potential of this judicial review to develop the law. The Panel were concerned that some of the arguments being raised had been overtaken by events or would be resolved in other cases. In particular, in light of the Alconbury decision, the Panel considered it unlikely that this case would significantly develop the law relating to Article 6 of the Convention. Similarly, the arguments being raised under Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive are also being pursued in the cases of Thornby Farms and Murray which we understand will be heard by the Court of Appeal in due course. The Panel were therefore not persuaded that these issues alone raised any significant wider public interest. The Panel noted however that this case raised other legal issues, in particular the arguments concerning the obligation to provide an environmental impact assessment, and to a lesser extent arguments as to consultation. The environmental impact assessment argument appeared to be a significant point which, if established, would require the Environment Agency to undertake assessments in a wider range of cases. Therefore these legal issues would benefit the public and had a wider public interest.The Panel also considered public interest in the sense of the importance of the issues to the local community. There was clearly local concern at the storing of the carcasses of slaughtered animals and concern as to resultant health risks although there was no clear evidence before the Panel of actual risk to health. The Panel concluded that the subject matter of this case did give rise to a wider public interest for the local community although that interest was perhaps less than in some of the other environmental cases which the Panel had previously considered.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/57

Nature of Case

Representation at a public inquiry into disposal of special waste in disused salt mines. Exceptional funding application.

Report of Panel

The Panel was of the view that this inquiry was clearly of importance to local residents on environmental grounds. Further, the Panel recognised that this was the first inquiry of its type and might well be a precedent for similar applications elsewhere in the country. Whilst there was therefore clearly a significant wider public interest in the issues before the inquiry the Panel had to consider further whether there was any such interest in representation being provided on behalf of the applicant. The Panel noted that there were other persons before the inquiry with similar interests to the applicant. Those other persons might well provide environmental expertise to assist in the inquiry but it did not appear likely on present information that any other body would be legally represented during the inquiry. The Panel was satisfied that there was a significant wider public interest in legal representation being provided at the inquiry to deal with any legal issues arising and make the presentation of the environmental arguments more effective.In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that there was a significant wider public interest in legal representation for the applicant being funded. The Panel however expressed no concluded view as to whether alternative funding might be available from some other source to provide such representation. That would be a matter for the Commission's Head Office or the Lord Chancellor to consider in relation to the exceptional funding application.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/88

Nature of the Case

Proposed group action for nuisance relating to foul odours escaping from sewage treatment works.

Report of the Panel

The Panel did not feel that this action raised any significant new issues of law and took the view that any public interest in this case would derive only from benefits to the local community. The Panel noted that an abatement notice had already been issued by the local authority against the utility company to prevent further odours escaping and it was felt that the abatement notice was the most effective way of protecting the local residents from further inconvenience. The Panel felt that the application by the claimants for an injunction was unlikely to deliver significant benefits for the community and therefore did not of itself give rise to a significant wider public interest. An issue remained however, of potential claims for damages resulting from the nuisance. The Panel considered that as the group of claimants numbered 280, it was clear that because the claim for damages would be of benefit to a large number of people and the total amounts at stake were substantial, these claims did have a significant wider public interest. It was desirable for those claimants to be included in the action. Whether this should be by way of public or private funding was an issue for the Special Cases Unit to determine.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/92

Nature of the Case

Proposed challenge to an anticipated decision by the Environment Agency to grant an operating licence for an incinerator near applicant's home.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that this case concerned a proposed challenge to an anticipated decision of the Environment Agency.The Panel agreed that the subject matter of this case was important, both in terms of the environmental impact of the proposed incinerator and the legal framework within which decisions were taken. The Panel's concern, however, was that proceedings against the Environment Agency would be premature at this stage. Judicial review should not be considered at least until there was a final decision by the Environment Agency capable of challenge. The Panel took into account the views of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Frank Cowl v Plymouth to the effect that judicial review should be seen as a last resort rather than an integral part of the decision making process.In those circumstances the Panel was not satisfied there were any grounds to bring proceedings or that doing so at this stage would have any potential to bring benefits to the public. However it might well be the case that, if an operating licence were granted and if there were legal grounds to challenge that decision, such proceedings might have a significant wider public interest. If so a future application relating to these matters could be considered.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/113

Nature of Case

Group action against waste disposal company and local authority. Claims for damages for nuisance and /or personal injury by persons living close to a landfill site.

Report of the Panel

The Panel did not think that this action raised any significant new issues of law and took the view that public interest in this case would derive only from benefits to the local community. The panel noted that the nuisance was not continuing, that enforcement action had been taken by the environment agency and that no injunctive relief was sought. In relation to the claims for negligence/nuisance, the Panel considered that as there was a large group of claimants, who would benefit from the claim for damages which, in total, may be substantial, these claims did have a significant wider public interest. It was desirable for all claimants to be included in the action, although whether this should be by way of public or private funding was for the regional office to determine.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/209

Nature of the Case

Judicial review of the Environment Agency and a local authority concerning the modification of a waste management licence to allow the scrapping of war ships at a waste management site.

Report of the Panel

The Panel recognised the importance of ensuring that environmental policy and procedures are properly implemented and noted the arguments that existing policy and procedure has effectively been avoided. The Panel agreed that funding in this case is necessary as a precedent may be established for ensuring environmental policy and procedure is complied with, particularly in relation to the decommissioning of ships, and particularly those from outside of this jurisdiction.

The Panel was persuaded that public interest arose both on behalf of those who might be affected by the proposed decommissioning of the warships, and from the legal issues raised, including the principle of proximity in relation to disposal of waste.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

iv. Other Judicial Review Proceedings

PIAP/005

Nature of Case

Judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner who refused to grant leave to the client to appeal a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the issue of law which it was said gave rise to the public interest of this case. This related to the contention that the Commissioner had a general duty to consider the decision as a whole rather than merely relying on the specific issues raised by the applicant. In the view of the panel this proposition was already well established in law. It is already recognised that Commissioners have an inquisitional duty to consider the whole case rather than merely the points raised by the applicant.In the light of this the Panel considered that it was unlikely that this individual case would lead to any significant change in the law. It was therefore unlikely that the outcome of this case would produce benefits for persons other than the client.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0016

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Legal issue as to the effect of earlier fraud on entitlement to future welfare benefit.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that the case raised important legal issues involving wide numbers of people who might be affected. This group not only includes those convicted of benefit fraud, but also those who have innocently over-claimed benefit. However, it is uncertain how many people may be affected, especially as there is reference in the papers to the relevant regulations being changed in April 2001.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant.

PIAP/0017

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Challenge to decision of Mental Health Review Tribunal to adjourn a case.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the issue of law, which it was said gave rise to the public interest of this case. This related to the contention that the case concerned general issues about the appropriate approach of the Tribunal to adjournments. Whilst the Panel had much sympathy for the client, they considered it very unlikely that the court in a judicial review in this individual case would lay down any general principles in relation to this point. It is also very probable that a judicial review hearing would not take place until long after the adjourned hearing.In the light of this the Panel considered that it was unlikely that this individual case would lead to any significant changes in the law or that it would produce benefits for persons other than the client.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0018

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Legality under European law of social security legislation affecting married women.

Report of Panel

The Panel was concerned that the legal arguments being put forward in this case were complex and somewhat speculative. However the Panel's main concern was whether, even if the argument was established, there would be sufficient benefit to the public to amount to a significant wider public interest as defined in the Code.There was no clear evidence of numbers affected but the impact of any changes appeared to be limited to married women who had chosen to pay reduced contributions prior to 1977. More significantly, even if the legislation was unlawful at best those affected might only benefit from the net effect of the decision. In other words the additional contribution the married women affected would have had to pay might well have to be set against the benefit in question. There was no clear evidence that large numbers of women would be significantly better off if they had not chosen to pay reduced contributions. Further, the fact that other claimants would, because of the anti-test case rule probably only benefit from the future further reduces the general significance of the case.In all the circumstances whilst the Panel accepted that there might be some public benefit in pursuing the issues raised in the case it could not be said that the importance of the issues and the likely benefits to the public were such that there was any significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0019

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Challenge under Human Rights Act to procedure for imposing penalties on driver of lorry containing illegal immigrants.

Report of Panel

The Panel remained concerned that this potential challenge appeared premature since there had been no final decision by the Secretary of State on whether to waive the penalty imposed in this case. Nevertheless the Panel's concern was to consider the importance of the legal issues raised by the case assuming that the challenge proceeded.The Panel agreed that this was one of many areas where statutory procedures needed to be analysed for compliance with Article 6. The central argument, namely whether the penalty in question constituted criminal proceedings for the purpose of Article 6(3), is a very important issue. If successful there would no doubt need to be significant changes to the ways such penalties are imposed and administered. This would affect a large number of people especially hauliers.Although the issues raised by this case were very important, the actual impact in practice on those affected was difficult to gauge. The main effect of a successful challenge might be to change the procedure involved in such penalties without necessarily changing the likelihood of the penalty being avoided by clients in circumstances such as the present case.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant to High

PIAP/0022

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Challenge to prison disciplinary procedures under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that the case raised important issues under Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. If the procedures adopted at disciplinary proceedings of this type were found to be deficient a large number of people facing such proceedings would be affected.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: High

PIAP/0023

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Entitlement to statutory home loss payments.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the issue of law, concerning entitlement to Home Loss Payments. Whilst the Panel had some sympathy with the position of the client, it was not persuaded that the case was likely to lead to any significant change in the existing law. Existing case law was already reasonably favourable to clients and indicated how the relevant powers should be interpreted. Further, the Panel had no evidence that other local authorities were interpreting the law in the same way as the Council had done in this case. It was therefore not clear who might benefit from the case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/01/29

Nature of Case

Asylum case. Legal issue as to the date at which the Home Office's decision to refuse entry should be considered as final for welfare benefits purposes.

Report of Panel

This potential challenge concerned entitlement to welfare benefit payments for asylum seekers and whether that entitlement ceases on the date that the Secretary of State determines and records the asylum application, the date on which that decision is communicated or on which leave to enter is granted or refused. The Panel agreed that this was an important issue although it would need to be considered at the level of the House of Lords in light of the Court of Appeal decision of Salem v SSHD 1999 2WLR1.This issue was however only relevant in the present case to those who claimed asylum before 3 April 2000 after which new regulations apply. Nevertheless a substantial pool of asylum seekers would be affected although the Panel suspected that the numbers were less than those suggested in the application. The amount of the benefit lost in each case would vary but would often be quite small.The Panel asked for enquiries to be made concerning another case, ex parte Paulo, on which permission had been granted and which might deal with the same arguments. The Panel was informed that the Paulo case concerned a challenge to the new regulations after April 2000 and so was unlikely to deal directly with the issues raised in the present application.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant.

PIAP/01/31

Nature of Case

Judicial Review proceedings. Application for declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act of the legislation covering widows' pensions.

Report of Panel

This case concerned a judicial review to seek a declaration of incompatibility of provisions of the Social Security Contributory Benefits Act 1992 with the Human Rights Convention. This concerns benefits which are payable to widows, but not to widowers. The Panel accepted that these were important issues but the government had already accepted that earlier regulations were not compatible and new regulations were being introduced with effect from April 2001. Under these widowers would be entitled to the same benefit as widows. However these new provisions were not retrospective and did not provide for payment of lost benefits for widowers prior to April 2001. There were no doubt a very large number of men in this category.The Panel's concern, however, was that even if these proceedings successfully secured a declaration of incompatibility, that would be of no tangible benefit to the public. The High Court would have no power in such proceedings to award damages for lost benefits during the period of incompatibility.It therefore appeared that the only route to compensation might lie in bringing a claim to Strasbourg, particularly if the UK government continued to be prepared to settle in such cases, though it is by no means clear that they will continue to do so. If there was any evidence that bringing incompatibility proceedings in this jurisdiction would make it easier for clients to pursue claims for compensation the Panel might well have concluded that there was a strong public interest in this case, but as matters stood the Panel concluded, with regret, that no significant wider public interest had been established in these proceedings.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/35

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Proposed challenge to the Police Complaints Authority's failure to disclose statements/documents to complainants and to give adequate reasons for non-disclosure.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered separately the position of the three potential defendants against whom there are said to be causes of action arising from the failure to disclose witness statements.Dealing firstly with the Police Complaints Authority, the Panel considered that there were arguments both in domestic law and in the Convention jurisprudence to suggest that the investigation of serious complaints involving allegations of criminal behaviour including assault on the part of the police should be conducted fairly. The question is whether a fair procedure can be had or a proper investigation conducted if the complainants are not entitled to see the statements of independent witnesses to the matters of which complaint is made.The Panel considered there was a significant wider public interest in this issue as it goes to the heart of the police complaints system. If there is a requirement to disclose, this will require a significant change in the practice of the Police Complaints Authority which could potentially benefit a significant number of people who have cause to complain about police behaviour. Furthermore, the proper scope of s80 of the Police Act 1996 and its compatibility with Convention rights is an important issue raised by this case.The Panel noted that no final decision has yet been made concerning disclosure, and hence this question should be resolved one way or another before litigation proceeds. However, on the basis of the assertion that disclosure is routinely refused in these circumstances, the Panel was content to make its finding on public interest.The Panel took a different view of the position of the CPS, which has decided not to mount a prosecution in this case. The basic complaint here is the paucity of the reasons given for reaching that decision, rather than the failure to disclose the evidence on which it was based. It is apparently accepted that if proper reasons had been given, then the case for disclosure would fall away. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded there was no public interest in proceedings for disclosure against the CPS.Finally, the Panel considered the position of the police. It appears that they have taken the view that as the matter rests with the CPS and the PCA, they have left the decision concerning disclosure in their hands. The Panel concluded that there was no major point of public interest in challenging what is essentially a procedural deference on the part of a police force to those bodies charged with taking the crucial decisions affecting the applicants in this case, i.e. the CPS and the PCA.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/38

Nature of Case

Judicial review of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Meaning of "crime of violence" in compensation scheme. Appeal to House of Lords.

Report of Panel

The principal issue before the House of Lords concerns the meaning of the phrase: "crime of violence" for the purpose of awards by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. An authoritative decision on this would clearly benefit large numbers of other claimants. The Panel's concern was that as the case of ex parte Brown was proceeding to the House of Lords to consider these points, it was harder to see that there was any significant wider public interest in the present case. The Panel however noted the distinguishing features of the client's case, most importantly the question of consent and whether such consent is a complete bar to the categorisation of a case as a crime of violence. The resolution of this issue could benefit wider groups of victims, including for example child prostitutes.In all the circumstances the Panel were persuaded that this individual case has a significant wider public interest, above and beyond the central issues already being raised in ex parte Brown.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/39

Nature of Case

Judicial review of decision by local authority to refuse to waive charges for home care services.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered the issues raised in this challenge to the refusal of the local authority to waive a charge for home care services under Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act 1983. The Panel noted that the case raised issues not just as to whether the charge to this individual client should have been waived, but as to the whole procedure adopted by the council in deciding whether charges should be waived or not. The case sought to establish that such a determination by a council amounts to the determination of a civil right so that the council's procedures would need to be compliant with Article 6 of ECHR. The Panel agreed with the submissions of solicitors and counsel that if successful it is likely that the local authority would be obliged to introduce some form of independent review procedure. This could have implications nationally for the way such cases are dealt with and could help to ensure that those who are unable to pay the charges are not required to. In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that the case did have a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/01/41

Nature of Case

Judicial review of local authority decision to demolish prominent building in local conservation area.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered first whether this judicial review might establish a legal issue on a point of principle of general importance concerning how this authority or planning authorities generally approached their decision to authorise the demolition of buildings. The Panel were not satisfied that this case was likely to have such an effect. The challenge was essentially based on the individual background and circumstances leading to this planning decision. The case would be decided primarily on its own particular facts.The Panel then considered the subject matter of this judicial review and whether the decision whether or not to demolish the building could itself be said to be a matter of public interest. Although clearly the issue was important to some local residents and the concept of wider public interest in the Funding Code is a wide one, on balance the Panel were not satisfied that the issue was of sufficient importance to give rise to a significant wider public interest in terms of the Funding Code.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/42

Nature of Case

Judicial review of local authority failure to provide accommodation for disabled child. Situation of individual client likely to be resolved prior to trial.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered this to be a judicial review in circumstances where the position of the individual client had largely been resolved, so that further funding could be justified only if the case might establish an issue of general public importance. The principal issue in this case is an important one, concerning the extent of the duty to provide accommodation following a request from a local authority pursuant to section 27 of the Children Act 1989. However the Panel did not consider that this was likely to establish new law unless new duties were established under Article 8 of ECHR. It may be that Article 8 would not add significantly to the protection afforded by domestic law, unless it were established that damages should be paid in such cases under the Human Rights Act. This could have an important effect on others in a similar position to this case.The Panel was however concerned that the present case was unlikely to be a suitable vehicle to establish those issues. If the situation of the individual client is resolved prior to a final hearing it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court will proceed to decide the legal issues raised. The question of liability for damages under Article 8 is less likely to be addressed, because of the relatively short time within which the matter was resolved (though the Panel accepted that, in the case of a newborn child in these circumstances, the time delay is significant). The Panel considered that in the circumstances of this case it is unlikely that the court could be persuaded to give a definitive ruling one way or another so as to clarify or develop the law of benefit to others. In those circumstances, with regret, the Panel concluded that this case did not have a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/49

Nature of Case

Judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings. Whether compliant with ECHR.

Report of Panel

The Panel recognised as it had in previous cases (see PIAP 00/22) that the compliance of prisoner disciplinary proceedings with ECHR was a matter of great significance. However these matters were already before the courts, in particular the case of Greenfield v Secretary of State for the Home Department. That case, which the Panel was informed was proceeding to the Court of Appeal, would analyse the impact of Article 5 and Article 6 of ECHR on prison disciplinary proceedings. Although each case would be different on its facts the Panel considered the present case unlikely to develop the law on those Articles. Further the Panel were of the view that there was no prospect of the present case progressing the law in relation to Article 3. In the circumstances the Panel considered it unlikely that the present case would produce any benefits to other prisoners facing such proceedings. The Panel were also concerned that because it was unclear whether the client had in fact suffered loss of liberty as a result of the matters complained of this case would not be a good vehicle to argue points of principle.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/50

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings - treatment of prisoners' earnings by Prison Service.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that this case raised important issues as to the accountability of the State in relation to money held on behalf of prisoners. If successful it would affect not just the applicant but a large section of the prison population.The Panel noted that possibility that the law might be developed if the Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 were brought into force but as there was no certainty that that Act would be brought into force or that its scope would cover all the issues raised by this case the Panel were satisfied that the case did have a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/01/55

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings. Refusal of local authority to allow direct access to its employees to give statements to solicitors in child care proceedings.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that this was an unusual judicial review seeking to challenge the policy of a local authority in controlling or restricting access by solicitors to social services personnel. In the context of taking statements from personnel for the purpose of care proceedings there was a clear public interest in avoiding secrecy or defensiveness in obtaining evidence. This might in some cases affect the fairness of hearings determining issues of fundamental importance to children.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/01/59

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings - compatibility of agricultural tenancies with Human Rights Act.

Report of Panel

This case concerns a proposed challenge under the Human Rights Act to the rules regarding the termination of agricultural tenancies. Unlike residential tenancies in which the court sometimes has a wider discretion as to awarding possession, the rules on agricultural tenancies are generally stricter which can result in clients losing their homes and livelihood when they are unable to pay their debts immediately.Whilst expressing no view on the merits of the case, which would involve knowing more of the policy justification behind the current statutory scheme, the Panel agreed that these issues were of importance and a successful challenge on human rights grounds might lead to changes which increased the protection for agricultural tenants.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/60

Nature of Case

Judicial review proceedings - right of prisoner to artificially inseminate his wife.

Report of Panel

This case concerned the rights of a prisoner serving a long-term sentence to artificially inseminate his wife. It raised issues under Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR. The case had been unsuccessful at first instance and in the Court of Appeal and permission was sought to take the matter to the House of Lords.The majority view of the Panel was that these were important issues the resolution of which had a significant wider public interest. Quite apart from the specific issue of the right to artificially inseminate, the case had wider implications concerning the State's powers to restrict otherwise lawful activities of prisoners and the nature of prison punishment.The minority view of the Panel was that, given the relatively low numbers of prisoners who were likely to be affected by the case and the fact that the Home Office did not in any event operate a blanket prohibition on artificial insemination, it could not be said that the benefits to the public of resolving these issues were significant.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/63

Nature of Case

Judicial review against the police concerning their decision to retain the applicant's fingerprints following his acquittal of a criminal offence.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that this was a proposed challenge to the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 concerning the right of the police to retain fingerprints following a defendant's acquittal. If the challenge were successful in showing that this practice was contrary to Article 8 of ECHR this could lead to changes in the law and/or important changes in police practice in relation to the retaining of fingerprint evidence. Accordingly the Panel was satisfied that the challenge had a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/87

Nature of the Case

Renewal of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. Applicant detained under s.3 subject to renewal under s.20 on recommendation of responsible medical officer and subsequent approval by hospital managers. Delay in hospital managers' assessing the recommendation for renewal of detention. Proposed judicial review and claim for damages for unlawful detention. Further allegation that manner of renewing detention is contrary to Article 5 ECHR due to lack of adjudication thereon by independent authority.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered the primary legislation and relevant case law which suggested that it is the provision of the report of the responsible medical officer which in and of itself effects the renewal of the detention period under s.20(8). The Panel agreed that if it could be said that this process of renewal was not adjudicated on within the statutory time limit or by an appropriately independent authority, this was an important point touching upon fundamental issues of denial of liberty without lawful authority. However the Panel retained some doubt as to whether this case was an ideal vehicle for testing this issue, since the client in this case had chosen voluntarily to remain in hospital. This might reduce the prospect of the court agreeing to determine the issues of principle. Nonetheless, the Panel considered that proceedings subjecting the entire process of such renewals to the scrutiny of the courts would have the effect of encouraging health authorities to ensure that all hearings relating to renewals of detention are held before the expiry of the relevant period of detention.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/89

Nature of the Case

Immigration adjudicator's refusal of leave to enter UK. Immigration Appeal Tribunal's refusal of leave to appeal. Unsuccessful claim for judicial review of IAT's refusal of leave. Application to Court of Appeal for leave to appeal judicial review decision. Paper decision of Simon Brown LJ sitting alone in Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal. Subsequent oral hearing of application for leave to appeal. Simon Brown LJ presiding at oral hearing. Leave refused. Allegation that Court of Appeal procedure permitting same judge to sit on paper and oral hearing of appeal infringes right to fair trial as judge having refused leave at paper stage will not be impartial at oral hearing.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that in the present case, as no right of appeal to the House of Lords exists, the proposed appeal could not be said to have the potential to change the law or practice in England and Wales. The Panel also considered that the two stage leave process in the Court of Appeal constituted only one single judicial determination and it could not therefore be said that a judge sitting at the later oral hearing was acting unfairly due to his involvement in an earlier determination of the case. In any event, the Panel noted that the merits of the appeal against the underlying Immigration Adjudicator's decision were poor. Therefore, even if the applicant was to be afforded a right to have his appeal heard, it would almost certainly fail on the underlying facts without resolving the Article 6 issue.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/96

Nature of Case

Proposed declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. Failure of CICA to meet the costs of an application made on behalf of a child.

Report of the Panel

The Panel was greatly assisted by counsel's submissions in setting out the scope of the proposed challenge and statistics indicating the number of children and other persons who might benefit from the introduction of a costs regime for CICA.The Panel noted that this matter had been before the Funding Review Committee which had determined that the prospects of success of the judicial review were borderline. That determination was binding on the Commission. In those circumstances it was not necessary or appropriate for the Panel to consider further the legal merits of the case. The Panel's function instead was to consider the potential public interest of the proposed challenge in light of that assessment of the merits.The Panel agreed that if there were provision to recover costs in addition to a CICA award that could benefit significant numbers of applicants, especially those with the more complex cases or where the costs of pursuing the application would amount to a significant proportion of the award. Further, if the judicial review established that the requirements of Article 6 meant not merely that the procedure before CICA must be practical and effective, but that the net recovery of compensation must be safeguarded, in the sense that applicants should not have to make any deduction for reasonable costs incurred, that decision would have wide implications. It would potentially affect a whole range of decision-making tribunals covering such subject matter as welfare benefits etc.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/02/100

Nature of the Case

Proposed judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). Allegation that the tribunal exceeded the proper limits of its powers by delaying the discharge of the applicant from detention.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that the potential issue of wider public importance in this case concerned the MHRT allegedly recommending that the applicant be detained whilst at the same time certifying that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for detention. Considering whether that issue arose in this case, the Panel found no evidence to show that the applicant in this case had actually been detained after the delayed release date. Therefore, whilst it may have appeared that the MHRT was suggesting a continued detention at a time when the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for detention, no such continued detention had been imposed. Concerning the power to delay release, the Panel considered that there was clear statutory power in s.72(3) to delay discharge and that the decision in this case to delay discharge for 6 weeks did not appear to have been an improper exercise of the MHRT's powers. Further the Panel could see no grounds of challenge in relation to section 25A of the Mental Health Act 1983 (applications for supervision). It was clear that no formal order or recommendation had been made under that section.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/101

Nature of the Case

Proposed judicial review of a decision by the police not to destroy fingerprints and samples taken from the applicant in a criminal matter in which he was acquitted.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered the application and noted that it raised issues similar to those raised in an application previously before the Panel, namely PIAP/01/63, where the applicant sought to challenge the compatibility of s. 82 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 with ECHR Article 8. The Panel noted that it had previously recommended that the case of PIAP/01/63 raised an issue of significant wider public interest and that in the circumstances, it would not be in the wider public interest to fund an Article 8 challenge on the same grounds in this case, as funding had already been granted in PIAP/01/63 which is listed to be heard soon.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/106

Nature of the Case

Proposed judicial review of the Prison Service's decision not to allow time spent by the applicant in custody in relation to offence A to count towards time spent in custody in relation to offence B.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that the applicant sought funding to have the decision in Sorhaindo reviewed in the light of HRA, however, the Panel could find no realistic ground for any challenge, including a challenge based on ECHR Article 5, as it appeared that any such challenge would be validly met by a defence that the legislation pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate.In any event, the Panel noted that the applicant sought to challenge the decision of the Prison Service rather than the court's decision on sentencing and the Panel felt that the proposed course of action was inappropriate. Given the clear decision in Sorhaindo it appeared that the appropriate course of action would be to challenge the sentence given by the court, using the detention for offence A as an argument in mitigation, rather than challenging the Prison Service's refusal to bring forward the release date.In the light of the Panel's opinion that the challenge was ill-founded it was unable to conclude that there was any significant wider public interest in the case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/109

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review concerning the powers of a Mental Health Review Tribunal to commission an independent medical report and delays in holding hearings.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that as the issue of delay in holding MHRT hearings had already been adjudicated upon by the Court of Appeal, the only live issues remaining in the applicant's case were that of quantum of compensation and the tribunal's disputed power to commission independent medical reports.The Panel considered that there was no wider public interest in funding the present application insofar as it related to the question of compensation. The Court of Appeal had already determined that delay constituted a breach of Article 5(4) and the question of damages was also to be determined in those ongoing Court of Appeal proceedings. That being the case the Panel felt that there would be no added benefit to other individuals in funding argument on the same issue in the applicant's case.Regarding the commissioning of independent reports, the Panel considered the relevant rules governing the MHRT's powers and considered what the effect might be of a ruling that the MHRT had no power to commission such reports. However the Panel could not identify any significant real benefit to detained persons from such a ruling, especially bearing in mind the right to refuse an examination. The independent report might or might not benefit the patients. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that there would be no significant benefit to other individuals from the proposed challenges sufficient to bring the case within the Funding Code test of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/111

Nature of CaseApplication for continued funding for proceedings seeking judicial review of the actions of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service ("CAFCASS") in delaying the appointment of a guardian.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed that the issue of delay in appointing guardians in proceedings under the Children Act was one of great importance as a failure to promptly appoint such a guardian leaves the child without a suitable person to instruct a legal representative in the proceedings. The Panel was concerned about the wider practical benefit which proceedings for judicial review might engender in this case. It seemed clear from the case law that the delays would be found to be an infringement of the children's Article 6 and Article 8 rights and that the court would be likely to make a declaration to that effect. However, the Panel also considered that any such declaration would be likely to highlight the plight of all children left without a guardian in Children Act proceedings and encourage the relevant authorities to take further action to address the cause for the delays. For that reason the Panel agreed unanimously that the proceedings were of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/02/114

Nature of Case

Judicial review of police re: Valentine message sent to persistent offenders.

Report of the Panel

The Panel was unanimous in agreeing that a case which would have the effect of clarifying the legality of proactive policing designed to target ex-offenders would be of wider public interest. However, the Panel was divided in this case on the issue of whether the proceedings would have such an effect. Being mindful of the fact that permission to seek judicial review had been granted, the majority of the Panel considered this case would have the potential effect of clarifying the legality of the policy implemented by this police force. However, the minority considered that the trivial nature of the act complained of was unlikely to lead to a judgment clarifying the ambit of the Police’s power.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/116

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of Prison Service re: decision banning visits to a prisoner by his fiancée.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted the applicant’s argument that the case had a wider public interest because it had the potential to ensure that the Prison Service acted in accordance with the law. However, the Panel also noted that in order to be of significant wider public interest for Funding Code purposes a case would need to have the potential to produce real benefits for other individuals other than benefits which would normally flow to the public at large from the type of proceedings in question. As the ban on visits to the applicant had now expired and judicial review is a discretionary remedy the Panel thought it was unlikely that this case would result in any development of the law. Accordingly the Panel was unable to identify any public interest of this more specific kind in this case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/124

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of failure of Lifer Unit of the Prison Service to provide the applicant, a post-tariff life sentence prisoner, with a place on an offender rehabilitation programme.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that the case raised an important issue concerning the right to liberty and the state’s duty to make resources available to ensure that systems are run without undue interference with that right. The Panel also agreed that determination of that issue in this case had the potential to produce benefits not only for life-sentence prisoners but for any individual being detained by the state where allocation of resources is an issue in the continuation of detention.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/02/126

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of a Magistrates’ Court re: that court’s policy of requiring those surrendering to an arrest warrant to have the warrant executed at a police station and denying them the option of surrendering directly to the court.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that the current policy requiring an individual for whose arrest a warrant had been issued to surrender to the police rather than the magistrates did not appear to provide the most efficient system for dealing with individuals in cases such as the applicant’s. The system appeared to involve an unnecessary waste of time and resources. In view of that fact and the fact that the legality of the policy implementing the procedure was not clear, the Panel agreed that there was a wider public interest in determining whether the policy was lawful.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/131

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission's failure to investigate the applicant's case and refusal to refer it to the Court of Appeal.

Report of Panel

The Panel was not persuaded on the facts of this case that the case had the potential to establish any new legal precedent regarding the CCRC's duty to investigate cases. It appeared that any challenge to the CCRC's actions that the applicant may seek to make would be a matter of applying established legal principles to the particular facts of the client's case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/135

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal to the Administrative Court re: disallowed council tax discount by a valuation tribunal.

Report of Panel

The Panel accepted that on considering the appeal against the decision of the billing authority the valuation tribunal in this case might well have erred in its application of the correct legal test, on the basis that the valuation tribunal should conduct a full appeal on the merits and not merely a Wednesbury-type review. However, the Panel could find no evidence in the papers to suggest that tribunals other than the one in this case were adopting a similarly incorrect approach. That being so, the Panel could not identify how a statutory appeal against the decision in this case had the potential to produce real benefits for other individuals.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/138

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of a decision of a mental health review tribunal. The applicant's request for a review of his detention was ruled out of time under s.66 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that the applicant was complaining not about the failure of staff to tell him about his right to appeal against detention but instead about the fact that s.66 imposes a 14 day limitation period on the making of an appeal. The Panel considered that in view of the established European and domestic case law on limitation periods, the proposed challenge to the 14 day period under ECHR Articles 5(4) and 6 was unlikely to succeed. Since the maximum period of detention under section 2 is 28 days, a short, non-extendable time in which to appeal would be very difficult to challenge. The Panel agreed with the submission of the Secretary of State in this respect. The Panel also considered that the number of people likely in practice to benefit from a successful challenge appeared to be small. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that this case was not of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/142

Nature of Case

Judicial review of CPS and police for failure to act re: alleged assault by police.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted the applicant's contention that the Police Complaints Authority had no jurisdiction to investigate complaints concerning a special constable. In the circumstances it appeared that an individual challenging the actions of a special constable might therefore have much more limited rights to be kept informed of an investigation or the reasons for not taking action than if the actions challenged were those of a full time constable. The Panel considered that in view of the above it was important to establish the nature and extent of the Chief Constable's duty to provide reasons for concluding that no further action was to be taken against the special constable involved. The Panel therefore concluded that the proposed challenge to the Chief Constable's decision was of wider public interest. Regarding the proposed claim against the Crown Prosecution Service it appeared that the law relating to the duty to give reasons was already settled and that that law would apply equally to cases involving special constables as to cases involving other individuals. Whether or not the reasons given by the CPS were sufficient in this individual case, it did not appear that the challenge to the CPS had the potential to develop the law or otherwise produce real benefits to other individuals.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/144

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of Home Secretary relating to findings of guilt at prison adjudications. UK government changing procedure at prison adjudication hearings following ECHR ruling that hearings were Article 6 incompliant. Home Secretary agreeing to quash imposition of extra days at Article 6 incompliant hearings but refusing to quash finding of guilt. Allegation that finding of guilt should also be quashed.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed unanimously that determination of the issue raised in these cases concerning the findings of guilt has the potential to produce real benefits for individuals other than the applicants and is therefore of wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/146

Nature of Case

Judicial review of a local authority's policy on asylum support payments.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that the decision of the local authority in this case to pay asylum support in arrears appeared to affect a significant number of individuals within that borough. In addition, it appeared that the policy of paying support two weeks in arrears would have a material impact on those individuals to whom payments are made. In the circumstances, whether or not the local authority were taking steps to deal with the individual case, the Panel agreed unanimously that there was a wider public interest in determining whether the policy of paying support in arrears is in accordance with the law.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/147

Nature of Case

Judicial review of the Prison Service's Category A Review Team. Failure to assign prisoner to a lower risk category.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that the courts had already established that a prisoner's failure to admit guilt could not act as the exclusive ground on which a Parole Board could deny parole. Whilst the applicant sought to challenge a decision of the Category A Review Team, the Panel noted that the Category A Review Team did in fact appear to have taken the above principle into consideration in their determination of his case. That being so, the majority of the Panel considered that there was no issue of principle to be determined in the applicant's proposed challenge to the Team's decision and no potential benefit to be gained by other individuals. A minority of the Panel considered that as the applicant's case concerned a decision of the Category A Review Team and not that of a Parole Board, it was significantly different from cases in which the courts had previously considered the issue of reliance on failure to admit guilt as a ground for reviewing a prisoner's status, and that in those circumstances the applicant's challenge did have the potential to clarify the point of principle raised.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/151

Nature of Case

Judicial review concerning the commercial use of the electoral register.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that the issues raised in the applicant's challenge to the legislation governing the use of data from the electoral register were of great importance and that judicial determination of those issues had potentially far reaching implications affecting a significant number of individuals. In the circumstances the Panel agreed unanimously that the case was of wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/02/155

Nature of Case

Opposition to a judicial review brought by police concerning Crown Court's award of costs against police in successful appeal against revocation of firearms license.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that the issue in this case concerning the liability of the police to pay an individual's legal costs following a successful challenge to a police decision revoking a firearms license was of wider importance. It appeared that similar issues arose in other types of case, in particular in cases involving appeals under the Licensing Acts to which the police make objections. In view of that fact and also the fact that the current case law in this area pre-dates the Human Rights Act 1998, the Panel agreed that determination of the costs issue in this case would be of benefit to other individuals and is therefore of wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/162

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal to Court of Appeal by claimant as interested party in judicial review proceedings. Issue of jurisdiction of Asylum Support Adjudicator to determine appeals brought by person to whom support offered by Secretary of State under s.95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in a particular geographic area but who has declined to travel to that area.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that if the applicant in this case succeeded on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the result would be that significant numbers of asylum seekers in the applicant's situation, and in particular those with families, would have the opportunity of appealing to the asylum support adjudicator concerning the stoppage of their asylum support payments. Any such appeal to the asylum support adjudicator would be in addition to the usual right to seek judicial review but would provide the asylum seeker with a more speedy appeal route on more comprehensive grounds than those available in judicial review proceedings. In the circumstances it was clear to the Panel that this case had the potential to produce real benefits for a significant number of other individuals and it was therefore of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/166

Nature of Case

Judicial review in planning matter relating to Grade II listed building.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that even if it is established that the approach adopted by the council towards the planning application in this case was incorrect, there was no evidence that the council adopted a similar approach to planning applications in other cases. In the circumstances, it appeared that any judicial review in this case would turn on the facts of the individual case. Further, although it could be said that individuals other than the claimant living in the area of the planning site would derive some benefit from a favourable decision in the current proceedings, the Panel considered that neither the number of other individuals who stood to benefit nor the nature of that benefit was significant enough to bring the case within the Funding Code definition of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/173 & PIAP/03/174

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of reduction to prisoners' wages following changes to Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme.

Report of Panel

The Panel was not persuaded that the difference between the proposed challenge in this case and the challenge already brought, unsuccessfully, in the case of R v Home Secretary (ex p. Potter and ors.) was of such significance that the present challenge stood any real prospect of succeeding. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that this case was not likely to produce real benefits for other individuals and could not be said to be of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/175

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review of BBC Radio 4 editorial policy banning non-religious contributors from "Thought for the Day".

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that even if the proposed proceedings in this case could be said to have a real prospect of succeeding, the nature of the benefit to be gained in the proceedings was unclear (particularly since the BBC would appear to be able to show that it meets its obligations for diversity across its schedule when considered as a whole) and did not in any event appear to be of sufficient significance to bring the case within the Funding Code definition of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/176

Nature of Case

Judicial review of new police policy designed to deter re-offending - policy involving publication of convict's name, photograph and nature of offence and advertisement of the same on poster sites in the locality where convict committed offence.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that the proceedings in this case clearly had the potential to clarify the legality of pro-active policing policies designed to target ex-offenders. In the circumstances, it was clear that this case had the potential to produce real benefits to other individuals and the case was of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/177

Nature of Case

Proposed judicial review based on routine failure of Chairman of MHRT to specify names of tribunal members when fixing date for MHRT hearing as required by Rule 31 of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that although the challenge in this case differed technically from that made in the case of R v Secretary of State for Health (ex p. KB and ors.), any real benefit of the proposed challenge would be to obtain a reduction in the delays faced by patients awaiting a hearing before an MHRT. Taking into consideration the detailed terms of the judgments in the case of Re KB, the Panel was not persuaded that the challenge in this case would bring patients any closer to achieving that aim. In particular, the Panel noted that even if MHRT Chairmen were to specify the names of tribunal members when fixing dates for hearings, if the MHRT was later able to amend the notification of hearing, as appeared to be a regular feature in MHRT cases, the earlier specification of tribunal members' names would be of little practical benefit to a patient. In the circumstances, although the Panel considered that the proposed challenge had the potential to effect a change in listing practices in MHRTs, the change would not be likely to produce real benefits for other patients.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/198

Nature of the Case

Parents seeking to challenge a Local Authority's decision to close a small rural primary school and replace it with a larger school.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed that, whilst the question of the closure of rural schools is a matter of strong public interest in the general sense, there is no evidence that this individual case would benefit others so as to have a significant wider public interest. The Panel noted that if it is alleged merely that the consultation process was not properly followed, then these principles have been already established by judicial review and so there is no significant wider public interest in this particular case. There is also no suggestion that that the relevant local authority guidance is ultra vires or that it would be changed as a result of this case.

Further the Panel's view is that this application is premature especially in the absence of seeing the Local Authority's response to the parents' letter setting out the case for keeping the school open. Without much clearer identification of the basis of the proposed challenge and likely legal issues raised it is impossible for the Panel to conclude that this case has potential for producing wide public benefit.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/200

Nature of the Case

Judicial Review of Home Office and police force. Disclosure of transsexual's former gender by Criminal Records Bureau.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that extending the scope of the Goodwin case potentially had public interest. However the present case did not appear likely to affect a large number of people i.e. those who have undergone gender re-assignment and have committed criminal offences in their former gender. The question as to whether Goodwin would be likely to be extended from dealing with the consequences of gender re-assignment to allowing non-disclosure of the fact of gender re-assignment is unclear. In addition there is an issue as to whether this case would be an appropriate vehicle to attempt to extend Goodwin given that the offence involved is not gender neutral. The merits are not better than borderline. The Panel noted that disclosure would not necessarily reduce the chances of the applicant obtaining employment but would lead to embarrassment and anxiety.

In all the circumstances the Panel was not satisfied that the case was likely to produce benefits of enough importance for a sufficient number of people to be of significant wider public interest. However if further information were produced as to the scale of the problem it might be appropriate to look again at the public interest arguments.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/201

Nature of the Case

Judicial review of the Health and Safety Executive decision not to prosecute the owner of a maintenance vehicle involved in a fatal motorway accident.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed that there are doubts regarding the merits of this case. It was considered that there is no realistic prospect of the judicial review succeeding. The Court will not evaluate the disputed evidence and it is unlikely that the decision not to prosecute would be considered to be Wednesbury unreasonable. In addition, even if the judicial review was successful, there was little prospect of the matter going forward to a successful prosecution.

The Panel was not satisfied that this case would produce a wider benefit for the public. The most important potential result from a prosecution would be the provision of guidance. The Panel noted that the Coroner has intervened and it appears from the documents provided that the Coroner's concerns have been picked up by the Department for Transport, who are currently reviewing procedures in order to provide such guidance. The Panel also recognised the importance of the issue of corporate accountability, but did not consider that the present case would be a suitable vehicle to develop the law in that respect.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/204

Nature of the Case

Judicial review of the Home Office. Decision of the Prison Service's Category A Review Team not to refer the applicant to the Category A Committee to consider whether his security rating should be downgraded.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed that this case has poor prospects of success. The applicant has not demonstrated that there would be any particular advantage in attending before the Committee. There is no information available to indicate that the applicant could argue that the Review Team's decision was wrong in considering whether the applicant has sufficiently addressed his offending behaviour and accordingly that the Review Team's use of their discretion was unreasonable. Further any point of general importance in relation to the role of the Review Team had already been considered and rejected in the case of Dorrian (CO 3406/02). The Panel considered that there would be no benefits to the wider public in the present case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/205

Nature of the Case

Judicial Review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal that the applicant should remain under an order of conditional discharge and liable to be recalled to hospital.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that there was no evidence to demonstrate that there would be any real benefit following a judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. In those circumstances this case would not be a good vehicle to establish any issues of principle. It is noted that the Tribunal may have provided inadequate reasons to the applicant however this does not indicate that the decision not to provide an absolute discharge was unreasonable. The issue of inadequate reasons would only affect the individual case and would not establish any new principles or duty regarding the Tribunal.

Further the Panel considered that there was no incompatibility between Section 75 of the Mental Health Act and the Human Rights Act. Section 75 allows a discretion and in relation to this discretion the Tribunal must act in accordance with the Human Rights Act.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/206

Nature of the Case

Judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs not to introduce an embargo on the export of military equipment to Indonesia.

Report of the Panel

The Panel recognised the considerable difficulty of mounting a successful challenge in this area but considered that this case might assist in requiring the Government to explain how it applies foreign policy to its decisions regarding the export of military equipment. The Panel considered that public interest arose not only in relation to the people of Indonesia who would be directly affected by further licences not being granted, but in providing transparency in relation to governmental decision making for the grant of licences. There would be benefits in any event in obtaining disclosure of the information which led to the government's decision, because this would be likely to improve the decision making process for future licences.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: high.

PIAP/03/211

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal from decision to refuse permission to bring a judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (the "MHRT") to adjourn the applicant's hearing for a period of 8 days.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed unanimously that this case had the potential to clarify the powers of the MHRT to adjourn hearings, particularly in light of the statutory requirement to fix a hearing within 7 days of the application. It was clear that such clarification could be of fundamental importance to affected individuals. The Panel was particularly aware that this case concerned the liberty of the applicant. The Panel also considered that the additional issue of the Tribunal's failure to determine the matters before it subsequent to the applicant being released had the potential to clarify the law in this area. The present case also appeared to be a good vehicle to test these issues.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant.

PIAP/04/215

Nature of the Case

Proposed judicial review of the National Rail Standards Drugs and Alcohol Policy.

Report of the Panel

The Panel were very concerned about the lack of information provided to the applicant by Network Rail in relation to his case, and any rights of appeal. However, the Panel considered that this case had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Panel considered that the only possible way forward in the applicant's case was to challenge the operation of the policy, based on the inflexibility of the wording used within it and the disproportionality of the penalty imposed. There did not seem to be any argument that the policy had been misapplied in the applicant's case. This challenge faces severe difficulties due to the lengthy delay in bringing it and the unlikelihood of a determination being made that the policy was irrational, bearing in mind the need for a strict approach to drugs matters where public safety was involved. In light of this view, the Panel consider that significant benefits were unlikely to flow from funding this case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.