R (on the application of Dost Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] HWCA 983

Elizabeth Susan Pascoe v the First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2356 (Admin)

R (on the application of Dost Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWHC 2098 (Admin)

R (on the application of Gentle & Others) v (1) The Prime Minister (2) The Secretary of State for Defence (3) The Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1078

The Queen on the application of Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1118

R (Boughton & others) v HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

R (on the application of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda) v the Secretary of State For Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327

R (on the application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609

Hereford Waste Watchers Limited v Hereford Council [2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

John Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1508

R (on the application of Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence [2003] All ER (D) 307 (Feb), (2003) Times, 10 March

R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 245 (Dec), (2002) Times, 27 December

R (Gurung and others) v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 409 (Nov), (2002) Times, 28 December

R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] EWCA Civ 03, [2002] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), (2002) Independent, 31 January, CA

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] All ER (D) 345, (2001) Times, 1 May, QBD

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2002] 3 WLR 875, [2002] JPL 937 [2002] 05 EG 132 (CS), (2002) Times, 1 February [2002] All ER (D) 149 (Jan), CA

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] All ER (D) 1102, (2000) Times, 5 October, [2001] EHLR 94

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 5 [2002] 05 EG 131 (CS) 131

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 4 [2000] All ER (D) 1300, (2000) Times, 8 November, QBD

R v North Warwicksire CC, ex parte Howe and Jones [2001] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

R v Leicestershire CC, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothorpe Action Group [2000] JPL 1266

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Turnbull (2000) Env LR 715

R v The Environment Agency ex parte Sellers and Another [1999] Env LR 73-113

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Leam

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Gibson

Lubrizol Limited v Tyndallwoods, Solicitors (1998) The Lawyer, 24 April 1998, QBD

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) Env LR 719, [1998] JPL 787, CA

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) ENDS 276, (1998) Env LR 560, QBD

R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods (1997) JPL 958, (1998) Env LR 277, CA

R v North Somerset District Council and Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited ex parte Garnett and Pierssene (1997) JPL 1015, QBD

R v Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon (1997) JPL 1030, [1997] C.O.D 227, QBD

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Brown [1997] Env LR 100, (1997) JPL 337, QBD

Peace Tax 7

"Modern wars are no longer fought with conscript armies in which a conscientious objector can refuse to serve; they are fought with high-tech weapons paid for with taxes." (John McDonnell MP, 19 October 1999)

The above illustrates why the payment of taxes towards military spending could be an affront to the conscience and beliefs of many.

PIL are acting for the Peace Tax 7 group who have commenced a judicial review action objecting to paying the percentage of their taxes, which is spent on military purposes. They request that this amount instead be diverted for peaceful purposes. Some have withheld an amount and offered to pay this to the Department for International Development or to development charities such as Oxfam. They say this is a manifestation of their beliefs and that the state must respect this form of manifestation by considering the establishment of a tax fund into which they can pay their taxes for peaceful purposes.

The judicial review action is based upon Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has two aspects: whether there has been an interference in the right to manifest ones religion or belief; and whether there is a justification for this interference. The Government considers our clients’ actions are not a manifestation of their beliefs. They also say that the taxation system is neutral and general in its application to the population.

In both the High Court (2005) and Court of Appeal (2006) the government’s position was upheld and the judicial review application dismissed.

In coming to this decision, the UK court relied on outdated legal authorities. PIL considers their approach cannot be justified in light of recent developments in human rights law and that the onus is on the Government to show why it cannot set up a ring-fenced fund intended for peaceful purposes only.

The case is now proceeding to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Kier Starmer QC of Doughty Street Chambers has been instructed as Counsel on this case.