R (Green) v Gloucestershire County Council and R (Rowe & Hird) v Somerset County Council [2011] EWHC 2687 (Admin) [Judgment]
In a case brought by PIL challenging proposed cuts to library provision in Gloucestershire and Somerset, the High Court ruled that such cuts were unlawful and quashed both councils’ planned library closures. |
R (Ali Zaki Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2011] EWCA Civ 1334 [Judgment]
PIL successfully argue before the Court of Appeal that the organisation established by the UK Government to investigate abuse of Iraqi detainees by British forces – the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) – is not sufficiently independent for the purposes of Article 3 ECHR to undertake a full investigation into the mistreatment. The Court ordered the Secretary of State to reconsider his obligations to investigate the abuse and to provide a new means of inquiry. |
Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom [GC] Application No. 27021/08 [Judgment]
PIL successfully argued before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights that the European Convention applied to the Applicant's detention by British Forces in Iraq and that if Resolutions of the UN Security Council are to override Convention rights then they must do so expressly. |
Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom [GC] Application No. 55721/07 [Judgment]
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights determined that the UK must effectively investigate the deaths of civilians killed by British Forces in Iraq as the European Convention applied wherever UK state agents exercised effective power and control over individuals outside UK and European territory. |
The EHRC v The Prime Minister & Ors and Al-Bazzouni v The Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) [Judgment]
In this case, PIL obtained a ruling that the Government's 2010 guidance to military and security personnel, which allowed the practice of 'hooding' in certain circumstances, was unlawful. |
R (Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 212 [Skeleton Argument]
PIL’s submissions to the Court of Appeal seeking permission to appeal the Secretary of State’s decision to strip Mr Al-Jedda of his British citizenship. PIL argue that previous considerations of this decision failed to take into account the nuances of Iraqi law and a wealth of evidence that suggested Mr Al-Jedda had effectively been left ‘stateless’ by the decision. |
R (Mossa Ali) v The Secretary of State for Defence CO/2242/04 [Grounds for Judicial Review]
The argument put forward by PIL on behalf of Mr Mossa Ali who, together with his father, alleges he was the subject of abuse and mistreatment at the hands of British forces in Iraq (the abuse allegedly leading to the death of Mr Mossa Ali’s father). It is alleged that Mr Mossa Ali’s rights under the ECHR were breached and that he is entitled to a full and independent inquiry into the circumstances of his, and his father’s, mistreatment. |
R (Suppiah and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) [Judgment]
In a case brought by PIL on behalf of two young asylum-seeker families, it was successfully argued before the High Court that detaining the claimants and their young children (aged between one and eleven years old) at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre was unlawful and a breach of their human rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. |
R (Ali Zaki Mousa) v The Secretary of State for Defence CO/1684/2010 [Claimants' Skeleton Argument]
Skeleton argument detailing the inadequacies of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) and arguing that it is insufficiently independent to carry out an investigation in the abuse and mistreatment of Mr Mousa at the hands of British Forces. This skeleton argument was lodged before the High Court in proceedings that eventually led to PIL’s success in the Court of Appeal (see judgment above). |
R (Ali Zaki Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 3304 (Admin) [Judgment]
The High Court judgment in PIL’s judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to hold an independent inquiry into abuse and mistreatment suffered by Iraqi detainees at the hands of British Forces. The High Court ruled that the Secretary of State was not required to set up an independent inquiry and that the mechanism in place (the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)) was sufficient. PIL later successfully appealed this judgment in the Court of Appeal. |
R (Evans) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 3517 (Admin) [Judgment]
PIL acted for Maya Evans, a prominent human rights campaigner. The High Court granted PIL permission to argue in judicial review proceedings that the Secretary of State’s changes to the criteria to secure legal aid were an unlawful attempt to limit the type of claimant who can be publically funded to bring public interest judicial review proceedings. |
R (Public Interest Lawyers) v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 3277 (Admin) [Judgment]
PIL act for the Claimants in a case seeking to challenge the Legal Services Commission’s (LSC) new civil law contract tendering process. It was successfully argued that the LSC did not give due consideration to its equality duties during the consultation process for the new regulations and that it had breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. |
R (Evans) v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice CO/7188/2010 [Skeleton Argument]
PIL’s arguments on behalf of Maya Evans that changes to the criteria that see a claimant granted legal aid were designed by the Secretary of State to act as a bar to public interest judicial review claims. Permission was granted to argue the case before the High Court (see judgment above) and the claim was ultimately successful (see judgment in R (Evans) v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1146 (Admin), above).
|
Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Application No. 27021/08) [Applicant's Final Submissions]
PIL’s submissions to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of an Iraqi who had been detained for three years without charge by British Forces. It was argued that this was a breach of Mr Al-Jedda’s right to liberty and that the UK should not be allowed to ignore this right even when operating under a UN resolution authorising internment. |
Al-Skeini and others v United Kingdom (Application No. 55721/07) [Applicant's Final Submissions]
PIL’s submissions to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the proceedings that had previously led to the Baha Mousa Inquiry being established. Whilst the Ministry of Defence had accepted that Mr Mousa had fallen within UK jurisdiction whilst in a detention centre in Iraq, it argued that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) could not apply in the cases of five other claimants mistreated and abused by British Forces in Iraq as their cases fell within UK jurisdiction. PIL argued that the ECHR should apply to all the applicants’ cases. |
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v The United Kingdom (Application No. 61498/08) [Judgment]
The European Court of Human Right’s (ECtHR) judgment in PIL’s challenge to the transfer by the UK to Iraq of two Iraqi nationals charged with capital offences. PIL argued that to expose the men to a risk of the death penalty breached the UK’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR held that Article 3 ECHR was to be interpreted to include a state obligation to prohibit the death penalty and that, accordingly, any transfer to a state where there was a risk of the death penalty being used must be unlawful. |
R (Al-Sweady) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin) [Judgment]
The High Court’s judgment in a case relating to the alleged killing and ill-treatment of Iraqis by British forces following a battle at the ‘Danny Boy’ checkpoint in 2004. Following lamentable breaches of the MoD’s duty of candour, a public Inquiry was announced. |
R (Saleh Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CO/9605/2006 [Grounds of Appeal]
Grounds of Appeal served on the Court of Appeal following the High Court decision in R (Saleh Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 2630 (Admin) (see below) |
R (Hasan) v The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2008] EWCA Civ 1311 [Judgment]
The Court of Appeal’s decision following PIL’s appeal of the High Court’s decision in R (Saleh Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 2630 (Admin) (see below). The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision. |
R (Kammash and others) v The Secretary of State for Defence and another CO/6345/2008 [Grounds of Judicial Review]
The argument in a case brought by PIL arguing that British Forces’ treatment of three Iraqis in their custody breached the UK’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights as well as international legal obligations. |
R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 1910 (Admin) [Judgment]
PIL applied for judicial review of the UK Government’s support of Israel’s unlawful actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs). In particular, PIL challenged the provision of licences to Israel for arms and military equipment that could be used in the OPTs as well as financial and commercial support offered by means of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The High Court ruled that the case was not justiciable and that the Claimant would not be allowed to secure a ‘domestic foothold’ for the court to review UK foreign policy. |
R (Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2007] EWHC 2630 (Admin) [Judgment]
The High Court refused to rule that there were grounds to extend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry’s obligation to produce, for public scrutiny, records providing details of licences granted for arms and military equipment by the UK to other countries. |
PIL-MATRIX SEMINAR - THE AL-SAADOON CASE (20-01-2011)
The paper presented by Dan Carey and Phil Shiner of PIL to the PIL-Matrix Seminar that sought to address the issues arising out of the European Court of Human Right’s decision in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK (No. 61498/08) . The paper is entitled ‘Rule of Law or Rule of Power?’ |
PIL - RESPONSE TO JUSTICE AND SECURITY GREEN PAPER
|
Pat Long seeks independent inquiry into the death of her son, Corporal Paul Long of the Royal Military Police, in Majar-al-Kabir in 2003
Pre-Action Protocol Letter |
Open Letter Sent To Birmingham University Re Protest Injunction
|
