Share it
Starting on Monday 30 January 2012 are the appeals of PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, W & BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Z, G, U & Y v Secretary of State for the Home Department, scheduled for 1.5 days to be heard by Lords Phillips, Brown, Kerr, Dyson and Wilson. The appellants are foreign nationals in the process of being deported by the Secretary of State on national security grounds, and have challenged the decision in SIAC proceedings on the grounds they would be at risk of detention or torture if deported, contrary to ECHR, art 3.
In each case except W & PP the Secretary of State relied on closed evidence to establish the risk to national security. Additionally, one of the Algerian applicants obtained information said to be relevant to his safety in Algeria were he to be deported, but the source would not allow the information to be used unless a guarantee it will not be reported to the Algerian authorities is in place, and SIAC refused to make this order. It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has the power to direct that evidence relied upon by the appellants should be heard in private, and whether when SIAC adopts a ‘closed evidence’ procedure in proceedings concerning a decision to deport a foreign national on the grounds of national security, the applicant is entitled an ‘irreducible minimum’ of information about the risk which he is said to present. Case details are available here.
On Wednesday 1 February 2012 in front of a panel of seven (L Phillips, L Walker, L Hale, L Brown, L Mance, L Kerr and L Dyson) over two days is the appeal of Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority. There is extensive media coverage of the facts of the case, but in short the appellant had sexual relations with two women whilst in Sweden, who subsequently went to the police and filed complaints against the appellant, who left the country in ignorance of the fact a domestic arrest warrant had been issued against him. A European Arrest Warrant was issued against the appellant who then surrendered himself for arrest in the UK. Following an extradition hearing, his extradition to Sweden was ordered which was upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court (QBD). It is for the Supreme Court to determine whether a EAW issued by a public prosecutor constitutes a “judicial authority” for the purpose and within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003, ss 2 and 66. Here are the case details.
There are no Supreme Court judgments to be handed down this week.
In the Privy Council starting on Wednesday 1 February 2012 is the hearing of Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services Ltd, which will be heard by Lady Paton and Lords Hope, Clarke, Sumption, and Reed. The parties were bound to a management agreement in respect of a hotel, and a dispute over early termination of this agreement was referred to arbitration. The appellant then challenged the arbitral award to the respondent in court proceedings, and subsequently has appealed the Court of Appeal of Jamaica’s decision in the Privy Council. It is for the Judicial Committee to decide whether the time limit for presenting the appeal should be extended, or whether the respondent requires leave to cross-appeal. Case details are available here.
On Wednesday 1 February 2012 the Privy Council will hand down judgment in David Gopaul (on behalf of H V Holdings Ltd) v Vitra Imam Baksh (on behalf of the Incorporated Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago).
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:
R v Waya, heard 5 May 2011.
Flood v Times Newspapers, heard 17 – 18 Oct 2011.
Lehman Brothers International v CRC Credit Fund Ltd and GLC Investments PLC Sub Fund, heard 31 October – 3 November 2011.
Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust, heard 7 – 10 November 2011.
Ministry of Defence v AB & Ors, heard 14 – 17 November 2011.
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited, heard 22 November 2011.
Sugar (Deceased) v British Broadcasting Corporation and anor, heard 23 November 2011.
BAI Ltd v Thomas Bates and Son Ltd, BAI Ltd v Durham, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company and Adur District Council and Ors, Independent Insurance Company Ltd v Fleming and Anor, Municipal Mutual Insurance Company v Zurich Insurance Company and Ors, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Edwards, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Akzo Nobel UK Ltd and Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Amec plc, heard 5 – 14 December 2011.
In the matter of Peacock, heard 14 December 2011.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Ltd, heard 12 – 15 January 2012.
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012.
Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.
