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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Nature of the Case

Proposed actions in judicial review of the detention of a mental health patient; and the decision of a County Court to displace that mental health patient's "nearest relative".

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that there was public interest in clarifying the law around the application of section 29 of the Mental Health Act 1983. However, any judicial review of the decision making in this case was unlikely to have any impact beyond its own facts. In particular, this case is not likely to provide greater guidance on the correct process for the application of section 29. In addition, the material provided suggested that the discrimination in remedies for those falsely imprisoned while mental health patients, as opposed to in other circumstances, would not be fully addressed by this case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/04/229

Nature of the Case

Proposed permission application to the House of Lords to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the applicant's claim that maladministration in the handling of his application for asylum and its impact on the financial support available to him, breached his rights under articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and caused him stress and psychiatric injury.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that this case raised an important principle of law that had the potential to impact significantly a great number of people. There is a clear conflict between the decision of the High Court and that of the Court of Appeal in this case and the Panel considered that the House of Lords should be given the opportunity to express its view. Any reinstatement of the first instance decision might benefit large numbers of persons with potential claims for breaches of article 8. However, even if the applicant were unsuccessful in this case, any guidance provided by the House of Lords on the nature of public authorities' duties to take positive action in relation to article 8 of ECHR, especially in cases where such failures caused psychiatric injury, would be of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant to High

PIAP/04/229

Nature of the Case

Report of the Panel

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant to High

PIAP/04/225

Nature of the Case

Proposed judicial review of the Police Complaints Authority decision not to refer an allegation to the disciplinary tribunal. The applicant argues that the Authority has misdirected itself in law by applying the incorrect standard of proof to the applicant's complaint.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that this case had significant wider public interest as it had the potential to establish the correct standard of proof to be applied by the Police Complaints Authority, and now the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. Therefore, this case has the potential to impact on all future complainants to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/04/232

Nature of the Case

Proposed judicial review of District Judge's determination that while there is a discretion to reconsider bail at any time, there is no right to make a further, fully considered bail application 28 days after the last one was made.

Report of the Panel

The Panel did not consider that the applicant's counsel was correct in his interpretation of the decision in Bezicheri v Italy [1989] 12 EHRR 210 that there is a right to a renewed bail hearing after 28 days. While the Panel considered that there were important issues to be considered surrounding the application of the decision in Bezicheri to the operation of the Bail Act, they did not consider that this case provided a suitable vehicle to advance those issues. In particular, the Panel noted counsel's view that the District Judge's decision not to grant the applicant bail was unimpeachable. They also did not consider that the judge's decision in this case was likely to be read as implying that he had in any way fettered his decision in considering the applicant's application, as he did not state that he would not consider bail after a 28 day period, just that he did not consider that reconsideration was warranted in the applicant's case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/04/236

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal to Court of Appeal from High Court decision to refuse judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State to decline to quash a finding of guilt in prison disciplinary proceedings where the applicant was refused representation.

Report of the Panel

Recalling its decision in PIAP/02/144 in a previous case heard together with these proceedings in the High Court, the Panel considered that this case had the potential to provide guidance on the correct application of the ECHR in Ezeh and Conners v United Kingdom. While the Panel noted that similar issues are likely to be touched on by the House of Lords in the cases of R (Al Hasan), R (Carroll) and R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, those proceedings are unlikely to determine the particular issues raised by the applicant in this case. However, the Panel considered that the public interest in this case should be reviewed in light of any guidance developed by these other cases.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

Rating: High

PIAP/04/210

Nature of the Case

Personal injury proceedings. Claim for damages against referee for injury sustained during rugby match. Proceedings out of scope unless having significant wider public interest.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the existing legal position following the previous decided case of Smolden and considered the circumstances of the present case as to whether there was potential to develop or expand this area of law. Although the Panel recognized that the factual circumstances of the present case were different in a number of respects from Smolden, the Panel considered it unlikely that they were of such a kind as to make it likely that this case would develop the law. The general principles likely to apply in these circumstances were set out in Smolden and the Court made it clear that the specific level of care required by a referee is that which is appropriate in all the circumstances; those circumstances will clearly vary from case to case. If this case proceeds it is therefore likely that it will be determined on its own particular facts. Whilst the case is, of course, of great significance to the client, bearing in mind the severity of the injuries involved, it is unlikely to bring benefits to others.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/0014

Nature of Case

Clinical negligence proceedings. Legal issue as to whether surrogacy costs recoverable as a head of damage.

Report of Panel

The Panel recognized that there is much public debate and interest in a number of issues surrounding surrogacy. The Panel accepted the argument that clarifying the legal principles to define the circumstances in which surrogacy costs may be recovered is an important issue. In a sense, this appeal does not so much raise a pure issue of law, but an issue of law and fact as to what likelihood of success in surrogacy may allow for recovery. One can only speculate as to whether the Court of Appeal will lay down useful broad guidelines in this area, rather than simply deciding this case on its individual facts, which are somewhat unusual. Either way, it is difficult to predict the number of women who might benefit from the outcome of this appeal. But even if that number is small, the importance of the issue to each client will be substantial.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest.

Rating: Significant.

PIAP/0021

Nature of Case

Personal injury proceedings (asbestos). Asbestos arising from a certain type of housing. Proceedings out of scope unless having a significant wider public interest.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered carefully the circumstances of this case but was not satisfied that it demonstrated any significant wider public interest in the absence of evidence of large numbers of people in a similar situation. The Panel considered whether this case would clarify or expand the existing law. As it stands there is already established law that will allow action to be taken provided causation can be made out and the present case is unlikely to establish an earlier date at which local authorities could be expected to know the asbestos risk. With regret the Panel concluded that the mere possibility of similar cases arising in future was not sufficient to conclude that this case had a significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/01/34

Nature of Case

Personal injury proceedings. Issue as to whether airlines can be held responsible for deep vein thrombosis suffered by travellers on long-distance flights.

Report of Panel

The Panel was of the view that a duty of care may be established on the part of the airlines in respect of this issue in some form from some point in time. Furthermore such a duty would be likely to benefit a significant class of air travel passengers who might be particularly at risk from deep vein thrombosis. Because the case raised a range of difficult issues the Panel recommended that the Commission should keep under review the likelihood of the case to establish a precedent which would be of significant wider public interest. If this case is to be funded, the Panel recommended that the Commission should consider whether it might be appropriate to impose the condition envisaged in paragraph C46.1 of the Funding Code Procedures, i.e. that the consent of the Commission should be sought prior to settlement.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/45

Nature of Case

Potential claim relating to disposal of stillborn baby.

Report of Panel

The Panel accepted that the circumstances of this case were extremely distressing for the client. However the Panel's function was to consider whether any potential claim might benefit others. The Panel noted that the events complained of went back to 1983. Not only did this give rise to significant legal difficulties but there are likely to have been significant changes in practice and procedure in the NHS since that date. It was therefore unlikely that this case would lead to any significant change in practice for the future.Further, there was no clear evidence that there were large numbers of other cases where foetuses had been disposed of without consent or consultation. The Panel were of the view that if this case proceeded it would be considered on its own facts and was unlikely to establish any entitlement to compensation for a larger group of people. Accordingly, with regret the Panel concluded that this case had no significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/48

Nature of Case

Personal injury claim. Child injured while sleepwalking on school camping trip.

Report of Panel

The Panel first considered whether the case had any potential to clarify or expand the law. The Panel considered this unlikely as the case would be decided on the normal principles of negligence. The issue was therefore whether this claim might affect the guidelines or general standards of supervision to be applied by schools when organising camping trips. The Panel considered that existing guidelines for schools were reasonably clear so that this case would be determined on its own particular facts. It was not likely that the case would establish a precedent of general significance and therefore the Panel were not satisfied that the claim had any significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/51

Nature of Case

Personal injury proceedings - contamination of swimming pool.

Report of Panel

Whilst the Panel recognised that standards of pool hygiene were a matter of general public concern, the Panel remained concerned as to the likelihood that this case would do anything to improve such standards, either locally or nationally. There was no clear evidence to suggest that the existing guidelines were themselves defective and therefore it was more likely that this case would be decided on the basis of whether the council had been negligent on the facts of this case. Further, the Panel considered that the nature of these claims and the relatively small damages at stake meant that it was highly unlikely that this case would come to trial, and more likely that the claims would settle without establishing any precedent.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/54

Nature of Case

Personal injury proceedings - claim for compensation for "bodily injury" under Warsaw Convention.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that the proposed appeal to the House of Lords related to an important legal issue, namely whether the liability to compensate passengers for "bodily injury" under Article 7 of the Warsaw Convention could cover psychological damage. The resolution of this issue could benefit significant numbers of people and clearly has a wider public interest.However the Panel's concern was whether there was any significant wider public interest in funding being provided for this appeal when a similar point was already being raised in another case, King v Bristow Helicopters, which was due to be heard by the House of Lords in November. The Panel accepted counsel's arguments that the two cases were distinguishable and it was desirable for both to be heard together so that the House of Lords could consider the full range of issues. Accordingly the Panel were satisfied that there was a significant wider public interest in funding being provided in the present case.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/64

Nature of Case

Proposed claim for negligence against the Prison Service following accidental injury to a prisoner. Alleged failure to provide appropriate health and safety advice.

Report of Panel

The Panel had to consider whether the outcome of this claim might lead to establishing a legal precedent or some change of policy in the prison service in relation to the provision of health and safety advice about the use of protective clothing. The Panel was however not convinced that it was likely that this case would produce any such change. In the Panel's view this was a relatively standard personal injury claim which, if it had merit, would probably settle at some stage and was unlikely to establish any form of precedent of benefit to other persons. Accordingly the Panel was not satisfied that this matter had any significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/71

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal to the House of Lords in a personal injury case concerning a road traffic accident.

Report of Panel

This case was unusual in that the proposed appeal to the House of Lords was seeking to challenge the way in which the Court of Appeal had interfered with a decision on the facts of a road traffic accident case determined in favour of the claimant at first instance. The Panel had much sympathy with the position of the claimant and indeed could see much force in the criticisms being made of the way the Court of Appeal had dealt with the matter.Clearly it was important for there to be clarity as to the extent to which the Court of Appeal should interfere with findings of fact by a trial judge. However the role of the Court of Appeal had already been considered and guidelines laid down by the House of Lords in earlier cases, including Pickford v ICI referred to in Counsel's Opinion. The Panel did not accept that any further appeal in the present case had any reasonable likelihood of changing or developing those guidelines. Rather the appeal would be a matter of seeking to show that, in this individual case, the Court of Appeal did not follow the correct approach. There would be no significant wider public interest in the House of Lords re-stating existing law. Further the Panel did not feel there was any realistic prospect of success for arguments under the Human Rights Act that the current appeals system did not provide an effective right of appeal. Nor was this appeal likely to develop the general law of negligence.With regret therefore the Panel concluded that this case had no significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

Nature of Case

Nature of the Case

Proposed personal injury proceedings by a passenger involved in the Paddington Rail Crash on 5 October 1999, who subsequently stabbed a man to death while suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Report of the Panel

The Panel recognised that this case could be distinguished from the decision in Clunis on the basis that this case involved an applicant who, but for his involvement in the accident that is said to have caused his injury, did not have a pattern of mental illness or criminal behaviour.

In light of the particular facts of this case, the Panel considered that it was an appropriate case in which to test the principle set out in the judgment of Lord Justice Auld in KR & others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 85 that:

Notwithstanding anything said by this Court in Clunis an argument may survive that damages are recoverable in respect of tortious acts that have resulted in a law-abiding citizen becoming a criminal.

Specific judicial guidance in relation to the application of the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle to otherwise law abiding citizens who are said to have become criminal as a direct result of a tortious act, has the potential to produce real benefits to members of the public wider than the applicant.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant to High

PIAP/04/239

Nature of the Case

Proposed personal injury proceedings based on allegation of exposure to Depleted Uranium (DU).

Report of the Panel

The Panel accepted that the issue of protection for people handling DU in employment was an important one. However, the Panel was of the view that without further investigation it would not be possible to determine the strength of this particular case and hence its ability to provide guidance on those issues. If, once investigation was complete, this case was able to overcome its potential causation problems the Panel considered that it had the potential to impact on the safety of those handling DU in their employment and also on government regulation of DU.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/04/239

Nature of the Case

Proceedings under the Charities Act 1993. Dispute between members of the Royal British Legion and their Head Office. Proposed challenge to the right of the Head Office to transfer ownership of certain Legion property from the branch to the centre.

Report of Panel

It was clear to the Panel that certain members of the branch felt very strongly about the issues in dispute. However the Panel was unable to conclude that there was objective evidence that proceedings on these matters would produce any real benefits to members of the branch, let alone the wider public.The Panel went on to consider the legal issues which might be raised in any proceedings but thought that these would be likely to turn on interpretation of the particular articles of the associations concerned, not on any wider point of law of general importance. The Panel further considered it unlikely that ECHR Article 6 rights were engaged in these disputes.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/01/32

Nature of Case

Representation before Special Education Needs Tribunal. Application for exceptional funding under section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Issue as to whether hydrotherapy treatment for a disabled child can be regarded as educational provision.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed that if there were some general ruling that hydrotherapy treatment can be regarded as educational provision, that might well have a wider public interest. However the Panel considered that such a ruling was unlikely to emerge from this case. The case of Bromley had already established that there is no clear legal dividing line between educational and non-educational provision. Therefore any decision in this case is more likely to be decided as a question of fact, namely whether hydrotherapy has such benefits that it should be regarded as educational provision in this individual case. The Panel suggested other avenues which might be pursued, including a possible application under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/01/37

Nature of Case

Proposed County Court proceedings claiming damages under the Race Relations Act 1976.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that this case concerned a claim for damages under the Race Relations Act 1976 based on racist comments allegedly made to the applicant by a local authority leisure centre manager. However, the defendants were disputing that the remarks had been said at all.The Panel considered that this case was one which would be decided on its own facts. There was no likelihood of the case establishing any new rights for clients generally or leading to any change in the policy of the local council. Therefore whilst the case was no doubt important to the individual client the Panel was not satisfied that it had any significant wider public interest as that term is defined in the Funding Code.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/47

Nature of Case

Proceedings challenging police removal and storage of stolen vehicle. Whether vehicle was "abandoned".

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that leave to appeal was given in this case on the basis of the legal argument as to when a vehicle can be treated as "abandoned" giving the police power to remove it and to charge for its return. The Panel felt that even if the applicant succeeded in his argument it did not follow that there would necessarily be any significant change in police practice. The evidence in the present case, and presumably general police practice, was that on finding a vehicle abandoned by thieves the police make attempts to contact the owner before arranging for the vehicle to be removed. Whether the police acted reasonably or correctly in this individual case was of course a matter of concern to the applicant but was not a matter of any wider public interest.In all the circumstances the Panel were not satisfied that this appeal had the potential to produce benefits for others and therefore concluded that the case had no significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/52

Nature of Case

Enforcement proceedings - powers and duties of bailiffs in relation to seizure of goods.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered the legal issues arising in this case concerning the powers and duties of bailiffs levying distress against goods. The Panel noted the comments referred to in the judgment that this was an area of law which was "riddled with inconsistencies, uncertainties, anomalies and archaisms". The proposed appeal to the House of Lords raised important issues as to the circumstances in which a debtor could avoid distress by tendering payment. If successful the greater protection afforded to debtors would be a significant public benefit; in any event a clarification by the House of Lords would have benefits to both debtors and enforcers.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

Nature of the Case

Application for funding to obtain a declaration of incompatibility with ECHR of domestic law relating to the rights of families of victims of dangerous driving to make representations in criminal proceedings brought against the driver.

Report of the Panel

The Panel found no reference in the application to a particular legislative provision that the applicant sought to have declared incompatible. It appeared that the current procedure adopted by the courts was for the Court of Appeal to inform the victim's family through the Crown Prosecution Service so that the family may attend the hearing. The Panel noted that the current application was brought after the hearing of the appeal on sentencing, notification of which was not given to the victim's family. It appears that this was due to a failure in communication between the CPS and the Court of Appeal. The Panel felt it unlikely that, given the prejudice to the defendant in having his sentence reviewed again, the courts would order a further hearing in order to allow the victim's family an opportunity to be heard. That being the case, the Panel was not satisfied that any public benefits would come from seeking to challenge what occurred in this individual case. The Panel noted that, should the issue arise in a future case, a challenge might be supportable on public interest grounds, especially if the application for funding were made in advance of sentencing.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/78

Nature of the Case

Proposed proceedings against the police and magistrates court seeking damages for trespass to land and a declaration of incompatibility with Article 8 ECHR of domestic law concerning the procedure by which a search warrant is obtained.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that whilst the issue was potentially one of wider public interest, the present case showed no grounds for the argument that the current safeguards in the procedure are insufficient to protect the public. Nor had the applicant provided evidence to show that the current procedure had been improperly followed in the present case. Therefore the Panel was not satisfied that this case had any potential to change procedures for obtaining search warrants in a way which might benefit the public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/79

Nature of the Case

Claim of discrimination against the applicant by a local housing authority contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that the allegedly discriminatory policy was that the Council considered disabled applicants for housing only for accommodation already adapted to a disabled person's needs. There being a far smaller supply of adapted accommodation, the effect of the policy was that disabled persons would have to wait much longer to be housed. The Panel noted the arguments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and under Articles 8 and 14 of ECHR.The Panel considered that the case had the potential to affect all disabled applicants applying to the local authority for housing. In addition, the Panel felt that a decision of the County Court in the applicant's favour might affect the housing policy adopted towards disabled people by other local authorities. The case could therefore be said to have significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/80

Nature of the Case

Proposed application to the House of Lords for permission to appeal Divisional Court's order that male offender be detained in Young Offenders Institute.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that the applicant alleged the incompatibility of the statutory provisions providing for detention of young male offenders, but not their female equivalents, in Young Offenders Institutes. By failing to provide an equivalent place of detention for girls, the statutory provisions were alleged to be discriminatory.It not being apparent from the papers before it, the Panel remained in doubt as to exactly what discriminatory effect the difference in treatment of the sexes allegedly had. The Panel also noted that the Applicant would not personally benefit from a successful appeal on this point of law. Nevertheless, the Divisional Court had certified the issue as one of general public importance and the Panel found that benefits may be afforded to other young offenders were the appeal to succeed, possibly in the form of increased resources. The Panel's majority decision was therefore that the point was one of significant wider public interest. However the minority view of the Panel was that it would be difficult to show that any real benefits would flow from this case, even if successful, and that therefore no significant wider public interest existed.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/81

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal from Court of Appeal in relation to duty of care owed by police to suspects attempting to escape arrest. Application of the doctrine ex turpi in tort cases.

Report of the Panel

This proposed appeal to the House of Lords concerned the extent of the application of the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur action, under which a claim in negligence could not under existing law be founded upon the claimant's own illegal act.Whether and to what extent this principle should continue to apply was clearly a matter of great importance. A House of Lord's decision favourable to the claimant might open up the possibility of significant numbers of future claims. The Panel noted in particular the dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal concerning the applicability of the illegality defence and also the Law Commission's Consultation Paper No. 160 on the same subject. It was not however clear how many clients might benefit from a change in the law in this respect.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant to High

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/72

Nature of the case

Proposed action against local authority. Alleged racial discrimination in the authority's policy of housing some homeless persons out of borough.

Report of the Panel

The Panel remained of the view that if a case were to identify racial bias in a matter of housing policy, that would be a matter of great significance. The Panel's concern was whether this individual case had the potential to do so or to influence the policy. The Panel concluded, with some regret, that there was little prospect of this proposed challenge bringing benefits to others. On the papers provided there was no evidence of direct discrimination by the local authority, nor could any such inference be drawn given the relatively small numbers of out of borough placements. In relation to indirect discrimination, even if it could be established that the criteria adopted by the local authority had a disproportionate impact on certain racial groups, the criteria themselves were not objectionable and the Panel considered that it would not be difficult for the local authority to show that the criteria were justifiable.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/01/82

Nature of the CaseUnlawful detention in police custody under authority of warrant that should have been recalled. Primary legislation protecting constables and magistrates from liability in such cases. Alleged incompatibility between primary legislation and ECHR Article 5. Proposed claim for damages against court service.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that the case raised an important point relating to deprivation of liberty without lawful excuse. It was felt proceedings seeking a declaration of incompatibility with Article 5 might well succeed, which would probably prompt Parliament to change the primary legislation. The applicant along with other people arrested in similar circumstances would then be able to claim damages for unlawful detention. However it was difficult to predict the number of people who might benefit from such claims. It may be that only small numbers of people are affected. Nonetheless, the Panel also considered that a benefit to the wider public would also ensue in that court services nationwide would be encouraged to improve administrative procedures for recalling warrants where necessary.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/01/83

Nature of the Case

Proposed action against local authority claiming damages and/or declaration under Sex Discrimination Act 1975/Human Rights Act. Applicant as single mother applied to local authority for housing. Offer made of out of borough accommodation resulting in allegation that local authority operates policy of discriminating against single mothers in allocating in borough accommodation.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that there was no evidence in this case of a discriminatory housing policy having been adopted by the local authority, further, the applicant had in fact been offered in borough accommodation by the time that the Panel considered the case. In the circumstances, the Panel felt it was unlikely that the court would be prepared to use this case to resolve an issue of general principle. It was therefore unlikely that the case would produce any benefits for the public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

Nature of the case

Proposed High Court injunction enjoining a school's governing body to enter a pupil for public examinations. Alleged exclusion of a pupil from school on the grounds of pregnancy. Proposed damages claim for breach of Human Rights Act 1998 and Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that the issue of a pregnant pupil's right to receive an education was an important one. It was noted that the case involved an application for declaratory and injunctive relief and a potential claim for damages. The Panel expressed their sympathy for the pupil concerning the school's past reluctance to give the undertakings sought but considered that this case would be decided on its facts and would not therefore lead to real benefits for other people, not least because it appeared that the school complied with most of the pupil's demands concerning future attendance and it appeared likely that the remaining demands would also be complied with. It was unlikely that the court would use this case to develop the law as the issues raised had largely been rendered academic.Similarly, in relation to the damages claim, the Panel considered that this case was unlikely to lead to a decision which would be of benefit to other individuals. The Panel felt that as there was no existing breach of the pupil's rights because, despite an earlier alleged exclusion decision, she had been allowed to remain in attendance at school, there appeared to be little benefit in pursuing a damages claim in this case. The case was unlikely to change the guidelines by which pregnant pupils should be dealt.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

Nature of Case

Negligence claims against a health authority re: sexual assaults by a doctor in its employ (limitation issues).

Report of the Panel

The Panel members expressed their deep sympathy for the applicants but were unable to see how this case would have the potential to produce real benefits for other individuals. The Panel considered that the case against the health authority would be decided on its facts without any significant benefit flowing to others. In particular the Panel was not persuaded that determination of the limitation issue would set any new precedent as it appeared that the case would fall to be decided under sections 11, 14 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in accordance with well settled principles.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/119

Nature of Case

Claim for declaration and damages against a school re: alleged racial discrimination against a former student.

Report of the Panel

The Panel restated that any case that had the potential to identify and eliminate racial bias within a school would have a significant wider public interest. However the Panel considered that this case as currently pleaded did not show any wider public interest because its resolution was not likely to have any wider impact in this school or elsewhere. In forming that view the Panel noted that there was no allegation of systemic failure in the school in its approach towards pupils from different ethnic backgrounds and the case as pleaded did not have a real potential to produce benefits for other pupils.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/122

Nature of Case

Challenge to two year cohabitation rule for dependency claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

Report of the Panel

The Panel was concerned that this case was not likely to succeed because the legislation was likely to be upheld in view of the margin of appreciation that is afforded to EU member states in areas of social policy such as that on which the challenged legislation was based. Nonetheless, the Panel considered that if the claim could be said to have sufficient prospects of success to satisfy the relevant Funding Code criterion then the proceedings would have the potential to produce real benefits to other individuals because a successful challenge to the legislation would engender legislative reform by Parliament.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/123

Nature of Case

Proposed human rights challenge to Gambling Act 1845 s.18 under which gambling debts are unenforceable.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that, if successful in the proceedings, the only remedy that the applicant was likely to obtain was a declaration of incompatibility. However the Panel also noted that the government had already stated its intention to introduce legislation to reform the legislation that was being challenged. It did not appear that the grant of a declaration of incompatibility would be likely to result in a swifter change in the law and therefore a declaration was unlikely to have any practical wider significance.The Panel noted the further issue concerning the existence of and the ability to enforce a secondary promise to pay, however the Panel considered that that issue would be decided on the facts of this case without any benefit flowing to other individuals.For the above reasons the Panel was unable to identify any significant benefit that would accrue to other individuals from funding this case and the Panel was not therefore satisfied that there was significant wider public interest in the case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/02/125

Nature of Case

Claim against CPS for unlawful detention re: arrest warrant wrongfully issued for applicant’s failure to appear as a witness in a court case.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted from the legal precedents that the Crown Prosecution Service at present owes no duty of care to the accused at common law arising out of the conduct of a prosecution. There did not however appear to be any authority determining the issue of the duty owed to individuals other than the accused. In those circumstances the Panel considered that this case has the potential to establish whether any duty is owed to individuals other than the accused and benefits would flow to other individuals accordingly.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/121

Nature of Case

Proposed claims of racial discrimination against a school student and his parent by the student's former school's governing body and local education authority.

Report of Panel

The Panel had before it no evidence to suggest that the school had discriminated against the student's parent and there did not therefore appear to be any wider public interest in funding the parent's claim. As regards the student's claim, the Panel was not persuaded that the court would exercise any discretion that it may have to extend time in relation to the claim under the Race Relations Act, nor could the Panel identify how the actions complained of constituted a breach of Article 3 as alleged. That being the case, there did not appear to be any mechanism by which Article 14 may be engaged. Further, the Panel had no information before it to suggest that the claim for negligence at common law would produce real benefits for other individuals.For the above reasons the Panel was unable to identify how this case may be of wider public interest as defined by the Funding Code. In particular the Panel was not persuaded that this case would lead to any improvement in race relations either within this school or more generally.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/127

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal to the House of Lords in a claim for negligence against solicitors.

Report of Panel

The Panel was not persuaded by counsel's argument that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly approached the issue of causation. It appeared that the court had applied the ordinary principles of causation, drawing the correct distinction between an omission to give advice and the negligent giving of advice. It therefore appeared to the Panel that the prospect of successfully challenging the court's distinction between the giving of bad advice and the failure to give advice were poor and that in any event the facts of the case made it an unsuitable vehicle to run the argument. The Panel was therefore not satisfied that any appeal was likely to develop or clarify the law so as to produce benefits for the public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/128

Nature of Case

Appeal to the Court of Appeal in a school exclusion case.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that this case raised an important issue of principle, clarification of which from the Court of Appeal would be of benefit to other parents in deciding the correct or most advisable manner in which to challenge decisions of a school's governing body and/or an independent appeal panel. The Panel considered that although it appeared that the issue of principle would probably be decided in the similar case of Reid, the presence of this case before the court alongside that of Reid would increase the likelihood of the court giving clear and comprehensive guidance on the issue.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

Nature of Case

Proposed claim under ECHR Articles 3 and 14 for racially motivated discriminatory treatment of the applicant during a police search of his premises.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that there was insufficient information about the alleged racial aspect of the applicant's claim to show that this case would establish any new issue of principle in relation to any of the potential civil claims against the police, including the race discrimination claim. It therefore appeared that the case did not have the potential to produce real benefits to individuals other than the applicant (other than the benefits to the public at large that normally flow from proceedings of the type in question) and for that reason it did not appear to fall within the Funding Code definition of wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/02/149

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal to House of Lords re: incompatibility of procedure at prison adjudication hearings with ECHR Article 6. Alleged conflict between domestic and European law following ruling in Ezeh & Connors v UK. Applicant prisoner also seeking award of damages from domestic court for breach of Article 6.

Report of Panel

The Panel agreed unanimously that the proposed appeal to the Lords in this case was of significant wider public interest on both the general issue of prison adjudication hearings complying with Article 6 and on the issue of damages.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/02/153

Nature of Case

Challenge to Prison Service policy of issuing condoms to male prisoners yet deeming prison cell to be public place in which sex is therefore unlawful.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that in addition to resolving the issues concerning homosexual sex in prison cells and the Prison Service's policy and rules in that regard, this case had the potential to benefit other individuals because it appeared that the proceedings might also deal with the wider question of the nature of prisoners' rights to privacy.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/03/159

Nature of Case

Proposed challenge to Probation Service administration of scheme involved in drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs). Allegation that system of observed urination breaches ECHR Arts. 3 and 8.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted from the additional papers that were submitted for re-consideration of this case that the issues in the case differed from those that had been presented at the Panel's previous meeting. In particular it appeared that the applicant had consented to the terms of the DTTO.However, the majority of the Panel considered that the benefit to other individuals that would be engendered by a successful challenge to the Probation Service in this case would be limited in nature and that litigation was not the most appropriate way of examining the Probation Service policy. One alternative apparent from the papers before the Panel appeared to be pursuing the applicant's concerns through the Council's Scrutiny Committee. In addition, as it appeared that the applicant's proposed HRA challenge was out of time, the Panel decided unanimously that the case did not have the potential to produce benefits for other individuals and was not therefore of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/161

Nature of Case

Proposed claim in negligence against Department of Education and examination body for damages arising out of the summer 2002 marking of 'A' level examination scripts.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that a significant number of students had been affected by incorrect grading of their examination scripts following the summer 2002 'A' level exams and that the applicant sought to establish that either the relevant government department or the examination board should be liable in negligence for damage suffered as a result thereof. In the circumstances it appeared that this case fell within the Funding Code definition of wider public interest both because of the numbers of individuals affected by the incorrect grading and because of the potential for the case to establish whether damages were in principle recoverable in this situation.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

Nature of Case

Proposed appeal to Court of Appeal in housing matter concerning tenant's absence from property and length of time required before absence deemed to constitute surrender of tenancy.

Report of Panel

The Panel considered that any appeal in this case would turn on the facts of the case and would not effect any change in or clarification of the law. In the circumstances, the Panel could not identify any potential benefit to other individuals and the case did not appear to be of significant wider public interest.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/178

Nature of Case

Court Service failure to mark warrant "backed with bail". Applicant being arrested on warrant and detained rather than released on bail. Statutory immunity of justices and their clerks from claims relating to acts or omissions carried out in the execution of duty.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted that there appeared to be significant numbers of people nationwide who are affected by Court Service errors in issuing warrants. It was therefore clear that the applicant's proposed claim was of significant wider public interest for the same reasons as those given in the Panel's earlier decision in PIAP 01/82 in view of the fact that the claim in PIAP 01/82 was not proceeding before the courts.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

Nature of Case

Proposed damages claim against police concerning disposal of applicant's car. Applicant arrested on suspicion of supplying Class A drugs. Police seizing and disposing of applicant's car pending trial. Breach of Police Property Act 1987. Officer receiving Formal Advice following complaint to PCA.

Report of Panel

The Panel noted a submission that a successful result in the applicant's damages claim would lead to better training of police officers regarding the correct procedures to be followed in cases of this nature, however, the Panel considered it unlikely that the applicant's case would engender any such change. The officer involved had received a Formal Advice concerning his actions and there was no evidence to suggest that other officers had been inadequately trained on the correct procedures to follow when dealing with suspects' property. In addition, the Panel noted an allegation that the individual officer who had disposed of the applicant's property was motivated by malice. That allegation supported the conclusion that this case would be decided on its facts with no wider implication regarding other officers.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest.

PIAP/03/182

Nature of the Case

Proposed damages claim against Prison Service for breach of duty of care in failing to inform applicant of the conditions attached to his grant of bail.

Report of the Panel

The Panel previously sought additional information in order to clarify whether bail conditions not being passed on to defendants is a common problem. No such information was forthcoming, although the Court Manager advised that it is the normal practice of the Court to fax through bail orders to the prison where defendants do not appear at Court. In addition, the applicant was represented at Court by Counsel. The Panel was not persuaded that this case concerned a systems failure.

The Panel considered that it may be helpful for there to be clarification as to who is responsible for ensuring that a defendant is aware of his bail conditions, however the Panel was not satisfied that this case would change practice or procedure or have an impact on the wider public.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/193

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal to the House of Lords re: Secretary of State's decision to delay the review of the applicant's life sentence for a longer period than that recommended by the Parole Board. Alleged breach of Article 5(4) ECHR.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that in this particular case there is little benefit to the applicant as noted by the Court of Appeal, which said that it is "primarily of academic interest only". In addition the Panel decided that insufficient numbers would benefit from funding this case.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/194

Nature of the Case

Applicant on Sex Offenders Register on an indefinite basis. Rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Applicant currently being detained as a patient and argues that, as he will not be released until he is no longer a risk to the public, any continued registration would be disproportionate to Article 8.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that for Article 8 to be engaged, the registration (to protect members of the public) would have to be disproportionate to the applicant's rights under that article. However in this case, no evidence was before the Panel showing that the applicant is benefiting from a prescribed medical treatment and that he is no longer at risk of re-offending. The case is premature as at present the applicant's rights under Article 8 cannot be said to be violated by ongoing registration.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/195

Nature of the Case

Proposed claim by autistic applicant against the police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment and against LEA for violation of Article 3 ECHR by failure to provide a place of safety other than a police station. The applicant was arrested while behaving in an uncontrolled manner in the front garden of his carers' home.

Report of the Panel

The Panel recognised the importance of ensuring that safe and appropriate accommodation was available for children detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. If a legal challenge were to establish that detention in a police station was not acceptable and that local authorities were under an obligation to provide more appropriate facilities, that would no doubt have a significant wider public interest.

However the Panel is not persuaded that this case could achieve any such result. The wording of sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act makes it clear that a police station is a statutorily designated place of safety for these purposes. The practice therefore could not be challenged except on ECHR grounds. Whilst the Panel recognised that conditions in a police station could amount to a violation of Article 3, in the circumstances of this case it is unlikely that such a violation could be made out.

In consequence the Panel was not satisfied that this case had the potential to change practice or procedure in this field.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/196

Nature of the Case

Proposed claim in trespass to the person and battery re: treatment administered to the applicant after being entered into a clinical trial without informed consent.

Report of the Panel

The Panel sympathised with the applicant and others who had been subjected to clinical trials without informed consent. It was of the utmost importance that such practices were brought to light.

However the Panel noted that this matter had already been thoroughly investigated by the GMC. The doctor in question had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct and suspended. The Panel was unable to detect any significant wider public interest in these issues also being the subject of litigation. Indeed if proceedings were issued the likelihood was that the claim would be settled at an early stage without establishing any form of precedent.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/197

Nature of the Case

The applicant seeks to appeal the first instance judgment in his case in educational negligence and racial discrimination at school. He is seeking to appeal only the discrimination head of the claim.

Report of the Panel

Whilst the Panel recognised that the issues concerned are of major public interest, it decided that, in this particular case, those issues were unlikely to be addressed, as there are no realistic prospects of success. The findings of fact at first instance are not appealable. Moreover the judge and assessors specifically considered whether there was unconscious racism here and concluded that there was not. In light of those findings it is impossible to infer unconscious discrimination on the basis of statistical evidence. Indeed if that were the effect of the law then every such exclusion would be challengeable.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/03/202

Nature of the Case

Clinical negligence claim and claim under HRA. Alleged failure of health authority to provide appropriate care and treatment to a patient detained under the Mental Health Act.

Report of the Panel

The Panel agreed that this case raises important issues regarding the Article 3 and Article 5 rights balanced against availability of resources of an NHS Trust. The failure to provide treatment when a person is detained pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 may affect a large number of people and could set a precedent in relation to the responsibilities of any detaining authorities regarding what is reasonable and unreasonable in relation to section 3 detention. The Panel agreed that it was of great importance to determine the way in which the court will balance the Article 3 and Article 5 rights against that of limited resources of authorities when examining the effects of section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/03/208

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal to Court of Appeal of the decision of the High Court refusing an application from the applicant child to be joined as a party to an appeal from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that the judgment of the Administrative Court in this case was clear and in line with existing principles. Further, the decision was in line with the Legal Services Commission guidance on funding child applicants in education cases. The Panel considered there was no realistic prospect of the applicant's case providing any new legal principle.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

Nature of the Case

Proposed action, under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act, for enforcement of a judgment in favour of the applicant's mother for compensation for developing mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos dust, against the insurer of a company (now in liquidation).

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that given the nature of the action under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act the outcome would be dependent upon the wording of the policy in this case. Therefore, this case was unlikely to establish any point of wider principle.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/04/219

Nature of the Case

Potential action for false imprisonment and breaches of Articles 5(1) and 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights following a decision of a Magistrates Court to issue a warrant for the applicant's overnight detention for failure to pay a fine in the applicant's absence.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that this case was substantially different from that of PIAP/03/178, in that this case did not involve a mistake by the Court and this case did not primarily concern the statutory immunity of justices and their clerks from claims relating to acts or omissions carried out in the execution of duty. The facts of this case are such that it does not provide a good vehicle for a challenge to the Court's detention powers. As the applicant appeared to be aware of the hearing that led to the warrant being issued and there is no explanation of why he did not appear, an Article 6 argument was unlikely to succeed. In addition, the facts of the case would impact on the proportionality issue such that this case was unlikely to be decided in a way which would be of wider significance.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/04/220

Nature of the Case

Proposed action for unlawful detention pursuant to Article 5(1) as a result of the applicant being detained in various mental health facilities without the proper processes set out under the Mental Health Act 1983 being followed.

Report of the Panel

It was clear from the evidence provided that none of the mental health facilities in this case had considered whether the appropriate procedures had been followed in relation to the applicant. Nor had anyone considered the grounds for the applicant's continued detention, until the mistaken processes used were discovered and the applicant was sectioned.

The Panel considered this case had the potential to improve procedures in the mental health sector, particularly ensuring that the procedures set out under the Act for re?assessment following a period in the community had been followed. This was of particular importance where provision was both private and statutory. The argument in relation to the use of section 5 of the Act was also of significance.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

PIAP/04/221

Nature of the Case

The applicant is a child who was mistreated by his parents for a number of years. This is a proposed action in negligence and under section 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against a local authority for failure to take him into care earlier than they did.

Report of the Panel

The Panel considered that this case was likely to raise a complex legal point. Emerging case law appears to support the existence of a duty of care owed to the applicant in this case. This case has the potential to develop the law on this point, following on from earlier cases such as X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353 and Z v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 97.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/04/222

Nature of the Case

Proposed appeal against a judgment of the Administrative Court that in exceptional circumstances the Parole Board may resort to the use of a specially appointed advocate procedure (as provided for in special immigration proceedings involving issues of national security) in their proceedings.

Report of the Panel

This case raises two important issues of public policy. First, the extension of the use of the specially appointed advocate procedure outside its statutory context. Second, the failure of the Parole Board to extend the use of the existing Rule 5 procedure to mandatory life prisoners and instead nominate a completely new procedure for cases such as the applicant's. It would be appropriate for the procedures applicable in such cases to be considered by a higher court, if they were not to be set out clearly in legislation.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: High

PIAP/04/223

Nature of the Case

Proposed action for damages for false imprisonment and breaches of articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Report of the Panel

The Panel noted that the Prison Service may well have misinterpreted the effect of the judgment in Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom (application no: 00039665/98). It did not follow from that case that compensation should never be awarded in similar proceedings in this jurisdiction. In addition, this misinterpretation had been applied in the applicant's case and was likely to be relied on in other cases. The Panel considered that it was concerning that people who may have been unlawfully detained due to a breach of their human rights were then being universally denied compensation on the basis of a restrictive interpretation of the above case.

Conclusion

Significant wider public interest

Rating: Significant

Nature of the Case

Proposed action against a local authority under section 8 of the Funding Code in respect of protracted Children Act proceedings and a connected employment matter.

Report of the Panel

The Panel did not consider that this case was likely to develop principles of general application, as it was likely that any proceedings would fall to be determined on its own particular facts. In addition, the Panel considered that the employment matter would simply be an application of the principles set out in Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council (2000) IRLR 703.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

PIAP/04/242

Nature of the Case

Proposed action under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breaches of articles 5 and 6 by a District Judge in his handling of a bail application.

Report of the Panel

Without sight of the record of the Court's decision in this case, the Panel could see no evidence of other reasons for the decision to hold the applicant on remand (although the District Judge would presumably say that he was simply applying the 'likely to offend' exception to the Bail Act 1976). The Panel agreed that the District Judge complained of in this case was injudicious in his alleged comments. However, on the information available to the Panel there was no evidence of this being a systematic or recurring problem. It seems, therefore, that this case is unlikely to produce wider benefits to the public beyond the applicant.

In addition, the Panel considered that this case was not strong enough on the facts to be able to meet the very high threshold to obtain exemplary damages. The Panel therefore did not consider that this case would result in establishing a new remedy of exemplary damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Conclusion

No significant wider public interest

Last updated: 11 June 2008