R (Gentle and another) v Prime Minister and Others

The claimants, mothers of two British soldiers killed in Iraq, sought a public inquiry into the circumstances which led to the invasion of that country and their sons' deaths – particularly the circumstances in which the Attorney General had changed his opinion on the invasion's legality and advised that it would be lawful under international law... Read on

Corruption versus National Security: what role for the Rule of Law?

The December 2006 decision to discontinue the corruption probe into BAE Systems Plc over the Al Yamamah arms contract plunged the Serious Fraud Office into political controversy. However, whilst the recent House of Lords judgment upholding the decision may help bring the political fallout to an end, the legal fallout has only just begun. Read on

Procedural fairness & drug approvals

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) had changed its guidance on the recommended use of certain forms of drug treatment for Alzheimer’s disease in 2006; this led to the drugs being restricted to those with moderately severe symptoms of the disease. Eisai Ltd held the UK marketing authorisation for one such drug and sought to challenge the 2006 guidance. Read on

Case Notes

M was an HIV positive asylum seeker who needed medication, regular medical checks and a fridge in which to keep his medication. He had no accommodation. Their Lordships held that a need for accommodation, for subsistence and for medical care, was not a ‘need for care and attention’. To need care and attention a person must need someone to look after him, doing something for him which he cannot or should not be expected to do himself. This need must exist before a local social services authority is obliged to provide him with residential accommodation. Their Lordships disapproved passages in the 1996 Court of Appeal decision in ex p M, on which persons subject to immigration control had previously relied to obtain local authority accommodation. The decision also identifies the respective responsibilities of the NHS, local social services authorities and local housing authorities. John Howell QC represented Slough Borough Council; David Pannick QC represented M.

Case Notes (2)

In Van Colle, the House reaffirmed the ECHR decision in Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245, that there will be a breach of Article 2 ECHR if the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to an identified individual’s life from another’s criminal acts and they failed to take measures which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk. However, in Smith, the House held (Lord Bingham dissenting) that the police do not owe a common law duty of care to protect individuals from harm caused by criminals, reaffirming the principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 that this would cause ‘defensive policing’ and divert police resources from combating crime. Monica Carss-Frisk QC and Iain Steele acted for the claimants in Van Colle. Dinah Rose QC acted for INQUEST, JUSTICE, Liberty and Mind.