This is the second of two posts on the case from the European Court of Human Rights, Shalyavski v Bulgaria (App no. 67608/11) 15.6.17, concerning breaches of Articles 3 and 8. This second one concerns a finding that the police’s visiting of a person’s home whist they were under house arrest, sometimes up to five times a day, was not a breach of Articles 3 or 8.
This is the first of two posts on the case from the European Court of Human Rights, Shalyavski v Bulgaria [2017] ECHR 564; (App no. 67608/11) 15.6.17, concerning breaches of Articles 3 and 8. This first one concerns damages for (arguably) detention contrary to Article 3. Where a disabled person, unable to mobilise himself, was kept by the police in a car for between eleven and twelve hours as a result of the arrest of his carer, this amounted to a breach of Article 3. Monetary damages were awarded but were typically modest.
The courts have given another judgment, Ahmed v Crown Prosecution Service [2017] EWHC 1272 (Admin), which helps the police in considering what actions fall within the execution of their duty. In short, where a police officer genuinely and reasonably believes that they are authorised by a court order to arrest a person for breach of an injunction and that the person is in breach of it, they will be acting in the course of their duty if they arrest that person. Even where there is no valid injunction. Sort of. The case is not available on Bailii – possibly because it was given ex tempore. It is on Lawtel and Westlaw.
The David Hare screenplay for the recent film Denial contains the following advice to the client: ‘stay seated, button your lip, and win.’ This article seeks to plot a path for advocates to winning in large scale discrimination claims in the employment tribunal, based on the writer’s long experience of the ET and, more recently, briefs to act for the respondents in two high stakes cases, AB v A Chief Constable[1]and Aubrey v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police[2]. The suggested lessons apply to all types of large-scale claim in the ET.
The debate on whether there is a difference between honesty and integrity continues apace in Rhys Williams v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin). I expressed my opinion here that there was a material difference between the two and that the decision of Mostyn J in Malins v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin), that the two were synonymous, was not correct – at least for the purposes of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. The Divisional Court (the President of the QBD presiding) has now similarly deprecated it.
The court has also restated the principles concerning the requirement that misconduct allegations be properly pleaded and put to witnesses – with a steer that panels should look to the substance rather than technicalities.