Below is a selection of significant cases in the calendar year 2011, which may not yet have made it into the student textbooks.

MJN v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD [2011] EWHC 1192 (QB)
This case is one of the many cases which have, in recent years, involved celebrities seeking from the courts an injunction to prevent the press publishing articles about their private life from which they can be identified.

The claimant, a high-profile Welsh international footballer(!), requested an extension of an interim injunction. The injunction allowed for the publication of a ‘story’ relating to the claimant’s infidelity, but prevented the publication of any information leading to the claimant being identified as the applicant for the injunction or the person about whom the story had been written. It was recognised that the claimant’s right to respect for private and family life contained in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged. This right was to be balanced against that of freedom of expression under Article 10 for both the defendant newspaper and the other party involved in the ‘story’.  It was established that there was no strong public interest in the information in question being in the public domain. In the absence of such public interest it was held that the claimants Article 8 right outweighed that of the defendant’s Article 10 right. The injunction was granted.
MJN v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1192 (QB)

(1) TSE (2) ELP v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD [2011] EWHC 1308 (QB)
This case has strong similarities to the above case, and highlights the seeming regularity with which such injunctions are requested to be granted.

This case involves two claimants, who are claimed to have had an adulterous relationship, requesting an injunction against the defendant newspaper group preventing them from publishing anything relating to the adulterous relationship from which the two claimants could be identified. The injunction also prevented any publication that identified the claimants as requesting the injunction. Again, after the court conducted a balancing exercise of the claimants’ Article 8 right and the defendant’s Article 10 right, the injunction was granted.

The granting of injunctions and so-called super-injunctions has recently become a hot political topic and relevant legal topic; particularly since Parliamentary privilege was exercised to name the footballer in the MJN case above who had been successfully granted an injunction by the courts to prevent them being identified. Students should note here the potential implications for the principle of the separation of powers.
TSE & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd 2011] EWHC 1308 (QB)

CHRISTOPHER HUTCHESON (FORMERLY KGM) v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS [2011] EWCA Civ 808
This case is another example of an individual seeking from the courts an injunction to prevent private information being published in the newspapers.

The claimant appealed against the decision refusing him a ‘privacy’ injunction. The claimant, who was later revealed as being the Chef Gordan Ramsey’s father-in-law, sought to have information regarding a second ‘secret family’ that he had from being published.  This case involves the court balancing the competing Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) right of the claimant and the Article 10 (freedom of expression) right of the defendant. The court dismissed the appeal.
Hutcheson (Formerly Known As "KGM") v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA civ 808 (19 July 2011)

HM ATTORNEY GENERAL v (1) MGN LTD (2) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
Students may recall the much-publicised murder of Joanna Yeates, a young woman who was found dead in Bristol on 17 December 2010. Students may also recall that in the early stages of the investigation of the murder, Joanna Yeates’s landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on suspicion of her murder. Whilst Mr Jefferies was under arrest articles had been published by the defendant newspaper groups which contained information that was considered, by the Attorney General, to amount to contempt of court under s 2(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981. The stories were said to create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the relevant proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

An interesting aspect of this case is that, in reality, Mr Jefferies has not and will never be tried for the murder. However, the court made clear that this fact is irrelevant, as, at the time when the articles in question were published, Mr Jefferies was under arrest and therefore the provisions of the 1981 Act were engaged.

It was recognised that the newspaper groups’ right of freedom of expression under Article 10 is not an absolute right and may be restricted ‘...for the protection of the reputation or rights of others....or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’ (Article 10(2)). The judiciary for these purposes included the jury. 
It was held that the newspaper articles did amount to a contempt of court for the purposes of the 1981 Act.
HM Attorney-General v MGN Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)

R (on the application of S) (Claimant) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Defendant) & (1) GEO GROUP LTD (2) DRUMMONDS MEDICAL LTD (3) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE (4) CENTRAL & NORTH WEST LONDON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (Interested Parties) [2011] EWHC 2120 (Admin)
The claimant, an Indian national who was an illegal immigrant in the United Kingdom and also suffered from mental health problems, sought to have the decision of the defendant to detain him and to have him deport judicially reviewed. He sought damages for false imprisonment and compensation for violation of his human rights as protected under articles 3, 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This case deals with whether the detention of the claimant was unlawful and whether there had been any breaches of the claimant’s Convention rights.

It was held that the detention of the claimant was unlawful from the outset due to the failure of the defendant to notify the claimant of the deportation order against him before detaining him; this was held to amount to a breach of Article 5 of the ECHR.  It was also stated that, even if the initial detention of the claimant was held not to be unlawful, the subsequent detention was unlawful due to the misapplication of the defendant’s policy on the detention of mentally ill individuals. It was also held that whilst the claimant was detained there had been a breach of his Article 3 right as he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
S, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2120 (Admin)

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP & 5 ORS v BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch)
Although this case predominantly deals with intellectual property law issues there are also relevant human rights issues. The applicants (six film studios) applied to the court for an injunction to be granted against British Telecommunications plc (BT) that would require BT to prevent or at least attempt to prevent its customers from accessing a website that provided access to pirated films. BT argued, amongst other things, that an injunction of this kind, if granted, would constitute a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as such an injunction is not ‘prescribed by law’.
It was held that the injunction sought by the applicants was in fact one that was prescribed by law and for this reason as well as other reasons, the injunction was granted.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch)

R (on the application of IAIN COCKBURN) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH [2011] EWHC 2095 (Admin)
The claimant in this case is the widower of a General Practitioner who was a member of the National Health Service Pension Scheme. Upon the death of the claimant’s wife, the claimant became entitled to his wife’s pension under the aforementioned Pension Scheme. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision that he, as a male widower, was entitled to less than he would have been entitled to had he been a woman. It was recognised that the claimant’s entitlement to his deceased wife’s pension fell within the ambit of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was alleged that the fact that he was entitled to less of his wife’s pension was gender discriminatory and therefore contrary to Article 14.
It was held that there was no breach of Article 14 as there was an objective and reasonable justification for the differential treatment.
Cockburn, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 2095 (Admin)

R (on the application of (1) EUNICE JOHNS (2) OWEN JOHNS) (Claimants) v DERBY CITY COUNCIL (Defendant) & EQUALITY & HUMANRIGHTS COMMISSION (Intervener) [2011] EWHC 375 (Admin)
The claimants sought to acquire permission from the Court to judicially review the defendant’s handling of the claimant’s application to become short-term, respite, foster carers. The claimants held strong religious views, some of which had a homophobic element. The claimant’s sought the application process to be judicially reviewed at common law on the grounds that: the defendant had taken into account an irrelevant consideration, i.e. their religious beliefs when deciding whether or not to allow the claimants to become foster parents and to exclude the claimants from being foster parents on grounds of their religious beliefs was Wednesbury unreasonable.
The claimant’s also sought to have the application process judicially reviewed on Human Rights grounds as they argued that refusal to allow them to become foster carers on the ground of their beliefs was religious discrimination contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The claimant’s were not granted permission to have the application process judicially reviewed. The key reason for refusing to grant such permission stems from the fact that there was no decision that could be judicially reviewed. The defendant’s had not decided upon whether or not to allow the claimants to become foster parents, they had simply delayed the decision. The application process was found not to be contrary to Article 9, as if the claimants were to be refused permission to become foster parents, it would be due to the homophobic nature of their views and not the fact that such views were religious in nature. It was also stated, however, that the religious beliefs of prospective foster parents was a relevant consideration.
Johns & Anor, R (on the application of) v Derby City Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 375 (Admin)

SYLVIA HENRY v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD [2011] EWHC 296 (QB)
Students may recall the appalling case of Baby P, a toddler who was murdered by his primary carers. There was much public outcry as to how this could have happened and of the failings of the local authority in this case.
The claimant, a senior social worker employed by the relevant local authority, who was responsible for Baby P for a significant period of time, brought an action for libel against the defendant. This case concerns an application by the defendant’s for disclosure of information held by a third party. The law providing the courts with the power to demand disclosure of such documents is found in rule 31.17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In considering the disclosure of such information competing human rights were considered. These rights were the Article 8 right of the claimant and the Article 10 rights of the defendant.
It was held that disclosure of the requested documents was necessary in order to ensure that the libel claim could be disposed of fairly.
Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 296 (QB)

R (on the application of (1) JOSHUA MOOS (2) HANNAH MCCLURE) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin)
Students may remember that in April 2009 there were two protests in the City of London against the G20 summit, one of which was a violent demonstration, the other being a much more peaceful demonstration (the Climate Camp). This case involves the judicial review of the decision of the police to contain the ‘Climate Camp’ demonstration. It is claimed that such containment was unnecessary and unlawful.
It was accepted that for such containment to be lawful the police had to reasonably apprehend an imminent breach of peace. If not then such containment would constitute an unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was held that the police containment of the Climate Camp was unlawful.
Moos & Anor, R (on the application of) v Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin)

MAYOR OF LONDON (ON BEHALF OF THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY) v (1) BRIAN HAW (2) BARBARA TUCKER (3) CHARITY SWEET [2011] EWHC 585 (QB)
This case concerns the peaceful protestors who have based themselves on a pavement on the east side of Parliament Square Gardens in London for several years. The applicant sought the court to determine whether or not it was proportionate to make a possession order or grant an injunction against the first and second defendants, preventing them from ‘camping’ on the pavement in Parliament Square Gardens. Such measures would clearly interfere with the defendants Article 10 and 11 rights. However, these rights are not absolute and could be restricted provided such restriction was a proportionate one to achieve a legitimate aim.
It was held that such measures as requested by the applicant were proportionate and they were granted.
The first defendant, Brian Haw, who had been protesting at Parliament Square Gardens since 2001 and who is perhaps the most well-known of the protestors has subsequently passed away.
The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors [2011] EWHC 585 (QB)

R (on the application of C) (Appellant) v BERKSHIRE WEST PRIMARY CARE TRUST (Respondent) & EQUALITY & HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (Intervener) [2011] EWCA Civ 247
The claimant, an individual diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, appealed against the dismissal of the claimant’s application to have the decision of the defendant not to fund her breast augmentation surgery judicially reviewed. The claimant’s grounds for judicial review focussed predominantly upon the lawfulness of the policies adopted by the defendant in relation to the funding of breast augmentation surgery.
It was held that the defendant’s policies were lawful and that the defendant was entitled to refuse to fund the breast augmentation surgery in accordance with its policy. The claimant’s appeal was therefore dismissed.
AC, R (on the application of) v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 247

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v CD [2011] EWHC 2087 (Admin)
The appellant in this case challenged the decision of the respondent to enforce a control order upon him in accordance with Section 3(10) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. There were three issues identified in relation to the section 3 control order: whether the appellant had been informed to a sufficient degree of the allegations against him so as to enable him to effectively instruct his legal representatives in accordance with Article 6 (right to a fair trial); whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting the appellant; and whether enforcing a control order was necessary.
It was held that Article 6 had been adhered to, and that there were both reasonable grounds for suspecting the appellant and that the enforcement of the control order was necessary. The appellant’s challenge to the enforcement of the order therefore failed.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v CD [2011] EWHC 2087 (Admin)

SCOTT HAYES v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF MERSEYSIDE [2011] EWCA Civ 911
The appellant appealed against a decision that he had not been wrongfully arrested or detained in accordance with the section 24 and 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The court stated that the correct test for arrest under section 24 of PACE is that the officer carrying out the arrest must have reasonable grounds for believing that it was necessary to arrest in accordance with the 1984 Act. The case clarifies that this requires an honest actual belief on the part of the officer, and this belief must be objectively justified as being reasonable based upon the facts that were known to the officer at the time of arrest.
This test was held to have been satisfied and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
Hayes v Merseyside Police [2011] EWCA Civ 911

R (on the application of ELAINE MCDONALD) v KENSINGTON & CHELSEA ROYAL LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL [2011] UKSC 33
The appellant in this case was an individual with limited mobility and who suffered from a bladder problem, which caused her to need to urinate several times during the night. The appellant had previously been provided with a night-time carer by the respondent. The provision of night care was reassessed by the respondent and they suggested to the appellant that instead of being provided with a night-time carer that the appellant should, during the night-time use incontinence pads or special sheeting, thereby providing the appellant with more independence and substantially decreasing the financial burden that the provision of such care placed upon the respondent. The appellant appealed against the unsuccessful judicial review of the respondent’s decision.
One of the issues raised on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the substitution of a night-time carer for incontinence pads constituted a breach of the appellants Article 8 right. It was held that the decision of the respondents did not interfere with the Article 8 right of the appellant, and even if there was interference, then such interference could be justified.
The appeal was dismissed. (Students should note that Lady Hale provides a strong dissenting judgment in this case.) 
McDonald, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33

MUNIM ABDUL & ORS v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin)
The appellants appealed against their convictions under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The appellants were convicted of the offence because at a parade organised to welcome home troops who had been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, they chanted abusive slogans at the troops and held offensive placards. One of the key issues on appeal was whether the first instance judge should have given full consideration to Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The relationship between section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Article 10 was considered and discussed. It was held that there was no evidence to suggest that the judge did not consider Article 10 in relation to section 5 of the 1986 Act. The appeal was dismissed.
Abdul & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin)

FAITH STEWART v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS [2011] EWCA Civ 907
The appellant appealed against the decision holding that she was not entitled to receive social security benefits for the purpose of paying for funeral expenses. The appellant was a prisoner whose son had died whilst she was incarcerated. It was accepted that both Article 1 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were engaged in this case. The key issue in the appeal was whether the refusal, on the grounds that the appellant was a prisoner, amounted to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention.
It was held that the funeral payment scheme was indirectly discriminatory towards prisoners as it was more difficult for prisoners to qualify for the payment scheme than it was for others. However, it was held that this indirect discrimination was justified. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 907