754:"I have already said I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not matter whether it is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years. It would cost some £300 million to change the policy for all concerned ...". Lord Justice Laws concluded that the UK Government would not need to create new bilateral agreements in order to uprate the State Pension universally. However, giving the "annual uprating", or taking it away is entirely a rightful decision by the UK Government. Based on literature produced by the
356:
779:
persons entitled to pensions who remain in the country of payment compared with those who emigrate is justified on the grounds that the applicant will only lose the benefit of future increases in the pension, whose purpose broadly speaking is to compensate for rises in the cost of living in the United
Kingdom and which the applicant will not have to endure (Dec. No. 9776/82, loc. cit.). The Commission also considers that the economic state of third countries is not a matter which domestic pension authorities should be obliged to consider.
34:
298:. Carson claimed that under Article 1 her state pension, or alternatively its uprating, are "pecuniary rights", and therefore “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 14. In her original case, Justice Burnton had found in favour of the UK Government, citing that the judiciary should not override legislative UK government policy.
1000:
19:
310:. Reynolds was paid the lesser of the two amounts and therefore was taking civil action against the UK Government saying that the UK Government's action was incompatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention; and under Article 14 of the convention she claimed she was being discriminated against because of her age; and under
736:
Zealand (1956) and Canada (1959), they did not include the uprating of the UK state pension. Australia cancelled its agreement with the UK in 2001 because the UK Government would not uprate the State
Pension for those UK pensioners who had emigrated to Australia. This was not an issue when the UK joined the
703:
beyond the powers of this
Regulation in violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 1P because it discriminated against Carson on grounds of her "place of residence" without any "objective and reasonable justification". The Regulation also constituted a violation of Article 1P taken on its own.
735:
The UK only uprates the state pension where there is a legal liability to do so - this includes all UK pensioners living in the UK, the EEA, and a number of other countries where there are bilateral social security agreements in place, Whilst there are bilateral agreements with
Australia (1953), New
706:
The UK Government claimed that, in the original hearing, Justice
Burnton should have dismissed the case from the beginning, since there was certain evidence that should not have been introduced in regard to Article 1: "a signatory State is only obliged to secure the Convention rights for the benefit
325:
Reynolds could not return to work so instead of receiving the Job Seeker's
Allowance she received Income Support which continued to be paid to her. She was under 25 at the time and lived in social housing. She received £41.35 a week and if she was over 25 she would have received £52.20 per week. The
305:
Contributions. On 24 October 2000 she applied for
Jobseeker's Allowance and it was paid with effect from that date. There are two different types of Jobseeker's Allowance - “JSA(C)” which is based on National Insurance Contributions paid over a prescribed minimum period and is not means-tested - the
722:
Looking at
Article 14 on its own, Carson was asked if they could find a similar cohort of pensioners to her where they were given the annual uprating and thereby showing that she was being discriminated against. Carson identified two such groups: - namely, pensioners, who like Carson lived abroad,
702:
Carson contended that
Regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefits Uprating Regulation was "repugnant" to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1P because it discriminated against her based on the fact that she had relocated to South Africa for work purposes. In addition, it was
710:
The UK Government stated that it would cost at least a £100 million to uprate the state pension universally, that this would have to come out of general taxation, and would deprive pensioners living in the UK from future increases because there would be no funds available which the court accepted.
730:
Successive
Governments have taken the view that the level of increases in retirement pensions relates to conditions in the UK and that it would not be right to impose an additional burden on contributors and taxpayers in the UK in order to pay pension increases to people who have chosen to become
792:
With regard to Article 14 read with Article 8, Lord Justice Laws believed that no argument could be made to support Reynolds' claim when taking these two Articles together. The next question he considered was whether Income Support was a "possession" with regard to Article 1P for the purpose of
778:
The Commission has held that the 'freezing' of a pension at a particular level when a person leaves the United Kingdom does not amount to a deprivation of possessions infringing Article 1 of the Protocol. (Dec. No. 9776/82, 10.83 to be published in D.R. 34). Moreover, the different treatment of
814:
The UK Government argued that Article 1P only applies to a person's existing possessions, and that it does not include the right to "acquire" possessions at a future date. In addition they also contended, that the amount of the benefit "cannot constitute an interference with the right given by
788:
Reynolds had been given leave to appeal on a limited basis. There were no grounds to support her case regarding Articles 3, 8 or Article 1P, but taking Article 14 with Article 1P, she may have a supportable case for arbitrary discrimination. . Justice Laws determined that "income support" did
714:
Lord Justice Laws concluded that Article 1P on its own, had not been violated. , and in his opinion the most important aspect was whether Article 14 read with Article 1P was violated. He concluded, based on the facts of the case, that he could not see how any exercise of Article 1P right was
731:
resident elsewhere in the world....motions to pay the annual uprating to Carson (and others in her position) were submitted to both Houses of Parliament in June and July 1995 during the passage of the Pensions Bill, which called for uprating to be paid. All were defeated by large majorities.
765:
In some circumstances it will be appropriate for the courts to recognize that there is an area of judgment within which the judiciary will defer, on democratic grounds, to the considered opinion of the elected body or person whose act or decision is said to be incompatible with the
1475:
799:
Lord Justice Laws then determined that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken with Article 1P but only as far as the Job Seekers Allowance" was concerned. With respect to "income support", there was no violation.
718:
Lord Justice Laws then considered Article 14 read with Article 1 of the First Protocol, with regard to Carson's "place of residence", and in that aspect, he was not convinced that there was any discrimination at all.
1012:
216:
822:
If Carson was not discriminated based on her "place of residence" and Reynolds was not discriminated against based on her age, was there an objective and reasonable justification for such discrimination?
326:
UK Government said that 18- to 24-year-olds earn less and mostly do not live independently. They should be discouraged from living independently and there is welfare support for this group in other ways.
803:
Lord Justice Laws dismissed Reynold's appeal because "in my view, the Secretary of State has demonstrated a perfectly reasonable justification for the differential payments of Job Seeker's Allowance."
1485:
1480:
250:
case on "right to property" under Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) and Article 14 of the convention (Prohibition of Discrimination). In Reynolds's case, there was also
1182:
1490:
1018:
301:
Reynolds was born on 9 November 1976. When she left school she began work and continued to work until she was made redundant on 12 October 2000. Whilst she was working she paid
315:
311:
251:
605:
270:(ECHR) and that she and many others were being discriminated against. She had found that the annual increase to the UK State Pension is payable in countries like the UK, the
826:
Lord Justice Rix agreed with Lord Justice Laws, in dismissing both appeals, as did Lord Justice Brown, and leave was not given to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
211:
EWCA Civ 797 was heard in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the Supreme Court on 17 June 2003 before Lord Justice Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lord Justice Rix.
740:
since bilateral agreements were in place for all of the EEC countries except Denmark. These bilateral agreements did facilitate the uprating of the UK State Pension.
464:
553:
136:
1030:
1024:
758:, Carson had no right to expect her State Pension to be uprated, given her decision to relocate to South Africa for work purposes. Lord Justice Laws referred to
755:
723:
but in countries where the annual uprating was being paid, and pensioners living in the UK, all of whom are paid the annual uprating to their UK state pension.
382:
684:
707:
of persons residing within its territorial jurisdiction". However, Justice Burnton had stated that Article 1 did not operate so as to bar Carson's claim.
1510:
570:
536:
524:
437:
425:
1525:
1520:
1500:
229:
1530:
1505:
519:
410:
796:
Lord Justice Laws then considered Article 14 read with Article 1 of the First Protocol, with regard to Reynolds's claim of age discrimination
600:
811:
In Lord Justice Law's opinion with both of the appeals, the most important aspect was whether Article 14 read with Article 1P was violated.
541:
514:
452:
415:
370:
509:
405:
267:
63:
51:
47:
558:
677:
642:
580:
481:
459:
442:
263:
67:
635:
20:
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
1495:
1273:"COURT (PLENARY) CASE OF ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/81)"
575:
474:
319:
190:
815:
Article1P, rather it merely defines the property right". This position has been consistently supported by the courts in the
1535:
1515:
1146:
469:
447:
228:, from the Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales before
737:
670:
339:
220:, from the Administration Court of the Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales before
116:
1291:"CASE "RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS)"
314:(respect for her private life and her home); and finally her right not to be subjected to degrading treatment under
630:
610:
266:
to pay the annual inflationary increase to the UK State Pension in some countries but not others contravened the
1164:
1132:
Reynolds, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWHC 426 (Admin)
180:
104:
1345:"Wallbank & Anor v Parochial Church Council Of Aston Cantlow & Wilmcote With Billesley, Warwickshire"
1200:
279:
491:
271:
743:
Lord Justice Laws conceded that the current situation was "haphazard", quoting statements made by the UK
531:
432:
247:
100:
307:
195:
486:
420:
652:
302:
387:
744:
167:
140:
563:
33:
1130:
1113:"Carson & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797"
375:
221:
1398:
711:
However, Carson contended that "cost should not constitute a legitimate justification".
1380:
1344:
1112:
995:
816:
236:
185:
172:
120:
1469:
275:
243:
214:
Two separate High Court cases were brought together for the purposes of this appeal:
1453:"Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Kebeline (aks Kebilene) and Others, R v."
1452:
1416:
1362:
1326:
1308:
1254:
1236:
793:
Article 14. , and he concluded that Article 1P on its own, had not been violated.
295:
1434:
1290:
1272:
1218:
1417:"ProLife Alliance, R (on the application of) v. British Broadcasting Corporation"
747:
548:
347:
291:
144:
647:
283:
829:
On 17 July 2003, Carson was given leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
920:
R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment
1476:
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights
287:
1006:
R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
1399:"Antonio Mendoza v AHMad Raja Ghaidan [2002] EWCA Civ 1533"
1013:
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Another
774:(Application No. 11271/84, decision of 17 May 1985, unpublished):
217:
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Another
1237:"CASE OF CHAPMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 27238/95)"
254:– the right to respect for "private and family life" to consider.
1183:"Countries where we pay an annual increase in the State Pension"
1147:"Protocol 1 Article 1 - Right to peaceful enjoyment of property"
770:
Lord Justice Laws dismissed Carson's appeal, and he quoted from
1327:"Alconbury [2001] UKHL 23; [2001] 2 All ER 929"
789:
constitute a "possession" as far as Article 1P was concerned.
208:
Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
27:
Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
1045:
278:, for example), whilst not being payable in predominantly
226:
R (Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
944:
Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention
1486:
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
1219:"CASE OF MARCKX v. BELGIUM (Application no. 6833/74)"
1019:
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
1002:
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
870:(October 1997: Applications 27004/95 and 27011/95);
1481:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
1363:"CASE OF STUBBINGS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM"
158:
150:
132:
127:
112:
95:
90:
75:
57:
43:
26:
1435:"JAMES AND OTHERS v THE UNITED KINGDOM - 8793/79"
1255:"CASE OF PETROVIC v. AUSTRIA (156/1996/775/976)"
1201:"Carson given Leave of Appeal to House of Lords"
776:
752:
728:
726:The UK Government's position had always been:
274:(EEA) and a number of disparate countries (the
1031:Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (2010)
1025:Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (2008)
1491:International Labour Organization conventions
678:
8:
177:Right to respect for private and family life
154:All three Judges concurred with the decision
1309:"CASE OF BOTTA v. ITALY (153/1996/772/973)"
1107:
1105:
1103:
1101:
1099:
1097:
1095:
1093:
1091:
1089:
1087:
1085:
1083:
1081:
934:(Applications Nos 27004/95 and 27011/95);
878:(December 1997: Application No 27537/95);
715:involved such as might engage Article 14.
1079:
1077:
1075:
1073:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1065:
1063:
1061:
685:
671:
383:His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service
333:
32:
23:
262:Carson contended that the failure of the
62:Carson and Reynolds (Claimants) and The
1057:
940:Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth
938:1 EHRR 578, 590 – 591 (paragraph 38);
874:(June 2002: Application No 36042/97);
346:
581:Justice of the peace / lay magistrates
306:other “JSA(IB)” is income-based and a
835:3 All ER 577, HRLR 36, EWCA Civ 797
7:
337:This article is part of the series:
235:The two litigants in this case were
906:(1998) 26 EHRR 241, paragraph 34;
510:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
406:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
268:European Convention on Human Rights
1165:"Article 14 - Anti-Discrimination"
914:(2000: Application No 40302/98);
910:(2000: Application No 33916/91);
898:(1985) 7 EHRR 471, paragraph 67;
318:(the prohibition of torture, and "
222:The Honourable Mr. Justice Burnton
14:
1171:. 1 Crown Office Row barristers'.
1153:. 1 Crown Office Row barristers'.
926:(2000) Application No 43440/98;
918:(2000: Application No 4851/99);
886:(1987) Application No 12639/87;
123:- Opinions of the Lords of Appeal
1511:United Kingdom equality case law
1381:"Nasser v United Bank Of Kuwait"
1187:Department for Work and Pensions
928:Wessels-Bergervoet v Netherlands
643:Law Society of England and Wales
443:President of the Family Division
354:
68:Department for Work and Pensions
1526:2003 in United Kingdom case law
1521:2002 in United Kingdom case law
1501:1998 in United Kingdom case law
958:EWCA Civ 556 at , 1 AER 401;
606:Director of Public Prosecutions
1531:Pensions in the United Kingdom
1506:United Kingdom labour case law
956:Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait
888:Anderson and Kullmann v Sweden
320:inhuman or degrading treatment
1:
1021:– House of Lords appeal, 2005
930:(Application No 34462/97));
537:President of the King's Bench
438:President of the King's Bench
173:Prohibition of discrimination
470:County Court Business Centre
448:Chancellor of the High Court
942:1 WLR 617 (paragraph 20);
894:33 EHRR 14, paragraph 26;
862:(Application No 11271/84;
858:(Application No 9776/82);
854:(Application No 7459/76);
465:List of County Court venues
340:Courts of England and Wales
1552:
1015:– High Court hearing, 2002
954:(1996) 23 EHRR 213, 238;
952:Stubbings v United Kingdom
932:Szrabjer & Clarke v UK
900:Belgian Linguistics (No 2)
554:List of Crown Court venues
17:
902:(1968) 1 EHRR 252, 283;
611:Crown Prosecution Service
163:
31:
948:Aston Cantlow v Wallbank
936:Belgian Police v Belgium
896:Abdulaziz & ors v UK
868:Szrabjer and Clarke v UK
348:Law of England and Wales
137:Lord Justice Simon Brown
50:(Civil Division) in the
1135:. BAILII. 7 March 2002.
984:R v DPP, ex p. Kebilene
976:Sporrong & Lonnroth
772:Corner v United Kingdom
760:R v DPP, ex p. Kebilene
400:Civil and family courts
79:June 17, 2003
1205:House of Lords Hansard
908:Walden v Liechtenstein
781:
768:
733:
280:Commonwealth countries
272:European Economic Area
105:Queen's Bench Division
1496:Human rights case law
866:(1996) 23 EHRR 364;
750:on 13 November 2000:
532:High Court of Justice
525:Court of Appeal judge
433:High Court of Justice
426:Court of Appeal judge
312:Article 8 of the ECHR
248:Human Rights Act 1998
239:and Joanne Reynolds.
181:Jobseeker's Allowance
101:High Court of Justice
1536:Frozen state pension
1516:House of Lords cases
1169:UK Human Rights Blog
1151:UK Human Rights Blog
982:(1986) 8 EHRR 123;
882:(2001) 33 EHRR 18;
595:Criminal prosecution
308:Means-tested benefit
196:Frozen State Pension
108:Administrative Court
1441:. 21 February 1986.
1315:. 24 February 1998.
1046:Official Transcript
1033:– ECHR appeal, 2010
1027:– ECHR appeal, 2008
978:(1982) 5 EHRR 35;
807:Carson and Reynolds
571:Magistrates' courts
487:Court of Protection
421:Master of the Rolls
371:Ministry of Justice
1458:. 28 October 1999.
1405:. 5 November 2002.
1369:. 22 October 1996.
1243:. 18 January 2001.
924:Jankovic v Croatia
892:Petrovic v Austria
864:Gaygusuz v Austria
653:Solicitor advocate
520:Lord Chief Justice
303:National Insurance
230:Mr. Justice Wilson
64:Secretary of State
850:(1975) 3 DR 25;
745:Minister of State
695:
694:
492:Court of Chivalry
322:or punishment").
316:Article 3 of ECHR
204:
203:
168:Right to property
141:Lord Justice Laws
1543:
1460:
1459:
1449:
1443:
1442:
1431:
1425:
1424:
1423:. 10 April 2003.
1413:
1407:
1406:
1395:
1389:
1388:
1387:. 11 April 2001.
1377:
1371:
1370:
1359:
1353:
1352:
1341:
1335:
1334:
1323:
1317:
1316:
1305:
1299:
1298:
1287:
1281:
1280:
1269:
1263:
1262:
1261:. 27 March 1998.
1251:
1245:
1244:
1233:
1227:
1226:
1215:
1209:
1208:
1197:
1191:
1190:
1179:
1173:
1172:
1161:
1155:
1154:
1143:
1137:
1136:
1127:
1121:
1120:
1109:
970:EWCA Civ 1533;
844:Marckx v Belgium
687:
680:
673:
625:Legal profession
601:Attorney General
542:High Court judge
453:High Court judge
358:
357:
334:
242:This case was a
145:Lord Justice Rix
86:
84:
38:UK Supreme Court
36:
24:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1297:. 23 July 1968.
1289:
1288:
1284:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1225:. 13 June 1979.
1217:
1216:
1212:
1207:. 17 July 2003.
1199:
1198:
1194:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1119:. 17 June 2003.
1111:
1110:
1059:
1054:
1042:
1009:– Case summary
992:
990:Further reading
841:
809:
786:
700:
691:
662:
661:
626:
618:
617:
596:
588:
587:
515:Court of Appeal
505:
504:Criminal courts
497:
496:
416:Court of Appeal
401:
393:
392:
388:Judges' Council
376:Lord Chancellor
366:
355:
332:
260:
200:
117:Lords of Appeal
107:
103:
82:
80:
48:Court of Appeal
39:
22:
12:
11:
5:
1549:
1547:
1539:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1518:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1483:
1478:
1468:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1444:
1426:
1408:
1390:
1372:
1354:
1351:. 17 May 2001.
1336:
1318:
1300:
1282:
1279:. 28 May 1995.
1264:
1246:
1228:
1210:
1192:
1189:. 9 June 2014.
1174:
1156:
1138:
1122:
1056:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1041:
1040:External links
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1028:
1022:
1016:
998:
996:Annette Carson
991:
988:
962:13 EHRR 801;
856:JW and EW v UK
840:
837:
817:European Union
808:
805:
785:
782:
699:
696:
693:
692:
690:
689:
682:
675:
667:
664:
663:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
640:
639:
638:
627:
624:
623:
620:
619:
616:
615:
614:
613:
603:
597:
594:
593:
590:
589:
586:
585:
584:
583:
578:
576:District judge
568:
567:
566:
561:
556:
546:
545:
544:
539:
529:
528:
527:
522:
512:
506:
503:
502:
499:
498:
495:
494:
489:
484:
479:
478:
477:
475:District judge
472:
467:
457:
456:
455:
450:
445:
440:
430:
429:
428:
423:
413:
408:
402:
399:
398:
395:
394:
391:
390:
385:
380:
379:
378:
367:
365:Administration
364:
363:
360:
359:
351:
350:
344:
343:
331:
328:
259:
256:
237:Annette Carson
202:
201:
199:
198:
193:
188:
186:Income Support
183:
178:
175:
170:
164:
161:
160:
156:
155:
152:
148:
147:
134:
130:
129:
125:
124:
121:House of Lords
114:
110:
109:
97:
93:
92:
88:
87:
77:
73:
72:
59:
58:Full case name
55:
54:
45:
41:
40:
37:
29:
28:
18:Main article:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1548:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1471:
1457:
1454:
1448:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1430:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1412:
1409:
1404:
1400:
1394:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1376:
1373:
1368:
1364:
1358:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1340:
1337:
1333:. 9 May 2001.
1332:
1328:
1322:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1286:
1283:
1278:
1274:
1268:
1265:
1260:
1256:
1250:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1232:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1214:
1211:
1206:
1202:
1196:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1178:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1134:
1133:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1108:
1106:
1104:
1102:
1100:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1092:
1090:
1088:
1086:
1084:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1072:
1070:
1068:
1066:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
997:
994:
993:
989:
987:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:2 WLR 1389;
921:
917:
916:Shackell v UK
913:
912:Matthews v UK
909:
905:
904:Botta v Italy
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
846:2 EHRR 330;
845:
838:
836:
834:
830:
827:
824:
820:
818:
812:
806:
804:
801:
797:
794:
790:
783:
780:
775:
773:
767:
763:
761:
757:
751:
749:
746:
741:
739:
732:
727:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
697:
688:
683:
681:
676:
674:
669:
668:
666:
665:
654:
651:
650:
649:
646:
645:
644:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
629:
628:
622:
621:
612:
609:
608:
607:
604:
602:
599:
598:
592:
591:
582:
579:
577:
574:
573:
572:
569:
565:
562:
560:
559:Circuit judge
557:
555:
552:
551:
550:
547:
543:
540:
538:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
523:
521:
518:
517:
516:
513:
511:
508:
507:
501:
500:
493:
490:
488:
485:
483:
480:
476:
473:
471:
468:
466:
463:
462:
461:
458:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
424:
422:
419:
418:
417:
414:
412:
411:Privy Council
409:
407:
404:
403:
397:
396:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
374:
373:
372:
369:
368:
362:
361:
353:
352:
349:
345:
342:
341:
336:
335:
329:
327:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
299:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:United States
273:
269:
265:
264:UK Government
257:
255:
253:
249:
245:
244:UK labour law
240:
238:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
212:
210:
209:
197:
194:
192:
191:State Pension
189:
187:
184:
182:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
165:
162:
157:
153:
149:
146:
142:
138:
135:
131:
128:Case opinions
126:
122:
118:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
96:Appealed from
94:
89:
78:
74:
71:
70:(Respondent)
69:
65:
60:
56:
53:
52:Supreme Court
49:
46:
42:
35:
30:
25:
21:
16:
1455:
1447:
1438:
1429:
1420:
1411:
1402:
1393:
1384:
1375:
1366:
1357:
1348:
1339:
1330:
1321:
1312:
1303:
1294:
1285:
1276:
1267:
1258:
1249:
1240:
1231:
1222:
1213:
1204:
1195:
1186:
1177:
1168:
1159:
1150:
1141:
1131:
1125:
1116:
1005:
1001:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:46 DR 251;
887:
884:Vaughan v UK
883:
880:Chapman v UK
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
842:
832:
831:
828:
825:
821:
813:
810:
802:
798:
795:
791:
787:
777:
771:
769:
764:
759:
753:
742:
734:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
482:Family Court
460:County Court
338:
324:
300:
296:South Africa
261:
241:
234:
225:
215:
213:
207:
206:
205:
91:Case history
61:
15:
876:Carlin v UK
872:Willis v UK
766:Convention.
748:Jeff Rooker
631:Bar Council
549:Crown Court
292:New Zealand
151:Concurrence
133:Decision by
113:Appealed to
1470:Categories
1052:References
986:2 AC 326;
980:James v UK
974:UKHL 23;
966:IRLR 53;
960:Moustaquim
258:Background
83:2003-06-17
964:Schaffter
946:(2000);
852:X v Italy
839:Citations
833:Cited as:
648:Solicitor
636:Barrister
284:Australia
252:Article 8
950:Ch 51;
784:Reynolds
564:Recorder
330:Judgment
282:such as
159:Keywords
1456:BAIL II
1439:BAIL II
1421:BAIL II
1403:BAIL II
1385:BAIL II
1367:BAIL II
1349:BAIL II
1331:BAIL II
1313:BAIL II
1295:BAIL II
1277:BAIL II
1259:BAIL II
1241:BAIL II
1223:BAIL II
1117:BAIL II
972:Prolife
968:Mendoza
119:in the
99:In the
81: (
76:Decided
66:of the
1004:&
860:Corner
848:Muller
698:Carson
288:Canada
224:, and
143:, and
44:Court
294:and
246:and
819:.
762:.
756:DSS
738:EEC
1472::
1437:.
1419:.
1401:.
1383:.
1365:.
1347:.
1329:.
1311:.
1293:.
1275:.
1257:.
1239:.
1221:.
1203:.
1185:.
1167:.
1149:.
1115:.
1060:^
290:,
286:,
232:.
139:,
686:e
679:t
672:v
85:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
