Case summaries

A child challenged the £1,012 fee for registration as a British citizen under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as ultra vires, arguing it rendered the statutory right to citizenship nugatory for those unable to afford it. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding Parliament had authorised the fee-setting regime.

A 15-year-old girl usually resident in Northern Ireland travelled to England with her mother for an abortion, paying privately because NHS England would not fund it. The Supreme Court, by a 3-2 majority, held the Secretary of State's failure to provide free NHS abortions to Northern Irish women was lawful.

A convicted sex offender challenged guidance on the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, arguing it insufficiently required police to consult him before disclosing his offences. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that judicial review of policies requires showing they positively authorise or approve unlawful conduct, not merely that they leave uncertainty.

Asylum seekers challenged the UK Government's Rwanda policy, which proposed removing them to Rwanda for asylum processing. The Supreme Court held the policy unlawful, finding substantial grounds to believe asylum seekers faced real risk of refoulement due to deficiencies in Rwanda's asylum system, despite assurances given under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.

A 15-year-old detained at a Young Offenders Institution challenged his removal from association with other inmates as violating Article 3 ECHR. The Supreme Court rejected arguments that solitary confinement of under-18s is automatically inhuman or degrading, holding that Article 3 requires a fact-sensitive assessment of all circumstances rather than applying bright-line rules.

Two appellants challenged refusals of indefinite leave to remain based on long residence. The Supreme Court considered whether section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 extends leave when applications are invalid for non-payment of fees, and interpreted 'disregarded' in paragraph 276B(v) of the Immigration Rules regarding overstaying periods.

AM, a Belarusian national and foreign criminal, deliberately thwarted deportation through lies and non-cooperation. He claimed his 'limbo status' without leave to remain violated Article 8 ECHR. The Supreme Court allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, holding that AM's own conduct in obstructing removal was highly material to the proportionality analysis and no violation of Article 8 arose.

AR was acquitted of raping a taxi passenger but the rape allegation was disclosed in his Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate when applying for jobs. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding the disclosure was a proportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

A slaughterhouse challenged the Food Standards Agency's refusal to use section 9 Food Safety Act 1990 procedure after an Official Veterinarian declared a carcass unfit for human consumption. The Supreme Court, following CJEU guidance, held section 9 incompatible with EU food safety regulations, and judicial review provides sufficient remedy.

A slaughterhouse disputed an Official Veterinarian's decision that a bull carcass was unfit for human consumption. The Supreme Court considered whether section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 provided a challenge mechanism compatible with EU food safety law, and referred questions to the CJEU.

Chagossian representative Bancoult challenged the 2010 Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Islands, alleging improper motive to prevent resettlement and inadequate consultation regarding Mauritian fishing rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the MPA was lawfully established by the Foreign Secretary.

The Chagossians sought to set aside the House of Lords' 2008 decision upholding the validity of section 9 of the BIOT Constitution Order 2004, which denied them right of abode. They relied on late-disclosed documents (the Rashid documents) said to undermine the feasibility study justifying the Order. The Supreme Court dismissed the application by a 3-2 majority.

Mrs Bano was offered private rented sector accommodation in Derby by Waltham Forest, which she refused. She later sought judicial review claiming the main housing duty continued. The Supreme Court held the duty ceased automatically on refusal of a compliant offer, and a statutory review under section 202 was her proper remedy.

The Barclay brothers challenged an Order in Council granting Royal Assent to Sark's 2010 Reform Law, arguing it breached Article 6 ECHR regarding the Seneschal's remuneration. The Supreme Court held that although English courts had jurisdiction, challenges to Channel Islands legislation on Convention grounds should be brought in Island courts.

Local residents sought to register a council-owned recreation field as a town or village green under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006. The Supreme Court held their use was 'by right' under statutory housing powers, not 'as of right', and disapproved Beresford.

Six refugees airlifted to UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus in 1998 sought resettlement in the UK. The Supreme Court held that the Refugee Convention applies to the SBAs but does not entitle refugees to relocate to the UK's metropolitan territory.

Shamima Begum, who left the UK aged 15 to join ISIL in Syria, had her British citizenship revoked by the Home Secretary on national security grounds. She challenged the refusal of leave to enter the UK to pursue her appeal. The Supreme Court held that national security concerns outweighed her right to an effective appeal, and courts must respect executive assessments on such matters.

BF, an Eritrean asylum seeker claiming to be 16, was assessed by immigration officers as an adult based on appearance and detained. He challenged the Secretary of State's policy guidance (criterion C) for assessing age, arguing it risked unlawful detention of children. The Supreme Court allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, holding the policy lawful.

A prisoner with health problems exacerbated by tobacco smoke challenged the Secretary of State's refusal to allow prisoners access to the NHS Smoke-free Compliance Line, arguing the smoking ban in the Health Act 2006 bound the Crown. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the Crown was not bound.

Two high-security prisoners were held in solitary confinement for months under rule 45 of the Prison Rules 1999, with continued segregation authorised by prison operational managers. The Supreme Court held this segregation was unlawful, as only the Secretary of State, acting through officials external to the prison, could authorise it.

The Supreme Court held that on an inter partes application for a production order under section 9 and schedule 1 of PACE 1984, the court cannot receive evidence from the police ex parte which is withheld from the respondent journalist. The Commissioner's appeal was dismissed.

A convicted murderer detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 challenged the Secretary of State's refusal of unescorted community leave. The Supreme Court considered whether he should remain anonymous in the proceedings and granted anonymity, allowing his appeal.

A transgender woman challenged the DWP's policies on retaining her gender history and applying a Special Customer Records procedure when she claimed Jobseeker's Allowance. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed her appeal, holding the policies lawful under the Gender Recognition Act, Human Rights Act and Equality Act.