Case summaries

Hallam and Nealon had their convictions quashed following fresh evidence but were refused compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended), which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not commit the offence. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that this was compatible with article 6(2) ECHR.

Four indeterminate-sentence prisoners claimed their post-tariff detention breached article 5 ECHR due to inadequate rehabilitative provision. The Supreme Court recognised an implied ancillary duty under article 5 to provide reasonable rehabilitation opportunities, awarding damages to Haney and Massey but dismissing Kaiyam's and Robinson's appeals.

Police obtained search warrants against Mr Haralambous under PACE section 8, partly based on information withheld from him on public interest grounds. The Supreme Court held that magistrates, Crown Courts, and High Courts on judicial review may all rely on such closed material without gisting being invariably required.

Mr Haworth challenged a follower notice issued by HMRC under the Finance Act 2014, which relied on the Smallwood ruling to deny his claimed tax advantage from trust arrangements involving Mauritius. The Supreme Court held HMRC must form an opinion of sufficient certainty that the earlier ruling would deny the advantage, not merely that it was likely to do so.

Mrs HC, an Algerian Zambrano carer of two British children, challenged regulations excluding such carers from mainstream welfare benefits, housing assistance and child benefit. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, holding the Zambrano principle requires only practical support sufficient to prevent EU citizen children being forced to leave the Union.

Five asylum seekers were detained in the UK pending transfer to other EU states under the Dublin III Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State's policy in Chapter 55 of the EIG failed to meet Dublin III's requirement for objective criteria defined by law, rendering their detention unlawful and entitling them to damages for false imprisonment.

Westminster charged sex shop licence applicants a two-part fee, including a refundable element covering enforcement costs against unlicensed operators. The Supreme Court held domestic law permitted this and that EU law allowed type A schemes, but referred the type B refundable scheme to the CJEU.

Westminster City Council charged sex shop licence applicants fees including enforcement costs against unlicensed operators. Following CJEU's ruling that upfront refundable enforcement charges breached the Services Directive, the Supreme Court held the scheme was only partially invalid and the council could recover enforcement costs from successful licensees.

Four anti-monarchist protesters were arrested on the day of the royal wedding in 2011 to prevent an imminent breach of the peace and released without charge once the risk passed. The Supreme Court held their detention was lawful under article 5.1(c) of the ECHR.

Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd was charged under the WATOK Regulations 2015 after three chickens entered scalding tanks alive. The Supreme Court held that the offences, implementing an EU Regulation on animal welfare at slaughter, imposed strict liability and did not require proof of negligence or mens rea.

Campaigners and local authorities challenged the Government's HS2 high-speed rail proposals, arguing the command paper required strategic environmental assessment and that the hybrid bill procedure breached EU environmental directives. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeals, addressing important constitutional questions about Parliament and EU law.

Two Albanian nationals obtained British citizenship by naturalisation using false details. The Supreme Court held that such fraudulently obtained citizenship is valid until formal deprivation under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, overruling earlier Court of Appeal authority on nullity.

Ms Imam, a wheelchair user with three children, was owed a housing duty by Croydon Council under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. Despite acknowledging the breach for nearly six years, Croydon failed to provide suitable accommodation. The Supreme Court clarified when mandatory orders should be granted against housing authorities citing resource constraints.

An Egyptian national convicted in absentia of manslaughter following a ferry disaster challenged the Home Secretary's decision to serve the Egyptian judgment on him in the UK under section 1 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. The Supreme Court held article 6 was not engaged.

The claimant was subject to an unlawful eight-hour daily curfew with electronic tagging for 891 days. The Supreme Court held this constituted false imprisonment at common law, as enforced compliance through threats of prosecution and detention amounted to confinement, regardless of whether it met the ECHR's deprivation of liberty test.

Mr Johnson, born in Jamaica to a British father and Jamaican mother who were unmarried, was denied automatic British citizenship and faced deportation as a foreign criminal. The Supreme Court held this discrimination based on birth status violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR.

Mr Jwanczuk's wife was unable to work throughout her life due to severe disability and never paid national insurance contributions. After her death, he was refused Bereavement Support Payment because she did not meet the contribution condition. The Supreme Court held the contribution condition was justified and did not unlawfully discriminate against him.

The SFO served a notice under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 on a US company (KBR, Inc) requiring production of documents held abroad. The Supreme Court held that section 2(3) does not have extra-territorial effect permitting compulsion of foreign companies with no UK presence to produce overseas documents.

The Supreme Court considered whether land held by public authorities for statutory education and health purposes could be registered as town or village greens. The majority held that statutory incompatibility defeated registration in both cases, extending the Newhaven principle.

Parliamentarians challenged the Home Secretary's refusal to admit Mrs Rajavi, an Iranian dissident, to the UK to address them at Westminster on Iranian democracy. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the interference with Article 10 rights was proportionate given foreign policy and security risks.

Criminal barristers challenged the Legal Services Board's approval of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA), which required judicial assessment of advocates. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the scheme was an authorisation scheme under EU law, it was proportionate and justified.

Jackie Maguire, a vulnerable adult with Downs Syndrome living in a care home under deprivation of liberty safeguards, died from a perforated gastric ulcer after not being taken to hospital despite symptoms. Her mother challenged the coroner's decision not to require an expanded verdict under Article 2 ECHR. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no arguable breach of systems or operational duties.

An asylum seeker was granted bail by the First-tier Tribunal with specific conditions. The Secretary of State imposed additional restrictions inconsistent with the bail order without seeking to vary it. The Supreme Court held that court orders must be obeyed until set aside, regardless of any defects, affirming the fundamental constitutional principle of the rule of law.

A Palestinian refugee in Lebanon challenged the UK's Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, arguing the public sector equality duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 applied extraterritorially. The Supreme Court held the PSED does not have extraterritorial effect, dismissing the appeal.

Mr James Maughan was found hanged in his prison cell. At his inquest, the jury made narrative findings on the balance of probabilities that he intended to kill himself. The Supreme Court held that the civil standard applies to all short-form conclusions at inquests, including suicide and unlawful killing.