HM Attorney General v Willett

HM Attorney General v Willett

The court declined to transfer proceedings to County Court, affirmed video link as appropriate for participation, and stood out the application pending further developments, given the existing extended civil restraint order.

Parties
Claimant: HM Attorney General; Defendant: James Willett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application stood out for the moment; liberty to apply granted to both sides.
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981, Transfer of Proceedings, Video Link Participation
Civil Procedure Civil Restraint Orders Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 Transfer of Proceedings Video Link Participation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Attorney General

Claimant

James Willett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Civil Proceedings Order / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be transferred to County Court
  2. 2 Whether video link participation is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether a section 42 order should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to transfer proceedings to County Court, affirmed video link as appropriate for participation, and stood out the application pending further developments, given the existing extended civil restraint order.

Court Disposition

Application stood out for the moment; liberty to apply granted to both sides.

Orders

  • Proceedings to remain in High Court.
  • Liberty to apply granted to both parties.