Webster v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 742 (14 July 2015)

Webster v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 742 (14 July 2015)

Judicial errors or misdirections, even if serious, do not amount to lack of good faith or gross and obvious irregularity absent evidence of dishonesty or ulterior motive. The appellant's detention was pursuant to a lawful conviction and does not engage Article 5(5) ECHR. Section 9(3) Human Rights Act 1998 does not violate the Convention.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 742
Parties
Appellant: Webster; Respondent: Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out in High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation for Wrongful Conviction, Judicial Immunity, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), Interpretation of Human Rights Act 1998, Good Faith in Judicial Acts
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Judicial Immunity Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) Interpretation of Human Rights Act 1998 +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webster

Appellant

Lord Chancellor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge's errors in summing up and trial management can amount to lack of good faith for the purposes of s.9(3) Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether such errors can render detention unlawful under Article 5 ECHR, entitling the claimant to compensation
  3. 3 Whether s.9(3) Human Rights Act 1998 is incompatible with Article 13 ECHR (right to effective remedy)

Ratio Decidendi

Judicial errors or misdirections, even if serious, do not amount to lack of good faith or gross and obvious irregularity absent evidence of dishonesty or ulterior motive. The appellant's detention was pursuant to a lawful conviction and does not engage Article 5(5) ECHR. Section 9(3) Human Rights Act 1998 does not violate the Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Summary judgment for respondent