Webster v Lord Chancellor

Webster v Lord Chancellor

The errors made by the trial judge, while serious and resulting in the conviction being quashed, did not amount to bad faith or a lack of good faith. There was no evidence of dishonesty, ulterior motive, or gross and obvious irregularity. Therefore, no claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 could be sustained, and the claim was properly struck out.

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
Judicial Immunity, Damages for Unlawful Conviction, Good Faith in Judicial Acts, Article 5 and Article 6 ECHR, Interpretation of Human Rights Act 1998
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Judicial Immunity Damages for Unlawful Conviction Good Faith in Judicial Acts Article 5 and Article 6 ECHR Interpretation of Human Rights Act 1998

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 errors by a trial judge in summing up and handling evidence amount to a lack of good faith for the purposes of s.9(3) Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether such errors constitute a breach of Article 5 or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights justifying damages
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proving good faith lies on the state or the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The errors made by the trial judge, while serious and resulting in the conviction being quashed, did not amount to bad faith or a lack of good faith. There was no evidence of dishonesty, ulterior motive, or gross and obvious irregularity. Therefore, no claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 could be sustained, and the claim was properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Summary judgment for the respondent