Kerry v Y (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 3228 (QB) (14 November 2019)

Kerry v Y (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 3228 (QB) (14 November 2019)

The ECRO and GCRO lawfully applied to Mr Kerry's applications, including those in pre-existing proceedings, as the wording and purpose of the orders were sufficiently wide and clear. The orders did not breach Article 6 ECHR or deprive Mr Kerry of protection from harassment, and the GCRO was justified and proportionate given his persistent pattern of meritless applications.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3228
Parties
Claimant: Ian Michael Kerry; Defendant: Y; Defendant: X; Defendant: Chief Constable of Humbershire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal and Applications to Set Aside/vary Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications to set aside or vary orders refused.
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Harassment, Judicial Review, Appeal Procedure, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Civil Restraint Orders Harassment Judicial Review Appeal Procedure Article 6 ECHR

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Michael Kerry

Claimant

Y

Defendant

X

Defendant

Chief Constable of Humbershire Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal and Applications to Set Aside/vary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extended civil restraint order (ECRO) applied to applications for permission to appeal in pre-existing proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the ECRO and general civil restraint order (GCRO) were lawfully and proportionately imposed
  3. 3 Whether the ECRO or GCRO breached Article 6 ECHR rights or deprived the claimant of protection from harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The ECRO and GCRO lawfully applied to Mr Kerry's applications, including those in pre-existing proceedings, as the wording and purpose of the orders were sufficiently wide and clear. The orders did not breach Article 6 ECHR or deprive Mr Kerry of protection from harassment, and the GCRO was justified and proportionate given his persistent pattern of meritless applications.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications to set aside or vary orders refused.

Orders

  • Appeal against HHJ Richardson's order of 4 February 2019 dismissed.
  • Application to set aside or vary Lavender J’s order of 4 September 2019 refused.