Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date16 February 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWHC 199 (Admin),[2005] EWHC 340 (Admin)
Date16 February 2005
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v BM
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 January 2009
    ...authority to award costs. I find that the question is answered conclusively by the case of Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Hooper (2005) EWHC 340 (Admin) (2005) 4 All E R 1095 (2005) 1 WLR 1995 (2005) 169 JP 409. The judgment in this case clearly states that an application for a closure ......
  • Kayleigh Crocker v Devon and Cornwall Police
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 28 October 2020
    ...held that the power to adjourn should not be exercised so as to frustrate the statutory purpose: see Metropolitan Police v Hooper [2005] EWHC 340 (Admin); [2005] 1 WLR 1995 and R (Turner) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2005] EWHC 2568 (Admin); [2006] 1 WLR 220. It was recognised t......
  • R (Cleary) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 July 2006
    ...there are a number of points to note. 7 Proceedings upon an application for a closure order are civil proceedings – see Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper [2005] 1 WLR 1995; [2005] EWHC 199 (Admin); Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v Harrison [2006] EWHC 1106 (Admin). Th......
  • R (BM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 3 July 2009
    ...Act 2003. Proceedings before the Magistrates' Court are civil proceedings: Metropolitan Police Complaints Commissioner v Hooper [2005] EWHC 340 (Admin). The challenged modification is clearly intended to remove BM's right to occupy either of his homes in Ilford for a significant period – at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT