Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2230 (Admin) |
| Date | 07 October 2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes
Armed forces - volunteer - no interference with freedom of conscience or religion without expression of objection
A volunteer could not claim that his freedom of conscience or religion had been interfered with by the state unless he could say that he had made it clear in some appropriate and suitably formal way that he was no longer a volunteer.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held when dismissing the appeal of Mohisin Khan from the decision of the RAF Summary Appeal Court to uphold his conviction and sentence of seven days loss of privileges for being absent without leave subsequent to his call-up during preparations for Britain's attack on Iraq.
Mr Nicholas Blake, QC, Mr James Mason, Mr Andrew Mitchinson, solicitor, and Miss Lucinda Dannatt for the appellant; Mr Philip Havers, QC and Mr Christopher Wood for the defendant.
LORD JUSTICE RIX said that it should not be said that a part-time member of the Armed Services who was a conscientious objector had manifested his belief under article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights until he had expressed it in some way to his Service.
In some circumstances it could be conceived that the mere act of absence or desertion could be such an expression; for instance, where there was no procedure for conscientious objection at all, or one that was insufficiently knowable.
Where, however, as here, the basic background was one of volunteer service, the call-up was on the basis that there might be exemption on compassionate grounds and the recalled reservist was given repeated opportunities to voice any concerns, his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardtman and Others v Bermuda Regiment
...The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Bayatyan v Armenia ECHR 253/03 Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal CourtUNK [2004] EWHC 2230 (Admin) R (Limbuela) v Home SecretaryELR [2006] 1 AC 414 Abstract: Constitutional rights - Forced labour - Conscientious objector - Military s......
-
Neil Christopher Gunn v Service Prosecuting Authority
...have no doubt that they are a species of delegated or subordinate legislation. We agree with the observation of Rix LJ in Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court [2004] EWHC 2230 (Admin), at [53], that the QR “…plainly have the status of law, being a form of delegated legislation…” — w......
-
Hardtman and Others v Bermuda Regiment
...R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and EmploymentELR [2003] QB 13002 Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal CourtUNK [2004] EWHC 2230 (Admin)2 Labita v Italy [2000] ECHR 26772/952 Ireland v UK [1978] ECHR 5310/712 Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 30210/962 Yankov v Bulgaria [2003] E......
-
Court Martials, Lay Membership and the Validity of Their Constitution: Gunn v Service Prosecuting Authority [2019] EWCA Crim 1470
...Queen’s Regulations forthe RAF. In the earlier case of Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court [2004] EWHC 2230(Admin), in what was recognised as being a context ‘far removed from that of the present case’, Rix LJstated that the Regulations ‘plainly have the status of law, being a form ......