R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions ex parte Holding and Barnes plc and others

AuthorSlynn LJ, Nolan LJ, Hoffmann LJ, Hutton LJ, Clyde LJ, Joanna Gray
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/eb025081
Pages275-278
Publication Date01 Mar 2001
Regulatory and legal commentary
House
of
Lords ruling
on
human rights
and
executive decision making
R
v
Secretary
of
State
for
the Environment,
Transport and
the
Regions
ex
parte Holding
and Barnes
plc
and others
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 9 Number 3
Slynn LJ, Nolan LJ, Hoffmann LJ, Hutton
LJ
and Clyde
LJ
Date
of
judgment:
9th May,
2001
Joanna Gray
Solicitor, School
of
Law, University
of
Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne
joanna@alwinton.fsnet.co.uk
BACKGROUND
Although
the
facts giving rise
to
this deci-
sion concerned planning control
and
plan-
ning
law the
decision
is of
relevance
to the
debate about
the
applicability
of the
Human Rights
Act 1998 to the
various
regulatory functions
and
powers conferred
on
the
Financial Services Authority
(FSA)
by
the
Financial Services
and
Markets
Act
2000,
hence
its
inclusion
and
discussion
in
this Journal.
The
three conjoined appeals
which formed
the
subject matter
of
this
decision were made directly
to the
House
of Lords from
a
decision
of
the Divisional
Court
on 13th
December, 2000 whereby
the court made
a
declaration
of
incom-
patibility with Article
6 of the
European
Convention
on
Human Rights (ECHR)
in
respect
of
certain statutory decision-
making powers conferred
on the
Secretary
of State
for the
Environment, Transport
and
the
Regions
(the
Secretary
of
State).
The disputed powers included
the
Secre-
tary
of
State's power under s.77 Town
and
Country Planning
Act 1990 to
'call
in'
planning applications
and
determine them
himself,
and his
power
to
'recover' appeals
against planning refusals from
the
normal
inspector/public inquiry route and
to
deter-
mine them himself pursuant
to the
discre-
tion
in
Sch.
6
para.
(3) of
that Act. Article
6
(1) of
the ECHR provides
for a
right
to
a fair trial
in the
following terms:
'In
the
determination
of his
civil rights
and obligations
or of any
criminal
charge against
him,
everyone
is
entitled
to
a
fair
and
public hearing within
a
reasonable time
by an
independent
and
impartial tribunal established
by
law.'
The respondents
to
these appeals
had
argued that
the
Secretary
of
State's deci-
sion-making powers
to
call
in
planning
Journal
of
Financial Regulation
and Compliance. Vol. 9, No.
3,
2001,
pp. 275-278
© Henry Stewart Publications,
1358-1988
Page 275

To continue reading

Request your trial