Mazhar v Lord Chancellor  EWHC 2536 (Fam)
Inherent jurisdiction "This is a claim brought under sections 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1) and 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Lord Chancellor in respect of a judicial act. The act in question is an order made by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, who was the Family Division out of hours applications judge on the late evening of Friday, 22 April 2016. The order was made on the application of Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. It was an urgent, without notice, out of hours application made in respect of the claimant, Mr Aamir Mazhar. ... Mr Mazhar seeks to argue that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to detain a person who is not of unsound mind for the purposes of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention and that a vulnerable person's alleged incapacity as a result of duress or undue influence is not a basis to make orders in that jurisdiction that are other than facilitative of the person recovering, retaining or exercising his capacity. His removal and detention were accordingly unlawful and in breach of article 5. He also seeks to argue that his article 6 rights were engaged such that the absence of any challenge by the judge to his capacity and/or the evidence of the NHS Trust and the absence of any opportunity to challenge those matters himself or though his family or representatives before the order was executed was an unfair process. He says that his article 8 right to respect for family and private life was engaged and that the order was neither necessary nor in accordance with the law. ... The consequence is that I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the HRA (taken together with either the CPR or the FPR) that provides a power in a court or tribunal to make a declaration against the Crown in respect of a judicial act. Furthermore, the HRA has not modified the constitutional principle of judicial immunity. Likewise, the Crown is not to be held to vicariously liable for the acts of the judiciary with the consequence that the claim for a declaration is not justiciable in the Courts of England and Wales. A claim for damages against the Crown is available to Mr Mazhar for the limited purpose of compensating him for an article 5(5) breach but the forum for such a claim where the judicial act is that of a judge of the High Court cannot be a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. On the facts of this case, the only court that can consider a damages claim is the Court of Appeal. If Mr Mazhar wants to pursue his challenge to the order of Mostyn J he must do so on appeal."
The ICLR have kindly agreed for their WLR (D) case report to be reproduced below.
HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Judicial act — Judge authorising removal of claimant to hospital under inherent jurisdiction — Claimant contending that removal and detention unlawful — Claimant seeking declaration of breach of Convention rights by judicial act — Whether court of co-ordinate having jurisdiction to make declaration — Whether Lord Chancellor vicariously liable for judicial act — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1), 9(1)(c)(3), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 5, 6, 8 — CPR 7.11
HUMAN RIGHTS — Breach of Convention rights — Judicial act — Judge authorising removal of claimant to hospital under inherent jurisdiction — Claimant seeking declaration against Lord Chancellor that removal and detention unlawful and constituting breach of Convention rights by judicial act — Whether power to grant declaratory relief against Crown in respect of judicial act — Means by which claim for damages for breach of Convention right by judicial act to be brought — Whether court of co-ordinate jurisdiction able to hear claim — Whether Lord Chancellor vicariously liable for judicial act — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), ss 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1), 9(1)(c)(3), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 5, 6, 8 — CPR r 7.11
2 Case(s) considered
1 Statute considered
1 Statutory Instrument considered
[The WLR(D) page is empty - the above is the headnote which is available on the ICLR website.]