The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|* Prison Rules and solicitor-client letters R v SSHD, ex p Leech (No 2)  EWCA Civ 12 — "Section 47 (1) of the Prison Act 1952 empowers the Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons. Rule 33 (3) of the Prison Rules 1964 provides as follows: "(3) Except as provided by these Rules, every letter or communication to or from a prisoner may be read or examined by the governor or an officer deputed by him, and the governor may, at his discretion, stop any letter or communication on the ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length." The principal question arising on this appeal is whether Rule 33 (3) is ultra vires section 47 (1) of the Act on the ground that it permits the reading and stopping of confidential letters between a prisoner and a solicitor on wider grounds than merely to ascertain whether they are in truth bona fide communications between a solicitor and client."||2019‑05‑03 13:13:45||1993 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|Kay v UK 17821/91  ECHR 61 — The applicant's complaints under Article 5(1) (recall to hospital without medical evidence) and Article 5(4) (delay in Tribunal proceedings) were admissible.||2009‑04‑11 17:09:29||1993 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript