Source: http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2009/december/r-on-the-application-of-barclay-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-justice-and-the-lord-chancellor-
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 05:44:57
Document Index: 91853075

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'arts 14', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art3', 'art14', 'art3']

R (on the application of Barclay and others) v Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor and others | LexisWeb
Home / Cases / 2009 / December R (on the application of Barclay and others) v Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor and others Publisher Citation:
[2009] All ER (D) 15 (Dec)
[2009] UKSC 9
Lord Hope DP, Lord Scott, Lord Brown, Lord Collins SCJJ and Lord Neuberger
David Pannick QC, James Michael Dingemans QC and Jessica Simor (instructed by Withers LLP (UK) and Ozannes (Guernsey)) for the first two claimants. The third claimant appeared in person. Jonathan Crow QC and Ben Hooper (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) for the defendants. Judgment Dates:
Sark - Constitution law - Chief Pleas - Seneschal - Whether role of Seneschal as president of Island's legislature and Island's judge amounting to violation of right to fair trial - European Convention on Human Rights, arts 14, First Protocol, art 3. The Case
Sark Constitution law. In dismissing a challenge to the electoral arrangements under the Reform Law 2008 in relation to the island of Sark, the Supreme Court held that there was no narrow focus on one particular element of democracy under art 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The electoral rules had to be looked at in the round, and in the light of historical and political factors. There was no invariable rule in art 3 of the First Protocol that all members of a legislature had to be elected irrespective of their powers and irrespective of the circumstances. Moreover, the rights under art3 of the First Protocol belonged to citizens and not to aliens, and therefore a prohibition on aliens standing for the legislature was not a breach thereof. It followed that art14 was not engaged, as there was no right under art3 of the First Protocol.