Kirsty Brimelow QC and Nikolaus Grubeck (instructed by Janes Solicitors ) for the claimant; James Eadie QC and Jonathan Hall QC (instructed by Treasury Solicitor ) for the Attorney General, as interested party; the defendant did not appear and was not represented.
The claimant was convicted of an offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Part of his trial, including the defence case, had been heard in camera by order of the judge on grounds of national security. His appeal against conviction on the basis that the in camera proceedings had rendered his trial unfair was dismissed. Following the trial, the judge made an order prohibiting the publication of any of the in camera material to any person, including the staff and officials at the European Court of Human Rights. The claimant, who wished to take his case to the Strasbourg court, sought judicial review of that order on grounds, inter alia, that it violated his fundamental right of access to a court and that there had been no power to make such an order.
The court held that access to a supranational court was not a fundamental common law right. Rather, the nature and scope of the procedures applicable to applications before the Strasbourg court were solely a matter of treaty obligation. The relevant articles and rules of the Strasbourg court formed no part of domestic law and that included the right of individual petition. In any event, the order had not prevented the claimant from pursuing his application before the Strasbourg court. He could, and had, lodged his claim with the Strasbourg court pursuant to the right under article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and had expressed the view to it that he had not been able properly to present his claim on account of the order. The Strasbourg court was seized of the issue and was in a position to consider whether the order was compatible with the Convention and to that end had power under article 38 of the Convention to require the United Kingdom to provide the information the claimant sought to present.
Moreover, while it was questionable whether the court had had power to make the order pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it was not necessary to determine that issue. There had been power to make the order both under the court’s inherent jurisdiction to issue an ancillary order or direction for the express object of securing the purpose of the in camera procedure, and pursuant to section 12(1)(c) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12(1)(c)
Contempt of Court Act 1980, s 11