Home > Latest News > I stand here. I can do nothing else. God help me!


I stand here. I can do nothing else. God help me!




In R(Brooks) v Independent Adjudicator, Secretary of State for Justice Intervening [2016] EWCA Civ 1033, handed down 28.10.16, McCombe LJ, with whom Jackson LJ agreed, found in favour of submissions by Simon P G Murray, counsel for the successful appellant, the Secretary of State. He allowed the appeal on the basis inter alia that, as with Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms in 1521, the Prison Governor could only say ‘Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me! ’ in the face of allegations that he had acted unlawfully in HRA terms in detaining B because the Governor was obliged to detain him by reason of provisions of primary legislation (see paragraphs 14, 18 and 23 of the judgment).  This point concerned the hitherto rarely used provisions of section 6(2)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 which provide that an act cannot be unlawful in HRA terms if the public authority could “could not have acted differently”. McComb thus accepted “the Luther Point”.

The Court of Appeal also found in favour of the SSJ’s submissions there was here no violation of Article 5(1) of the ECHR, in any event and, obiter, that it would notwithstanding the first two points have probably found that the Governor was a “second actor” and the case was one of the category where a decision quashed in judicial review proceedings was not void ab initio

Latest Stop Press Read more


JAMES KNIGHTS v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE [2017] EWCA Civ 1053

26th July 2017

The Court of Appeal  has concluded, in an appeal from a decision on a judicial review, that the ECHR art.3 and art.5(1) rights of an offender serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection had not been breached by the length of detention as compared to the gravity of his original...

Read more

Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie.

25th July 2017

John Ross QC and Matthew Chapman QC have recently appeared before the Supreme Court to argue the Respondent’s case in Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v. Brownlie.  The hearing took place over 3 days – 9 and 10 May and 20 July.  The primary issue was “Whether the Court of...

Read more