Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent v. E and another (Appellant)
HOUSE OF LORDS
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT
IN THE CAUSE
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v. E and another (Appellants)
 UKHL 47LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL
Deprivation of liberty
Beatson J followed this ruling in the present case (para 282). It was argued for the Secretary of State in the Court of Appeal that the Secretary of State, having consulted the chief of police at the outset, need do no more thereafter than make periodic enquiry whether the prospect of prosecution had increased (Court of Appeal, para 96). But the Court of Appeal held (para 97) that more was called for:
The Secretary of State, it is understood, now accepts the correctness of this approach, which I would respectfully endorse.
But although tending to agree with the judge that the breach was not technical (para 102), the Court of Appeal differed from him on remedy. It was satisfied (para 103) that even if the Secretary of State had acted diligently and expeditiously in relation to the Belgian judgments they could not have given rise to a prosecution at any time material to this case. The question to be asked (para 105) was whether a particular breach had materially contributed to and vitiated the decision to make the control order, and the judge had erred in law in holding without further analysis that the breach justified the remedy of quashing the order.
BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND
The Court of Appeal found in relation to the fulfilment of that duty (para 97):
In paragraph 99 the court said:
Again, I agree.
LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD