header-logo header-logo

European Union

02 November 2012
Issue: 7536 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Preston) v Lord President of the Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1378, [2012] All ER (D) 249 (Oct)

The 15 year rule in s 1(3)(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which rendered ineligible to vote anyone who had been resident outside the UK for more than 15 years, was not in terms an express restriction on free movement. Nor was it in substance a disguised or inherent restriction on free movement. The Divisional Court had been correct to consider the potential effect of the 15 year rule on free movement in practice. Its conclusion that any interference with the right of free movement, in such cases, was “too indirect and uncertain” to require justification was not contradicted or undermined by the claimant’s evidence. It did not follow that every disadvantage of non-residence in the UK was a restriction on or deterrent to free movement. Further, as disenfranchisement was only triggered after the passing of 15 years’ residence overseas, a long term view had to be taken when considering whether the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll