header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 July 2012
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

R (on the application of Harrow Community Support Unit) v Secretary of State for Defence [2012] All ER (D) 96 (Jul)

Applying established principles, the proposed deployment of anti-aircraft missiles on a residential building during the Olympic Games was clearly within the ambit of the secretary of state’s discretionary power and the decision had been made in good faith. There had been no statutory obligation to consult identified. If anything, the legislative scheme appeared to militate against any duty to consult. The proposed deployment fell within the scheme under the Town and Country Act 1990 for emergency development by the Crown, which disposed of the need for planning permission or consultation. Furthermore, there was no evidence that there had been a promise to consult, nor evidence of it having been past practice to consult in respect of deployment decisions, nor could it be said to be conspicuously unfair not to do so. In any event, the Ministry of Defence had voluntarily engaged with the community and residents and its consultation had been immaculate.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll