header-logo header-logo

22 January 2010
Issue: 7401 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Human rights

R (on the application of O’Dowd (aka Boy George)) v National Probation Service, London [2009] EWHC 3415 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 26 (Jan)

The proceedings concerned a challenge by the claimant, a well-known singer, songwriter and disc jockey known as “Boy George” to the decision of the Probation Service precluding him from participating in the television programme “Celebrity Big Brother”.

The court held that the unqualified obligation in s 2(2) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to have regard to the proper punishment of offenders applied to the management of offenders on licence. When considering what restrictions could properly be placed on offenders as incidents of supervision on licence, as part of a sentence of imprisonment, regard could be had to the expectations of right-thinking members of the democracy under whose laws a judge had imposed that sentence.

Those expectations were not to be discovered by reading editorials, articles or petitions in newspapers, whether broadsheet or tabloid. Right-thinking members of the public would take the view that an offender serving the non-custodial part

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll