UK Process Unfair

Kingsley v United Kingdom (Application No 35605/97) (TLR 9 January EctHR)

Between 1984 and 1992 the claimant was the sole managing director of London Clubs Ltd, a company which owned and controlled six of the 20 casinos licensed to operate in London. Following a raid at various premises, the Gaming Board lodged objections for renewal of the casino licences and after negotiations the applicant and other executive directors resigned. On 21 January 1993 the Board decided it had sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the claimant was not a fit and proper person to be a director of a casino company. On 23 April 1993 the Board informed the claimant that it was minded to revoke his certificate of approval, as required by s19 of the Gaming Act 1968, and that he would be given the opportunity to state his case against revocation either in writing or orally at an interview before the Board. The claimant objected to the Board presiding over the s19 hearing, suggesting that an independent tribunal be set up as an alternative. All the members of the panel who presided over the s19 hearing were present at the board meeting and were parties to that decision which was made prior to the hearing itself. The claimant’s application for judicial review was dismissed after a hearing lasting over 16 days in a judgment dealing with the claimant’s allegation of bias, running into 165 pages. The claimant applied to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the UK procedure for judicial review did not permit the court to consider the merits of the decision but only the quality of the decision-making process. The ECtHR unanimously upheld the challenge, finding that where a complaint was made of a lack of impartiality on the part of the decision-making body, the concept of full jurisdiction required that the reviewing court not only considered the complaint but had the ability to quash the impugned decision and to remit the case for a new decision by an impartial body. In the present case the domestic court were unable to remit the case for a fresh decision by the Board or by another independent tribunal. Accordingly the High Court and the Court of Appeal did not have full jurisdiction within the meaning of the case-law on article 6 when they reviewed the panel’s decision. Consequently there had been a breach of article 6.1 of the Convention. The finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; the court awarded him £13,500 for costs and expenses.