International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State

310 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction(s): European Union, United Kingdom

Disclaimer: This work is intended for educational use only, it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon to advise clients on legal matters.

If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.

International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158

Challenged whether penalty rules: amounted to criminal proceedings, were unfair, and restricted the free market.

Facts

The defendant, the Home Secretary, had introduced rules regarding the liability of HGV drivers entering the United Kingdom with illegal persons on board their vehicles. Sizable fixed penalties were imposed on guilty parties, who could then attempt to appeal. The claimants, International Transport Roth, requested a judicial review of the Home Secretary’s right to do so contending that, whilst the Home Office purported such rules and penalties to be civil law, they in fact amounted to criminal law. Further, the claimant submitted that the rules violated EU laws providing for the free movement of goods and services.

Issue

Whether the Home Office’s rules were fundamentally civil or criminal in nature, whether the appeals process for them was fair, and whether they restricted the EU’s open market.

Held

The Court of Appeal found for the claimants with a 2-1 split decision, agreeing that the nature and character of the penalties imposed were criminal, and thus beyond the scope of the Home Office to introduce. Moreover, it was found that there had been insufficient opportunities for the claimant to assert a defence and receive a fair trial, which violated their human rights as per Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the new rules from the Home Office were irreconcilable with the provisions of the ECHR, the Court issued a declaration of incompatibility. However, the Court disagreed with the claimant’s submission that the rules amounted to an unjust restriction on the free movement of goods.

Words: 278

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: