Times, February 11, 2010, 18

The Court of Appeal (CA) has ruled that Hindus and Sikhs in Britain can cremate their dead on funeral pyres. The landmark ruling follows a case brought by Davender Kumar Ghai, a 71-year-old Hindu, who wanted the right to be cremated by “sacred fire”, according to the ancient diktats of his religion. Mr Ghai’s request had been blocked by Newcastle City Council, which ruled that human pyres were unlawful. The CA ruled that existing cremation laws do not prohibit the burning of human remains on a wooden pyre open to natural air and sunlight. To comply with the Cremation Act 1902, the judges said that the ceremonies would merely need to take place within a building which, to meet Hindu spiritual requirements, could be a roof supported by pillars, or a walled structure with no roof.

Full report can be found here

The Gill Review has considered the issue of public interest litigation and has made recommendations for change.  What should those changes be and how do other jurisdictions deal with questions of wider public interest coming before the courts?

Who: Professor Allyson Pollock (Centre for International Public Health), Aidan O’Neill QC, Frances McCartney (Environmental Law Centre Scotland) and Tony Kelly (Taylor & Kelly Solicitors).

When: 1.30 – 4.15 pm, Monday 7th December 2009

Where: School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh

The seminar will be of interest to lawyers in both private practice and public authorities, policy makers, non-governmental organisations, academics and anyone else who has an interest in public law or legal aid.

Download the programme and registration form here: Public Interest Litigation and Legal Aid - registration form (57).

A local authority (Glasgow City Council) undertook emergency repairs to a property in 1997 after serving a series of repair notices to the petitioner, the property owner and her representative. They then sent her a bill £53,056.88 in respect of the works done.

She appealed under Section 50(4) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 against the decision to invoice her for these works, but on 4 July 2003 the Scottish Ministers determined that the expenses as invoiced by the Council; were recoverable from the petitioner. She then sought judicial review of this decision, submitting inter alia that in delaying to issue the determination until almost five years from the date the invoice was issued, the respondents had breached the reasonable time requirements of Article 6.  The petitioner’s argument that there had been a breach of her rights under Article 6 was upheld by the court.   

This is available to read here

The Lord Ordinary held that the Scottish Ministers’ failure to determine the pursuers’ application for planning permission for the development of a “superquarry” at a site on the Isle of Harris for which permission had first been sought in March 1991 was in breach of the pursuer’s Article 6 rights to have a contestation over their civil rights determined within a reasonable time.

The Lord Ordinary held that the pursuer’s property rights, in the form of a 99 year lease of the site for which planning permission was sought were clearly a civil right within the meaning of Article 6(1) and that there was a dispute involving the pursuer’s civil rights, evidenced by an inquiry which heard evidence for and against the application. 

This is available to read here

Bailii Report