|
Sir Duncan Brian Walter Ouseley QC, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Ouseley, is a High Court judge in England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division. He is notable for involvement in many legal cases reported in the British press.〔Foley, Stephen. ''The Independent'' "Cost of mis-selling scandal will keep growing the longer that banks dig in" 21 April 2011〕 His judgments have included rejecting appeals by suspected international terrorists against indefinite detention;〔Walker, Christopher. ''The Times'' 30 October 2003 "Ten terrorism suspects facing life in prison"〕 a view overturned in 2004, when the House of Lords ruled that it violates the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. In 1992, as a Queen's Counsel, Ouseley represented the Chief Adjudication Officer for Social Security Administration.〔Law report, ''The Times'' 18 June 1992: "Days of increment for wife's pension"〕 From 2002 to 2005 he was President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.〔Lord Chancellor's Department, ''Judicial Statistics, England and Wales, for the year 2003'' (H. M. S. O., 2004), p. 81〕 In 2002, in the case ''Theakston v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd'', the television presenter Jamie Theakston sought an injunction against ''The Sunday People'' claiming publication of details of his visit to a brothel infringed his right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Refusing to impose the injunction, Ouseley ruled "It is not inherent in the nature of a brothel that all or anything that transpires within is confidential.〔 〕 〔 〕 In February 2012, an atheist councillor and the National Secular Society took Bideford Town Council to the English High Court to challenge the saying of prayers at council meetings. Ouseley ruled that the town council was acting unlawfully, citing the Local Government Act 1972, and ordered that prayers should stop. This decision affects all councils in England and Wales. The ruling was welcomed by the British Humanist Association, but was criticised by Christians, religious groups, and bishops, who felt Christianity was being "marginalised", or was "under attack" in the UK. In October 2015, Transport For London took Uber, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and the Licensed Private Car Hire Association to the English High Court to receive clarification about whether Uber fell within section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 and was therefore unlawful. Ouseley ruled that "''A taximeter, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, does not include a device that receives GPS signals in the course of a journey, and forwards GPS data to a server located outside of the vehicle, which server calculates a fare that is partially or wholly determined by reference to distance travelled and time taken, and sends the fare information back to the device.''" Thereby ruling that Uber did not fall foul of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 and was therefore lawful. ==References== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Duncan Ouseley」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|