NM (Algeria) & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

SIR STANLEY BURNTON: It is common grounds on these appeals that by reason of very recent events, both the applications for interim relief have become unnecessary.

The only real question that I have had to determine is whether I should give directions for a full Court of Appeal to consider the judgment of Stewart J on the basis that there are other cases like this pending and it would be useful and, indeed, seemingly helpful to have the Court of Appeal's guidance and principles to be applied particularly in a case where there is an interplay between objection to the taking of food and liquid during detention and unwillingness to be treated in hospital and mental health, all of which interplay one with the other.

I take the view that however attractive that possibility might seem, cases such as this are very fact sensitive. If there is another such case, assuming there will be, the appropriate course is for arrangements to be made for any judgment which it is sought to appeal, particularly by an individual whose physical and mental condition affected by what is sometimes referred to as a hunger strike and also extends to liquids, to be able to have an expedited hearing which would be a real appeal on the facts before the Court at that time rather than odd facts which will become unnecessary for the Court to examine.

There are concerns expressed as to the nature of Stewart J's judgment in terms of authority. It has the authority in the first instance of the High Court judgment which has not been the subject to scrutiny in the Court of Appeal. I see no good reason why there should be a hearing of an appeal in order to either confirm or undermine the authority of that judgment.

I apprehend that if there are more cases like this there will be an appeal to this court. I shall do what I can to ensure that such a case is appropriately heard by an appropriately constituted panel as soon as possible after the decision.