Elliot Gold

Upper Tribunal: imposition of No Recourse to Public Funds condition unlawful on public law and human rights grounds administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/03/16/upp…

From evaluative assessment to question of fact: policy definitions and material fact review administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/03/13/fro…

@MentalHealthCop It has long been held that a risk will be immediate where present and continuing, even where the risk will not materialise for some time: Traylor v Kent and Medway NHA Social Care Partnership [2022] EWHC 260 (QB), [2022] 4 WLR 35 [134]-[134].

Also worth bearing in mind, the correct word for the Article 2 duty is "immediate", not "imminent". The hospital who argued "imminent" lost that argument in the Supreme Court case which generated the definition. Immediate does not just mean imminent - it has a wider scope.

Enhanced AF3 disclosure and the inspection of mobile phone contents administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/03/05/enh…

Proportionality by the back door? The Supreme Court on the support offence in section 12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000 administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/02/28/pro…

Weronika Galka: Secret proceedings, (mal)administration, and the courts: RA and AA v SSFCDA, MZZ v SSD and SSHD and In the Matter of the SSD [2026] EWCA Civ 3 ukconstitutionallaw.org/2026/02/26/wer…

The Importance of Evidence in Human Rights Cases administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/02/23/the…

@tc1415 When the judges quashed Elizabeth I’s decision to confer a monopoly on a favourite courtier, they held that She had been deceived in Her grant.

@EGoldLdn Oh this is the whole "the King can think no wrong" passage isn't it. Not sure why my brain simply failed to join the dots from "perfection" to that :-)

That's not quite right. The Crown is subject to its laws. The King however can a) do no wrong (Rex non potest peccare) and b) can be judged by no Earthly power for his own personal actions nor those done in His name. The King's minions, however. Well, they can be. And have been all throughout English legal history.

@tc1415 babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.…

@EGoldLdn I know about Re M, though (I noted it obliquely in passing above, or in another thread, earlier, but not by name)

@tc1415 babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.…

@EGoldLdn I, not being a lawyer, only have access to several different copies of Blackstone. Some PDFs, some books. Can you direct me closer (because I don't have that exact edition and I have no way to acquire it)

@tc1415 @UKPoliticsLive Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 14th ed 1803, vol 3, p 289. But see Sparks v Spinks 1870 129 ER 125: an arrest within the verge of the palace was no ground for discharging a defendant out of custody.

Well, he's not living on the "verge" (a wonderfully undefined term) of a Royal Palace, which can cause all sorts of issues, and indeed whilst it is definitely unlawful to carry out a civil arrest in the presence of the King, the situation for criminal arrest is rather less clear. (It is certainly unlawful to serve legal process in the presence of the King, though!)

I would expect that the Andrew arrest might have needed cooperation from the King - because, while a member of the Royal Family obviously can be arrested, there are rules on where / who is there or not there at the time. That will be interesting!

@tc1415 The doctrine of perfection: Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th edn., 1803), pp. 241–242, 245–246. See also Re M [1994] 1 AC 377.

You want to think of this philosophically as the applicant asking the King, in one of the King's courts, to correct something one of the King's minions is doing which is unlawful; without at any point impugning the King himself. Untangle that, and a fair part of the British constitutional order suddenly makes a lot of sense.

The high bar to the principle of legality administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/02/03/the…

Using unproven allegations in assessments of risk: a unified approach? administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com/2026/01/27/usi…

A Police and Crime Commissioner has the power to require a chief constable to resign or retire per Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 s.38 and sch.8. Before doing so, a PCC must follow a detailed statutory process. A PCC has no statutory power… /1

@KieranTidmarsh I sought to explain the process following this.

@EGoldLdn Of course, provided the necessary statutory process is followed, I would consider a call for resignation in those circumstances reasonable to describe as a 'sacking', given that the chief constable must comply and the decision rests solely with the PCC under s.38(3).

@KieranTidmarsh The PCC may not call upon a chief constable to resign or retire before all the steps of the statutory process are concluded. That may take 3+ months, and be halted by judicial review.

@EGoldLdn A call by a PCC for a chief constable to resign, where the chief constable has no option but to comply, would seemingly justify informally referring to it as a 'sacking'?

@mcdermottkc_ The PCC has no power to dismiss a chief Constable, only to require them to resign or retire.

This should not have been a retirement … it should have been a dismissal. For too long it has been too easy to fail in public service and “retire”.

Eleventh, having completed the statutory process, the PCC may then require the chief constable to resign or retire. PRSRA s.38 is here: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/… and sch.8 is here: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/…. /END

Tenth, the PCC must notify the police and crime panel whether he accepts or rejects its recommendation: PRSRA sch 8 para. 16(2). /12

Ninth, the PCC must consider the panel’s recommendation and have regard to the opinion of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary: PRSRA sch. 8 para. 16(1), Police Regs 2003 reg. 11A(1)(b). /11

If a Police and Crime Commissioner wants to remove a chief constable, they have a statutory power to require them to retire or resign. There is no power of summary dismissal - only a misconduct panel has that power. The PCC must follow a detailed process… /1