Can someone please advise if the Police are classified as a 'Public Body'? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Can someone please advise if the Police are classified as a 'Public Body'?

Pr3cious18 Avatar
6y, 8m agoPosted 6 years, 8 months ago
I'm having a silly moment... Need to know for my Law assignment!

Have googled it, but not finding much to be honest.
Tags:
Pr3cious18 Avatar
6y, 8m agoPosted 6 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(4) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
banned 1 Like #1
How to determine whether a body is a public authority for the purposes of the HRA:

There are effectively 3 types of body for the purposes of the Act:
1. Wholly public bodies (e.g. government departments, local authorities, police, prison service)
2. Hybrid bodies
3. Others

Hybrid bodies will not be treated as public bodies for the purposes of the HRA if “the nature of the act is private”.

In Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, the Court stressed that the definition of what is a public authority should be given a generous interpretation. The Court went on to identify a number of factors which would suggest that a function was public:

• Statutory authority
• Control over the function by another body which is a public authority
• Acts which might be of a private nature being enmeshed in the activities of a public body
• Closeness of the relationship with a public body
• Transfer of responsibilities between public and private sectors.

In this case, the applicant was provided interim accommodation in council property. The local council transferred the property to Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd, a housing association. Poplar Housing began possession proceedings and the applicant sought to rely on Article 8. The Court concluded that the role of the housing association was “so closely assimilated” to that of the council that it was to be considered a public authority in this instance.

In looking at the issue, the Court did note considerations that in this case were neutral or irrelevant:
- Supervision by a regulatory body
- Carrying out functions which would be public if they were carried out by a public bodies
- Performing activities in what is perceived is the public interest.

In R (Heather and others) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366 - The claimants were long stay residents in a home run by LCF, a charity. They had been placed in the home by social services under section 26 National Assistance Act 1948. Their fees were partly paid from their benefits and partly by the local authority. The LCF decided to close the home. The claimants sought to challenge this as a breach of their rights under Art 8.

The court held that this was not a case where the local authority was trying to divest itself of its obligations under Art 8 by contracting out its obligations under the National Assistance Act 1948. It still retained its obligations under Art 8. If the placements had started after the Human Rights Act came into force it would have been possible for the residents to require the local authority to ensure that their rights under Art 8 were protected by contract.

There were 3 decisive factors which led to the conclusion that LCF’s functions were not public:

1. The nature of the service provided did not differ between those residents who were publicly funded and those who were privately funded.
2. There was no other evidence of a “public flavour” to the activities of LCF. LCF was not standing in the shoes of the local authority.
3. The fact that the claimants would lose the protection of Art 8 against LCF if it was not performing a public function was a circular argument. Art 8 does not change the classification of a function.

In R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2002] EWHC 529 a detained patient brought a challenge to the private hospital’s decision to change the focus of a ward’s activities with the result that there would be less treatment available for those who were mentally ill. The Court held that such a hospital would be a public authority as far as the functions of making arrangements for care to be provided were concerned. The Court thought it significant that:

• The patients’ Health Authority may well have discharged its obligations, but those on the hospital were freestanding.
• Provision of staff and facilities, the functions at issue here, had a ‘statutory underpinning’.
• There was public interest in the provision of adequate facilities, because detention might otherwise be prolonged.
• The reason for the hospital’s decision (departure of staff) did not impact on the nature of the function challenge.
• Detained patients have no choice about receiving the service or from whom they receive it; their position was analogous to those detained in private prisons.

Summary of criteria for assessing whether a function is that of a public body or not
• Is there a statutory authority or underpinning to the function? Is the body in question controlled by a public authority? Is there a link e.g. are board members also members of a public authority?
• Is there a public interest in the function? Is the function being exercised over public land?
• Is there a difference between the way a service is provided when it is publicly funded and when it is privately funded?
• A public body is “essentially a reference to a body whose nature was governmental in the broad sense of that expression” (Aston Canlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] 3 All ER 1213).
banned#2
hope that helps .. I know what a public toilet is
#3
whatsThePoint
i'd say yes
http://www.diyspy.co.uk/ThePoliceAndPublicRecords.html
"Appeals
Advice about compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is provided on the Information Commissioner’s website. If the police or another public body withholds the information you ask for, you can file an appeal with the Information Commissioner. "


dog_cop
How to determine whether a body is a public authority for the purposes of the HRA:

There are effectively 3 types of body for the purposes of the Act:
1. Wholly public bodies (e.g. government departments, local authorities, police, prison service)
2. Hybrid bodies
3. Others

Hybrid bodies will not be treated as public bodies for the purposes of the HRA if “the nature of the act is private”.

In Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, the Court stressed that the definition of what is a public authority should be given a generous interpretation. The Court went on to identify a number of factors which would suggest that a function was public:

• Statutory authority
• Control over the function by another body which is a public authority
• Acts which might be of a private nature being enmeshed in the activities of a public body
• Closeness of the relationship with a public body
• Transfer of responsibilities between public and private sectors.

In this case, the applicant was provided interim accommodation in council property. The local council transferred the property to Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd, a housing association. Poplar Housing began possession proceedings and the applicant sought to rely on Article 8. The Court concluded that the role of the housing association was “so closely assimilated” to that of the council that it was to be considered a public authority in this instance.

In looking at the issue, the Court did note considerations that in this case were neutral or irrelevant:
- Supervision by a regulatory body
- Carrying out functions which would be public if they were carried out by a public bodies
- Performing activities in what is perceived is the public interest.

In R (Heather and others) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366 - The claimants were long stay residents in a home run by LCF, a charity. They had been placed in the home by social services under section 26 National Assistance Act 1948. Their fees were partly paid from their benefits and partly by the local authority. The LCF decided to close the home. The claimants sought to challenge this as a breach of their rights under Art 8.

The court held that this was not a case where the local authority was trying to divest itself of its obligations under Art 8 by contracting out its obligations under the National Assistance Act 1948. It still retained its obligations under Art 8. If the placements had started after the Human Rights Act came into force it would have been possible for the residents to require the local authority to ensure that their rights under Art 8 were protected by contract.

There were 3 decisive factors which led to the conclusion that LCF’s functions were not public:

1. The nature of the service provided did not differ between those residents who were publicly funded and those who were privately funded.
2. There was no other evidence of a “public flavour” to the activities of LCF. LCF was not standing in the shoes of the local authority.
3. The fact that the claimants would lose the protection of Art 8 against LCF if it was not performing a public function was a circular argument. Art 8 does not change the classification of a function.

In R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2002] EWHC 529 a detained patient brought a challenge to the private hospital’s decision to change the focus of a ward’s activities with the result that there would be less treatment available for those who were mentally ill. The Court held that such a hospital would be a public authority as far as the functions of making arrangements for care to be provided were concerned. The Court thought it significant that:

• The patients’ Health Authority may well have discharged its obligations, but those on the hospital were freestanding.
• Provision of staff and facilities, the functions at issue here, had a ‘statutory underpinning’.
• There was public interest in the provision of adequate facilities, because detention might otherwise be prolonged.
• The reason for the hospital’s decision (departure of staff) did not impact on the nature of the function challenge.
• Detained patients have no choice about receiving the service or from whom they receive it; their position was analogous to those detained in private prisons.

Summary of criteria for assessing whether a function is that of a public body or not
• Is there a statutory authority or underpinning to the function? Is the body in question controlled by a public authority? Is there a link e.g. are board members also members of a public authority?
• Is there a public interest in the function? Is the function being exercised over public land?
• Is there a difference between the way a service is provided when it is publicly funded and when it is privately funded?
• A public body is “essentially a reference to a body whose nature was governmental in the broad sense of that expression” (Aston Canlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] 3 All ER 1213).


Thats great help... Need it to decide if a Judicial Review could be Ultra Vires, but thats only applicable to Public Bodies so just needed to clarify :oops:.

Rep left...x
#4
I think you really need to read up on Ultra Vires, substantial and procedural are two points that come to mind

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!