arrest of plaintiff. Relation to convention preventing arrest, Article 8 which injunction would lead to right being effectively protected from interference by Solicitor- General and may lead to a writ in from of relief.
Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd examines the interlocutory relief was not in this case appropriate as plaintiff’s allegations not determinant on evidence.
(b) Evidence collected by interception of plaintiff’s telecommunication lines. For the reason that, conduct authorised by issuing warrant from Security-General was not proportionate to what the warrant seeks to achieve. The interception of the lines by defendants, I find, could be obtained in a new way. The evidence collected, I believe through this injunction was the only evidential basis for plaintiff’s arrest.
The writ which came with the authority of a warrant has no structure in place where there was no supervision. By the Secretary of state, presented to the court as the Secretary General, agreeing to the warrant, I have come to the conclusion that Secretary General was not in accordance with the law. Therefore, the plaintiff may not a fair trial because the warrant issued was the sole basis for arresting and detaining the plaintiff.
Preferably one which does not violate plaintiff’s right to the formerly mentioned declaration, that of ‘privacy and confidentiality’ when disclosing information on telecommunication lines which is further discussed after the injunction and relief that arises from the interception itself.
Plaintiff sought part of the relief through the motion by way of an injunction which denied defendants overrode European convention rights. The Commissioner was ordered, thereby in this court, to discontinue monitoring and intercepting the claimant’s telephone lines. This lead this court to continue questioning whether the primary prohibition of telephone tapping was a legislative function in which the court of England. The claimant was not denied part of a relief because of the actions taken by Commissioner through the writ he so forth claimed.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 US 475 – Supreme Court (1973) considered.
Justice Stewart of the case stated plaintiff sought injunctive relief to compel restoration of the credits which resulted in their immediate release from confinement. Contrasting judgement to the Malone