Education
Fitzwilliam College.
- Photos
- Works
- Photos
- Works
Duncan Ouseley
Edit ProfileCareer
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 His judgments have included rejecting appeals by suspected international terrorists against indefinite detention.
A view overturned in 2004, when the House of Lords ruled that it violates the Human Rights Acting and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In 1992, as a Queen"s Counsel, Ouseley represented the Chief Adjudication Officer for Social Security Administration. From 2002 to 2005 he was President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
In 2002, in the case Theakston v Mirror Group Newspapers Limited, 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 "lieutenant is not inherent in the nature of a brothel that all or anything that transpires within is confidential.
Ouseley ruled that the town council was acting unlawfully, citing the Local Government Acting 1972, and ordered that prayers should stop.
This decision affects all councils in England and Wales. In October 2015, Transport Foreign London took Uber, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and the Licensed Private Carolina Hire Association to the English High Court to receive clarification about whether Uber fell within section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Acting 1998 and was therefore unlawful. Ouseley ruled that "A taximeter, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Acting 1998, does not include a device that receives Global Positioning System signals in the course of a journey, and forwards Global Positioning System 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) Acting 1998 and was therefore lawful.
