‘A judge who dismissed a woman’s claim she had been raped, as she had done “nothing physically” to stop the alleged perpetrator, is among a number of family court judges to hold “outdated views”, a joint letter says.’
BBC News, 19th February 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A family case has recently been the subject of an unusual level of attention from the media, both legal and mainstream, much of it reflecting badly upon the family justice system. I thought I should look at the case, in particular, the lessons that can, or cannot, be learned from it.’
Family Law, 7th February 2020
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Lawyers, campaigners and politicians are calling for wider action to be taken after a judge was condemned for employing “obsolescent concepts” on consent in a family case.’
Law Society's Gazette, 6th February 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The use of hormone treatments for young people who want to undergo gender reassignment is to be examined by experts, it has emerged.’
The Guardian, 2nd February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Anyone who films a partner during sex without their consent is committing the criminal offence of voyeurism, the court of appeal has ruled in a case that may affect the Crown Prosecution Service’s apparent reluctance to bring charges.’
The Guardian, 28th January 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A former transgender patient has mounted an unprecedented legal challenge against a sex change clinic she claims is putting children on a “torturous”, “permanent” and “unnecessary path, High Court documents reveal.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd January 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A female judge has criticised an “outdated” male colleague after he ruled that a woman had not been raped by her violent partner because she “took no physical steps” to stop him during sex.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd January 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Sperm donations taken from men after they have died should be allowed, a study says.’
BBC News, 21st January 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Incidents of men taking “upskirt” photographs of women are being reported on an almost daily basis since tougher new legislation was introduced, with victims known to be as young as 13. The first figures to chart the impact of the Voyeurism Offences Act show that almost one victim a day has contacted police to report being targeted since the law came into effect in April last year.
Daily Telegraph, 10th January 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Children cannot consent to transgender treatment, a nurse bringing a landmark legal case has said, claiming that many are autistic, homosexual or just confused.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th January 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A landmark test case to establish whether children can give informed consent to medical treatment for gender reassignment begins in the high court this week.’
The Guardian, 5th January 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
By which we mean: some that we did miss blogging about. With apologies and better late than nevers, here’s a round-up of three recent(ish) cases worthy of note. In R (Open Rights Group) v SSHD digital campaigners Open Rights Group and The3million (campaigning on behalf of so many EU Citizens living in the UK) challenged the immigration exemption – one of the few new features in the DPA 2018 that strengthens the controller’s hand – as incompatible with fundamental charter rights to privacy and protection of personal data. They also contended that it was too broad, vague and lacking in the safeguards required by the parent Article 23 GDPR (which enables Member States to enact domestic exemptions).The exemption follows a formula which is familiar from other exemptions, old and new – processing of personal data relating to some public good is exempt from data subject rights, to the extent that the public good is jeopardised by execise of those rights. The immigration-specific exemption is new – as the Secretary of State’s witness explained [29], ‘where an exemption was required in an immigration context, reliance was placed on the crime exemption contained latterly in s.29 of DPA 1998’. In other words, the Home Office was getting by OK under the old regime, and one aspect of the challenge to the exemption was that the introduction of a measure infringing fundamental rights must be ‘strictly necessary’.
Panopticon, 5th December 2019
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘In this case, an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975, the Defendant refused consent to an Early Neutral Evaluation (‘ENE’) hearing. By an order dated 20 May 2019, Parker J therefore declined to order one, on the basis that the court did not have power to do so in such circumstances where consent to an ENE hearing is withheld by one of the parties.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 27th November 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The issue of whether non-signatories to arbitration agreements can nevertheless be bound by such agreements is one of increasing importance as recourse to arbitration grows. The traditional limits of arbitration as defined by consent have come under increasing pressure given the enthusiasm for arbitration as the preferred means of dispute resolution in the context of international agreements.’
Six Pump Court, 2nd December 2019
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘The national press has relished reporting the ongoing saga of Ant McPartlin’s divorce from his former wife, Lisa Armstrong. The public have been informed of the details regarding the extent of the couple’s wealth (reported to be around £62m), the amount the couple have spent on legal costs (reported to be £1.5m) and the latest offer made by Ant (reported to consist of a package which would leave Lisa with around £31m). Lisa denies that Ant has made such an offer but perhaps of most interest to divorce lawyers is the suggestion that whatever the true extent of Ant’s offer, Lisa is not prepared to sign a consent order due to Ant’s insistence that any such order should contain a non-disclosure agreement (N.D.A.)’
No. 5 Chambers, 19th November 2019
Source: www.no5.com
‘In An NHS Trust v C NHS Trust & Ors [2019] EWHC 3033 (Fam), CX, now fourteen, had been diagnosed with lymphatic cancer when he was three. He was treated successfully, but in 2019 his cancer returned [1]-[2]. As a result of the chemotherapy that he was to receive, it was likely that his blood counts would drop significantly and that he would need transfusions of blood products [5]. Both CX and his mother were Jehovah’s Witnesses: each was willing to consent to the proposed chemotherapy, stem cell harvesting and the return of the stem cells following chemotherapy, but would not consent to the administration of blood and/or blood products – which the doctors believed to be a necessary and integral part of CX’s recovery.’
Law & Religion UK, 21st November 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘Child marriage is ‘any formal marriage or informal union between a child under the age of 18 and an adult or another child’ (UNICEF). Child marriage is not a criminal offence in England and Wales. Children can marry between the ages of 16-17 with parental consent in accordance with s 3 of the Marriage Act 1949. Marriages that take place involving children below the age of 16 are void but they are not criminalised. There is no legal provision currently in place that prevents religious or customary child marriages, at any age, from taking place. Often religious or customary marriages carry even more weight than civil marriages within certain families or communities. Whilst there may only be a minority of civil marriages taking place with parental consent between children from the ages of 16-17 years old, it is unknown how many British children are married abroad and how many religious and customary marriages involving children take place each year.’
Counsel, November 2019
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘The age at which children can legally consent to having their personal data processed by tech companies should be raised from 13 to 16, MPs have urged.’
Rights Info, 5th November 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘This appeal concerned a landlord’s refusal to make a planning application for increased residential use. The tenant challenged this decision on the basis that it was unreasonable. The County Court and the Court of Appeal agreed with the tenant and the landlord appealed to the Supreme Court. The question for the Court was whether the trial judge was right to find the landlord had acted unreasonably in withholding consent.’
UKSC Blog, 30th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A British man called Jason Lawrance is appealing his conviction for raping a woman. The woman had willingly had unprotected sex with him – he told her he’d had a vasectomy – but she pressed charges after he texted her to say he had lied.’
Rights Info, 31st October 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
