‘The Metropolitan Police unlawfully failed to consider whether the right to protest provided a “reasonable excuse” under coronavirus restrictions to organise a vigil for murder victim Sarah Everard, the High Court ruled today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th March 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This was the issue in the landmark human rights case, Re S [2004] UKHL 47, in which Lord Steyn formulated the test in balancing privacy interests under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights with freedom of expression interests under Article 10. Lord Steyn’s formula is relied on (or should be) every time the media argue that it’s in the public interest to breach someone’s Article 8 rights. Likewise, every time an individual argues their privacy rights outweigh freedom of expression, we go to Re S.’
Transparency Project, 8th March 2022
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Thirty five years after Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA (Gillick) was decided, the Supreme Court took the opportunity, in R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (A) and R (BF (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department(BF), (previously discussed in this blog here), to restate the boundaries of the test for the lawfulness of policies published by public bodies, and to identify as erroneous cases which had relied on “other principles” (A at [54]). Lords Sales and Burnett, giving the leading judgment in both cases, drew a distinction between policies which can be regarded as “sanctioning” (by statement or omission), and those which are simply capable of “leading” to, unlawful decision-making. They summarised the Gillick test as follows: “Does the policy in question authorise or approve unlawful conduct by those to whom it is directed?” (A at [38]) (referred to here as the “authorisation/ approval test”). Distinct formulations of the lawfulness test relied on in previous cases, which turn on whether a given policy can be regarded as “leading” to an “unacceptable risk” of unlawful decision-making (referred to here as the “unacceptable risk test”), were incorrect to the extent that they constituted a departure from Gillick (A at [75]).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 28th February 2022
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The central question for the Supreme Court in Bloombery v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 was, as Lords Hamblen and Stephens put it (with Lord Reeds, Lloyd-Jones and Sales agreeing): “whether, in general, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation”. The short answer was “yes”.’
Panopticon, 21st February 2022
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘The Respondent is a US citizen. He and his employer were the subject of a criminal investigation by a UK Legal Enforcement Body. During that investigation, the UKLEB sent a confidential Letter of Request to the authorities of a foreign state seeking, among other things, information and documents relating to the Respondent. The Letter expressly requested that its existence and contents remain confidential.’
UKSC Blog, 16th February 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Pwr v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] UKSC 2. On 26 January 2022 the Supreme Court ruled that s.13(1) Terrorism Act 2000 (“TA 2000 “) is a strict liability offence and that, whilst it does interfere with Art.10 ECHR (freedom of expression), the interference is lawful, necessary and proportionate.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd February 2022
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In R (Harry Miller) v The College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926, the Court of Appeal ruled that current police guidance on the recording of ‘hate incidents’ unlawfully interferes with the right to freedom of expression. The decision overturns a 2020 ruling by the High Court in which Mr Miller’s challenge to the lawfulness of the Hate Crime Operational Guidance was dismissed (discussed previously on this Blog here).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th January 2022
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Lauren Gardner reports on some significant recent judgments in the Court of Protection.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th January 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Law Commission has announced recommendations to reform hate crime legislation to ensure that disabled and LGBT+ victims receive the same protections as victims with other protected characteristics (race and religion). If enacted, the reforms would ensure all five characteristics are protected equally by the law.’
Family Law, 27th January 2022
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘An environmental activist who was deceived into a two-year intimate relationship by an undercover police officer has been awarded £229,000 in compensation after winning a landmark legal case.’
The Guardian, 25th January 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Women’s rights activists are at the high court to argue that the police’s decision to ban a vigil for Sarah Everard in London was a breach of their human rights.’
The Guardian, 19th January 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Lee v. the United Kingdom (application no. 18860/19). The European Court of Human Rights has, by a majority, declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th January 2022
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘ECHR says Gareth Lee’s case against bakery that refused to make cake with ‘support gay marriage’ message is inadmissible.’
The Guardian, 6th January 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The acquittal of the Colston Four raises questions about new laws imposing 10-year jail terms for the toppling of statues, legal experts have said.’
The Guardian, 6th January 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An ex-police officer has won a legal challenge against a national policy for forces to record gender-critical views as non-crime “hate incidents”.’
BBC News, 20th December 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A protester who set fire to police vehicles during a riot that followed a “Kill the Bill” demonstration in Bristol has been jailed for 14 years.’
The Independent, 17th December 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Dominic Raab is to outline a sweeping overhaul of human rights law that he claims will counter “wokery and political correctness” and expedite the deportation of foreign criminals.’
The Guardian, 14th December 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024