‘The final report of Sir Brian Langstaff, Chairman of the Infected Blood Inquiry, has been handed down today. Sir Brian is forthright in his criticism of the events that led initially to transmission of infection and the subsequent response of the NHS and government.’
Inquests and Inquiries Law Blog, 20th May 2024
Source: inquestsandinquirieslawblog.com
‘An inspector failed to properly consider the position of a company that had entered liquidation while pursuing a planning appeal, the High Court has found.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th May 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Failed asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda following an expansion of deportation plans from the Home Office.’
BBC News, 15th May 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A Ukrainian refugee couple who fled to the UK have been refused permission for their two-year-old daughter to join them after the government suddenly changed its sponsorship rules, The Independent can reveal.’
The Independent, 12th May 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Child refugees are using people smugglers to cross the Channel in small boats to reunite with parents and other close relatives because delays in government family reunion processes are leaving them stranded in danger, according to a report.’
The Guardian, 13th May 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The first part of this blog outlined the facts and decision in the Supreme Court case, Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, as well as the approach the Court took in distinguishing between private sector and public sector employment. The second part of this blog considers the approach of the Supreme Court in distinguishing between the “core” and “essential” in respect of trade union rights. While the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is sometimes a little opaque, these two terms are not interchangeable in RMT. The right to strike is not yet designated as an “essential” trade union freedom, though it is an integral prop to other “essential” rights such as the right to make representations and the right to bargain collectively. In RMT, the distinction between “core” and “accessory” is being used in a different sense, to emphasise gradations of importance within a specific right (“essential” or otherwise). In RMT, for example, the Court was drawing a distinction between primary strike action, which was “core” and deserving of stronger protection, and “secondary” strike action which was “accessory” and therefore amenable to a wider margin of appreciation. The situation in Mercer involved a primary strike, and hence applying RMT it was at the “core” of the right to strike. This conceptual distinction is therefore internal to the right to strike. It is very likely that the right to bargain collectively, essential in Article 11 terms, also has “core” and “accessory” elements to it.’
Oxford Human Right Hub, 10th May 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Individual strikers are protected from dismissal where they are dismissed for participating in “protected” (i.e lawful and official) industrial action, under s. 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). However, there are many ways in which employers can penalise individual strikers other than through dismissal, such as through demotion, suspension, fines, disciplinary warnings, and disproportionate pay deductions. In Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, the Supreme Court considered if a worker proposing to strike was protected from “detriment” under TULRCA 1992, s. 146. This was because it concerned her participation in the “activities of an independent trade union”. The Supreme Court concluded that strike action was excluded from s.146, principally because it was not “at an appropriate time” [44]-[45]. This meant that there was no statutory protection for the claimant, Ms Mercer, who (on the assumed facts) had been suspended for activities connected to a lawful and official strike. The effect of this was to create a zone of impunity for employers engaged in the selective victimisation of individual strikers.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 10th May 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘A public inquiry into the long-running infected blood scandal is due to publish its findings later this month, with a compensation scheme running into the billions thought to be amongst recommendations.’
The Independent, 9th May 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is standing by its decision to convict two carers of benefit fraud, despite the cases leading to a public outcry.’
BBC News, 8th May 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Hundreds of children identified as potential victims of trafficking are being abandoned by the Home Office and left vulnerable to exploitation, new data reveals. Released following a freedom of information (FoI) request, figures show that in 2022, 1,871 children identified as possible victims of trafficking or modern slavery dropped off the UK government system conceived to support them once they turned 18.’
The Guardian, 8th May 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Human rights in the UK are routinely reviewed by various UN bodies – treaty bodies, special procedures, and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The influence of these activities in the UK has been the subject of some inquiry in the past (see, notably, Brice Dickson’s recent book on the subject). But what has remained elusive is whether the work of these bodies has any salience to the UK Government. As the prime initiator of policy and legislation, the executive holds significant power to implement the recommendations of UN bodies that it supports. Hence, we must understand the extent to which policymakers engage with the findings and recommendations of human rights mechanisms to fully appreciate their impact (or lack thereof). Do they have any bearing at all on decision-making, or simply pass under the radar? Is engagement with the UN mechanisms a mere ritual, or a means of securing greater respect for rights in the UK?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th May 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Since 11 April 2024, there has been a(nother) new Appendix to the Immigration Rules: Appendix Long Residence.’
Richmond Chambers, 1st May 2024
Source: immigrationbarrister.co.uk
‘As the Government Legal Department unveils its three-year business strategy, Treasury solicitor Susanna McGibbon expands on its goals of becoming a national GLD while offering rewarding careers.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th April 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘New laws to protect our citizens from threats such as terrorism and child sexual abuse have been passed as part of an update to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.’
Home Office, 25th April 2024
Source: www.gov.uk
‘A coroner has ruled the deaths of three people in the Reading terror attack were ”probably avoidable” as he delivered his conclusion following an inquest at the Old Bailey on Friday.’
The Independent, 27th April 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The police are discounting threatening and insulting text messages as a form of domestic abuse with tens of thousands of incident records estimated to be missing. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner warned almost 17,600 domestic abuse crimes are missing from data released on Thursday due to the government overhauling the rules on how the police should record incidents.’
The Independent, 26th April 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Home Office will launch a major operation to detain asylum seekers across the UK on Monday, weeks earlier than expected, in preparation for their deportation to Rwanda, the Guardian can reveal.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and Bishop of Southwark have joined with leaders of the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and United Reformed Churches in England and issued a joint statement; the Church’s Press Release is reproduced below.’
Law & Religion UK, 23rd April 2024
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘Commentary on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act (“RA”), which is shortly to receive Royal Assent, has concentrated principally on its deeming of Rwanda as a safe country whilst ousting the supervision of courts. This post considers a separate issue – section 4 of the Act as it applies to victims of slavery (“VOS”). Section 4 provides a carve out from the Act’s deeming provisions where the Home Secretary considers Rwanda is unsafe for an individual “based on compelling evidence relating specifically to their particular individual circumstances”. It also provides courts with a power of review of that question.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th April 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025