‘About 40 homeless people squatting in an empty building in one of London’s most upmarket areas have won the first round of a legal fight with a landlord.’
The Guardian, 26th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Administrative Court last week (22.5.15) handed down judgment in the case of R (on the application of AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1490 (Admin), quashing a decision not to recognize AB as a victim of human trafficking for the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking (CAT), and mandating that the Secretary of State remake that decision.’
Free Movement, 27th May 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘A new British bill of rights is expected to be included in the Queen’s speech, but shadow lord chancellor says upper house would be within its rights to reject it.’
The Guardian, 22nd May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘So we finally we have some clarity. Of the many statements, quasi-proposals and rumours affecting constitutional reform which had been swirling around during the term of the last coalition government, we now know which will see the light of day as official government policy. With the surprise Conservative majority government, it is now clear that the Human Rights Act will be repealed and replaced with a British Bill of Rights and there will be a referendum on EU membership by 2017 at the latest. Given that many of these issues had already been touted by one part of the coalition, many, if not most, of the constitutional and political implications, and particularly the difficulties, of these proposals have already been thrashed out in different forums such as the recent report co-edited by my colleague Tobias Lock, as well as, of course, on the pages of this blog. I have read and benefited from these excellent insights and so have nothing to add here to the substance of these issues.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th May 2015
Source: http://ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Sajid Javid’s reported objections to the Government’s pre-election proposals on countering extremist ideas uncover just how controversial the new laws will be. He had objected, it seems, to a mooted expansion of Ofcom’s powers to take pre-emptive action to prevent the broadcast of programmes with ‘extremist content’ before they are transmitted.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd May 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The legislative backdrop to both cases featured the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004), the latter being legislation enacted by Parliament to enable persons who have changed gender to have their acquired gender recognised and certified. GRA 2004 was Parliament’s response to the decision in Strasbourg in Goodwin v United Kingdom (Application No. 65723/01) [2008] All ER (D) 113 (Jan), in which it was held that the UK had failed to comply with its positive obligation to ensure the right of a transsexual to respect for her private life, in particular by affording legal recognition to her acquired gender.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th May 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘It is very widely believed that the Human Rights Act stops the UK from deporting foreign criminals whence they came. To a limited extent, there is some truth in this. Some appeals against deportation decisions do succeed on human rights grounds. Not many, though, and none succeed because of the Human Rights Act as distinct from the European Convention on Human Rights. Other appeals against deportation succeed under EU law or the Refugee Convention.’
Free Movement, 26th May 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Sir Brian Leveson, the judge most famous for his report into press ethics, has said he does not consider himself “crushed by the European jackboot” when it comes to applying the European convention of human rights in British courts.’
The Guardian, 24th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Queen’s Speech marks the start of this session of parliament. The address, written by government ministers, is delivered by the Queen and lays out the Government’s agenda for the next year.’
The Independent, 26th May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Home Office has introduced a new policy on reconsideration of old human rights claims that were refused before 6 April 2015 with no right of appeal: Requests for reconsiderations of human rights or protection based claims refused without right of appeal before 6 April 2015. The policy is important in the very many cases where a human rights application was made by an individual or family and the application was refused with no right of appeal because no removal decision was made. Under the new appeals regime introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 from 6 April 2014, no removal decision is needed for a right of appeal, only refusal of a human rights claim.’
Full story
Free Movement, 21st May 2015
Source: www.freemovement.co.uk
‘The parliamentary committee that scrutinises proposed major constitutional changes been scrapped despite turbulent times ahead of the future of the United Kingdon’s governance.’
The Independent, 21st May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In extradition proceedings under Part I of the Extradition Act 2003 an appellate court, in answering the question whether a district judge had been wrong to decide that extradition was or was not proportionate with the requested person’s rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, had to focus on whether the decision on proportionality itself was wrong.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In short, in 2007 the claimant’s father (‘F’) shot and killed the claimant’s mother. He was convicted of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility and detained at a hospital run by the second defendant. In 2009 St George’s Hospital diagnosed him as suffering from Huntington’s disease.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th May 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘With the post-election dust barely settled, the Human Rights Act is firmly in the Conservatives’ sights. Caught in the crosshairs is section 2 HRA, which requires UK courts to take into account, but not necessarily follow, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.’
Full story
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th May 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In my last post on the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the enactment of a British Bill of Rights, I considered the extent to which the House of Lords might thwart the Government’s plans. My conclusion was that the Lords might plausibly assert itself so as to delay the legislation, traditional understandings of the Salisbury Convention notwithstanding, but that the Parliament Act 1911 clearly deprives the Lords of any absolute veto. What, however, of the devolved nations? Could they block the implementation of the UK Government’s proposals?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 16th May 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘So Max Mosley has done a deal with Google in respect of his claim that Google had breached his rights under the DPA 1998 by refusing to block certain images and videos accessible via the Google search engine (see this FT article which suggests that the settlement also applies to claims brought by Mr Mosley in Germany and France). The settlement of the claim, which follows on from Google’s failed strike out application (discussed further below), leaves unanswered a number of really important questions concerning the application of data protection rights in the online world. Not least, the settlement leaves open the question of the extent to which the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ can operate so as to force internet search engines, not only to de-index individual URLs on request, but also to block access to the offending data globally (i.e. as ISEs already do, for example, where images of child pornography are identified).’
Panopticon, 18th May 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Conservatives want to replace it. Here are five things it has implemented for good.’
The Independent, 15th May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has questioned what the Conservative Party is trying to achieve through its plan to replace the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights.’
Full story
The Independent, 17th May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The policy in Northern Ireland, England and Wales of retaining indefinitely the DNA samples and other information obtained from persons who were arrested and subsequently convicted of an offence was proportionate and justified, and was within the margin of appreciation afforded to member states. A convicted person’s the right to respect for his private life guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was therefore not infringed when the police refused to give him an assurance that his DNA samples would be destroyed.’
WLR Daily, 13th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Retaining DNA profiles of convicted adults indefinitely is not an illegal breach of their privacy, the supreme court has ruled in a test case involving a Northern Ireland drink driver. he judgment by the UK’s highest court sets a significant precedent in making a clear distinction between information that police forces may keep on those who have been convicted, as opposed to those who were merely suspects.’
The Guardian, 13th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025