‘The Detention Centre in Bedfordshire – privately run, but publicly funded – has a dreadful reputation for its treatment of asylum seekers. Cole Moreton found a way inside to see if its notoriety is deserved.’
The Independent, 16th November 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘R (on the application of Lord Carlile of Berriew QC and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 60. The exclusion of a dissident Iranian from the UK, on grounds that her presence would have a damaging impact on our interests in relation to Iran, has been upheld by the Supreme Court.’
Uk Human Rights Blog, 12th November 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Home Secretary’s decision to maintain an order excluding the entry into the United Kingdom of a dissident Iranian politician, invited by members of the Houses of Parliament to meet them in London to discuss human rights and democratic issues in Iran, was not a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the Home Secretary was entitled to accept the recommendation of the Foreign Secretary that to permit such entry would risk jeopardising the United Kingdom’s diplomatic and economic interests and might provoke a violent reaction in Iran resulting in damage to British property and endangering the safety of British and local personnel.’
WLR Daily, 12th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Human Rights and the Common Law – Where Next after Kennedy v the Charity Commission? The Jan Grodecki Lecture 2014 by Michael Tugendhat at the University of Leicester School of Law on 23rd October, 2014.’
University of Leicester, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.le.ac.uk
‘In his lecture to the Administrative Law Bar Association earlier this month, Lord Sumption surveys the concept of “anxious scrutiny” – a judicial method which he characterises as a forerunner to the principle of proportionality. The term was actually coined by Lord Bridge in Bugdaycay (1986), and was meant to apply where the rights engaged in a case were sufficiently fundamental, and stretched the traditional “Wednesbury” test to public authority decisions or actions which were not, on the face of it, irrational. (The citation given in the PDF of the speech incidentally is incorrect). The same way of thinking had been arrived at in the US courts a few years earlier, with their “hard look” doctrine, but to Lord Sumption there was something peculiarly English about the “crab-like” way in which our courts approached and eventually acknowledged this doctrine, hitherto alien to the judicial toolbox.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th November 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Two prisoners have failed in their human rights protest against prison rehabilitation courses in the United Kingdom.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th November 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R (on the application of FI) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1272. The Court of Appeal has held that the physical restraint of persons being removed from the UK by aircraft is subject to a sufficient framework of safeguards to fulfil the state’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the decision of the Home Secretary not to publish aspects of the applicable policy on the use of such control and restraint is lawful.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th November 2014
Source: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/
‘The proposed deportation of a Lebanese man with Down’s syndrome has been branded “fundamentally inhumane” by the business secretary, Vince Cable. Wadih Chourey, 44, has lived in Twickenham, south-west London, for the past 17 years after seeking refuge from abuse in Beirut. But both his parents have since died and his brother Camil, 52, said he would be unable to care for himself in Lebanon.’
The Guardian, 6th November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Anxious Scrutiny (PDF)
Lord Sumption
Administrative Law Bar Association Annual Lecture, 4th November 2014
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘Fireworks here from Collins J in making sure that Bank Mellat got some disclosure of information in its fight to discharge a financial restriction order against it.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th November 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 5th November 2014
‘Supreme Court judges will be asked this week to rule whether five men accused of taking part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide should be extradited to face trial.’
The Independent, 2nd November 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The government’s modern slavery bill is a “lost opportunity,” the home secretary’s former special envoy for human trafficking has warned. Anthony Steen, who advised on the legislation and chairs the Human Trafficking Foundation, said the bill, which will be debated in parliament on Tuesday for its third reading, had “yawning gaps”, and failed to focus on the needs of victims of trafficking in the UK.’
The Guardian, 3rd November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘One of Britain’s most senior judges has launched a withering attack on cuts to legal aid after a couple with learning disabilities was not provided with a lawyer to fight the forced adoption of their two-year-old son.’
The Independent, 31st October 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Whether you call it the “spare room subsidy” or the “bedroom tax”, the removal of this type of housing benefit has been nothing short of controversial. There have been several previous legal challenges to the Regulations, as well as to the benefit cap introduced as part of the same package of welfare changes. The outcome of these cases was not promising for these claimants, in particular the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 13. Another important case is R (SG (previously JS)) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 156.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th October 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A man known as the Naked Rambler has lost his case at the European court of human rights where, he claimed he had a right to bare all in public.’
The Guardian, 28th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Although the courts of the United Kingdom had jurisdiction judicially to review an Order in Council made on the advice of the Government of the United Kingdom acting in whole or in part in the interests of the United Kingdom, there were circumstances in which the court should nevertheless decline to entertain a claim for judicial review. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court ought to have declined to entertain a human rights-compatibility challenge to legislation enacted in respect of the Island of Sark— a Crown dependency which was part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey but not of the United Kingdom— since it ought properly to have been brought before the bailiwick courts for determination under the island’s own human rights legislation.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court has ruled that in a case against the state which did not directly affect the liberty of the subject, there was no irreducible minimum of disclosure of the state’s case which the court would require. The consequences of such disclosure for national security prevailed.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th October 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This was the Liberty backed judicial review of the bedroom tax regulations on the basis that the regulations amounted to an article 8 breach, or an article 14 breach read with article 8, or that the regulations were irrational. At issue was the status of separated families where there was shared care.’
NearlyLegal, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025