‘In possession proceedings the court should approach a defence based on disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in the same way as it would approach one based on article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 46 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 23rd July 2014
‘This is an important summary of the principles applicable to HR damages, particularly in circumstances where there have been other payments already made arguably in respect of the acts in question. So it should be first port of call if you have an HR damages problem, not least because it gathers all the learning together.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘When will a court order an inquiry into the deaths in combat of soldiers serving overseas? Following recent judgments of the English and Strasbourg courts extending the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to zones of armed conflict overseas in certain circumstances, the question is likely to arise frequently over the coming years. In R(Long), the Divisional Court strongly endorsed the doctrine of combat immunity and appeared to set its face against the recent rise in claims against the MoD by soldiers deployed abroad and their next of kin.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The UK’s highest court will rule on a landmark decision of whether illegal immigrants should be deprived of fundamental workers’ rights, following the appeal of a Nigerian national who was trafficked into the UK. Judges from the Supreme Court, including Britain’s most senior female judge Lady Hale, will deliver the verdict on Wednesday in a case which could set an important precedent for the rights of workers found to be treated as modern-day slaves.’
The Independent, 27th July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, 23 July 2014, read judgment and Austin v. Miller Argent [2014] EWCA Civ 1012, 21 July 2014. Two important cases in the last few days showing how difficult it is to find a fair way to litigate private nuisance cases. Most of these claims have a modest financial value, but may raise complex factual and expert issues, even before you get to the law. The first case I shall deal with, Coventry, shows the iniquities of the recently departed system. The second, Austin, the dangers of the new.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
McDonald and others v McDonald: [2014] EWCA Civ 1049; [2014] WLR (D) 336
‘Where a private landlord sought a possession order under section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988 the tenant could not resist the making of the order on the ground that it would be disproportionate under article 8.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (LD and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] WLR (D) 333
‘The policy contained in Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 67/2011 of targeted strip-searching of women prisoners was not in breach of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The proposed deportation to Jamaica of a man convicted of drug smuggling and manslaughter would breach his rights under Article 8 and Article 14 because he had not obtained British citizenship on grounds of illegitimacy, the High Court has ruled.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The pre-Jackson regime of recoverable success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance may breach the European Convention on Human Rights, with “very serious consequences for the government”, the Supreme Court suggested yesterday.’
Litigation Futures, 24th July 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Supreme Court, 16th July 2014
‘The appellant is a British national who was convicted of drug trafficking offences in Indonesia and sentenced to death. She is currently awaiting execution in prison in Bali. The respondent claimed to have a strict “bright line” policy never to provide legal funding in criminal proceedings abroad, even where the death penalty may apply. The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal only on the issue of whether the respondent’s policy was irrational or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 21st July 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Provisions in the Immigration Rules which impose income requirements on individuals living in the United Kingdom, who wish to bring their non-European Economic Area citizen spouses to live with them, are not a disproportionate interference with their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal has also underlined the important (but often misunderstood) point that there is no legal requirement that the Immigration Rules should provide that the best interests of the child should be determinative. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 is not a “trump card” to be played whenever the interests of a child arise. ‘
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A new inquest has been ordered into the death of soldier Pte Cheryl James at Deepcut barracks in Surrey.’
BBC News, 18th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The policy of the Foreign Secretary to refuse to provide funding for legal representation to United Kingdom nationals who were facing the death penalty abroad was lawful.’
WLR Daily, 16th july 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This week, the role of Lady Butler-Sloss in the forthcoming inquiry into child abuse is challenged, while the government pushes for emergency legislation to monitor phone and internet records. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Right upholds France’s niqab ban and the Tories get closer to announcing their plans for human rights reform.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a judgment released yesterday a Divisional Court unanimously struck down the government’s attempt to introduce a residence test for eligibility for legal aid, finding it incompatible with the objective of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (“LASPO”). The ratio of the judgment was that the residence test had been introduced via an amendment to the schedule in the Act (that is, via subsidiary legislation) that was not compatible with the objective of the primary legislation. While that sounds like a rather technical decision, it has important ramifications for democratic accountability. It means, in essence, that if the government wants to make such a drastic change as this, it will need to do so via an amendment to the Act itself, with the full Parliamentary debate that that would entail. The case is also interesting because of the two rights-based grounds that were argued before it. The first, that the introduction of a residence requirement violated the fundamental right of access to a court, the court declined to engage with. The second was that residence was not a lawful ground for discriminating in the provision of legal aid between equally meritorious claims. The court accepted this claim, but apparently in obiter dicta, since only the statutory construction point was strictly required to reach the outcome.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th July 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
‘In years to come, we may all wonder what all the fuss was about, but Tuesday’s judgement in R (Public Law Project) v the Secretary of State for Justice has provided some relief and not a little amusement to legal aid practitioners girding themselves for yet another grim landmark in the legal aid story: the residence test.’
NearlyLegal, 17th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘The Administrative Court has declared that the proposed residence test for civil legal aid is discriminatory and unlawful, following a successful judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State for Justice. The case was brought by the Public Law Project, a national legal charity that promotes access to justice, on the basis that the residence test would, if implemented, violate fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed by the common law and the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.’
LegalVoice, 16th July 2014
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
‘Public Law Project v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365. Angela Patrick of JUSTICE has provided an excellent summary of this important ruling, which declared a proposed statutory instrument to be ultra vires the LASPO Act under which it was to have been made. The judgment is an interesting one, not least for some judicial fireworks in response to the Lord Chancellor’s recourse to the Daily Telegraph after the hearing, but before judgment was delivered.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024