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
‘House of Lords is scheduled to vote on the Government’s proposals for a residence test for access to legal aid, Angela Patrick, Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE considers today’s judgment of the Divisional Court in PLP v Secretary of State for Justice.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Detained Fast Track policy, operated by the Secretary of State, for the detention of some asylum seekers while their asylum claims were being determined was not unlawful in its terms.’
WLR Daily, 9th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Breyer Group plc and others v Department of Energy and Climate Change [2014] EWHC 2257 (QB). This is an important judgment on governmental liability for a rather shabby retrospective change of the rules about subsidies for photovoltaic schemes.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘When applied to either recognised refugees or British citizens, Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 395), as inserted, which prevented entry clearance being granted to a party to a marriage where the income of the sponsor did meet the minimum threshold, was not a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily 11th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A legal battle has been launched by an Ethiopian citizen who claims the UK has helped to fund a “brutal” resettlement programme in his country. The man, who can only be referred to as “O”, won permission to seek a judicial review at London’s High Court. He wants a ruling that the UK acted unlawfully by providing aid to Ethiopia without assessing its human rights record.’
BBC News, 14th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An alleged victim of historical child abuse has instructed lawyers over his intention to take legal action, claiming the Government is in breach of its obligations to victims of abuse. The victim, who has asked not to be named for legal reasons, believes the government has not lived up to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for home life. Had it done so, it is claimed, many more victims would have come forward to assist the police. The victim is an alleged survivor of child abuse at Grafton Close, a care home run by Richmond Borough Council in south-west London.’
The Independent, 13th July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A foreign sex offender has been allowed to remain in Britain because of his “right to family life” with his two young children, even though they are about to be adopted.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025