‘When a religious believer wears a religious symbol to work can their employer object? The question brings corporate dress codes and expressions of religious belief into sharp conflict. The employee can marshal discrimination and human rights law on the one side, whereas the employer may argue that conspicuous religion makes for bad business.’
OUP Blog, 26th March 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Michael Jones, barrister of 15 Winckley Square Chambers, offers a guide to practitioners conducting care proceedings involving families with European origins.’
Family Law Week, 25th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms did not impose an obligation on the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or the Secretary of State for Defence to conduct an inquiry into deaths occurring in 1948 in Malaya before the Convention was adopted and the United Kingdom acceded to the Convention. Likewise no duty arose under customary international humanitarian law which was enforceable at common law. Nor was the decision of the Secretaries of State to exercise their discretion not to establish a public inquiry vitiated on public law grounds.’
WLR Daily, 19th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘One of Britain’s top judges has said it is not difficult to see why British Christians “feel their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected” in a speech about the clash between the rights of believers and sexual equality.’
The Independent, 21st March 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘After an interesting analysis of the time limits for claims under Convention in response to a claim made in relation to actions by British soldiers in Malaya in 1948, the Court of Appeal dismissed all their human rights, customary international law and Wednesbury arguments. There was no obligation in domestic law for the state to hold an inquiry into the deaths of civilians killed by British soldiers in colonial Malaya in 1948, even though the Strasbourg Court might well hold that such a duty ensued.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Disabled people have the same right to “physical liberty” as others, one of the UK’s most senior judges has said. Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said the state had a duty to uphold that right and to cater for disabled people.’
BBC News, 19th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line?
Speech by Lord Justice Moses: Creaney Memorial Lecture 2014, 26/02/2014’
Judiciary Of England & Wales, 18th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Court of Appeal judges are set to rule on a long-running battle for an inquiry into the 1948 killings of 24 villagers in Malaya by British troops.’
BBC News, 19th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch). The Chancery Court has ruled that Convention rights may be engaged in disputes between private landowners and trespassers, thereby making it incumbent on the court under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to balance the trespassers’ rights under Article 8 against the landowner’s rights under Article 1 Protocol 1.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In one sense, the possession claim in Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch) follows a fairly predictable course. The Defendants were a group of activists who had set up camp on Barton Moss Lane, Manchester, in protest at the drilling program being undertaken by a company, Igas Energy plc. The Claimants had granted Igas a licence to drill on the land nearby and the protest was intended to deter the controversial fracking process which the activists feared would ensue.’
NearlyLegal, 16th March 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Desmond Rutledge examines why the Court of Appeal in MA and Others refused to apply the reasoning in Burnip to disabled adults in the social sector who need an extra bedroom.’
Garden Court Chambers, 17th March 2014
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
‘Within the past week the EU Commission has laid down its plans for protecting the rule of law across Europe and, importantly, for punishing member states that fail to meet rule of law standards. At first glance this appears to be a landmark in the EU’s regulation of the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy, but is it the solution it claims to be?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The armed forces could be exempted from human rights laws because they are hampering British military operations in the field, Philip Hammond has said. Mr Hammond said the government is prepared to introduce new legislation to protect the army from the “encroachment” of civil litigation on the battlefield.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th March 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A Christian couple who were told it was illegal to turn unmarried couples away from their guesthouse have launched a landmark legal case at the European Court of Human Rights.’
Daily Telegraph, 15th March 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘ Barry George, the man wrongly accused of murdering TV presenter Jill Dando, is taking his £1 million compensation claim to the European Court of Human Rights. Mr George, 53, is seeking compensation for loss of earnings and wrongful imprisonment, after spending eight years in jail for a crime he did not commit.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th March 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Demonstrators facing eviction from an anti-fracking camp have won 11th-hour permission to stay put while they go to the court of appeal. On Monday a judge at Manchester’s high court made an order for possession against the collective occupying land at Barton Moss in Salford, Greater Manchester. The order was to take effect from midday today. But eviction was stayed just before the noon deadline by the appeal court to give the protesters an opportunity to apply for permission to appeal.’
The Guardian, 11th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision on the correct test for when an asylum seeker or refugee resists their return to another EU country (here Italy) in which they first sought or were granted asylum. The parties before the court all agreed that the test applied by the Court of Appeal, namely a requirement for a systemic deficiencies in the listed country’s asylum procedures and reception conditions was incorrect.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, 4 March 2014. An apparently dry dispute about business rates on one of the Mormons’ temples in Preston has reached Strasbourg and raises interesting issues about indirect discrimination on religious grounds. The underlying question was whether the temple was a place of “public religious worship” and therefore exempt from rates.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024