“Nearly 200 Muslim prisoners are suing the Government after being served halal food contaminated with pork, claiming their human rights were breached.”
Daily Telegraph, 29th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The High Court has strongly affirmed the prohibition against the pursuit of long delayed complaints against doctors in regulatory proceedings. The prohibition arose from the General Medical Council’s own procedural rules. It applied even where the allegations were of the most serious kind, including sexual misconduct, and could only be waived in exceptional circumstances and where the public interest demanded. The burden was upon the GMC to establish a sufficiently compelling public interest where allegations had already been thoroughly investigated by the competent authorities such as the police and social services.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Court of Appeal has taken the unusual step of reversing a denial of contact order, by reviewing the question of the proportionality of the order in relation to the children’s right to family life under Article 8.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“According to reports this week, the Prison Service is making preparations to prohibit smoking in prisons. They are doing more than “considering” it, it seems, as they have identified probable pilot sites and seem to have a roll-out plan in readiness if the pilot should be successful. But it is a little less than a final decision; so “making preparations” will have to do.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th September 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Britain’s Supreme Court should make final rulings on contentious human rights cases, not the European Court of Human Rights, the Justice Secretary has said.”
Daily Telegraph, 25th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The High Court has found that the containment of a protester in a designated protesting pen for seventy five minutes was not unlawful at common law, nor under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“In 1894 Edward Marshall Hall KC defended the Austrian-born prostitute Marie Hermann, charged with the murder of a client whose body she hid in a trunk. The jury acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter after what has become his most famous jury speech ending with, ‘Look at her, gentlemen of the jury, look at her. God never gave her a chance, won’t you?’ The personalities may have changed and the language less flowery but the basic principle of a jury trial is the same – we judge our peers on the evidence and that is the evidence presented in court. This includes our assessment of other human beings, not just what they say but how they say it.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th September 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“The High Court has ruled that it is not a breach of the right to private life to request DNA samples from those who were convicted of serious offences before it became commonplace to take samples for the production of DNA profiles for the investigation of crime.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A former prisoner has failed in a legal challenge that could have forced police to destroy thousands of DNA samples collected from those convicted of serious crimes before 1994.”
The Guardian, 24th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Smoking could be banned across all prisons in England and Wales by 2015, amid fears that prisoners could begin rioting over the change.”
The Independent, 20th September 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Britain’s controversial deployment of US-built Reaper drones in Afghanistan will come under scrutiny in court this week in a closed hearing that will see a UK-based drone operator give evidence for the first time.”
The Independent, 22nd September 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Regulation 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 which required a person on the sex offenders register to provide details of bank, debit or credit card accounts held by him, was not incompatible with his rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 18th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The ruling by HHJ Murphy in Blackfriars Crown Court this Monday that a defendant in a criminal trial should not be allowed to wear a niqaab (face veil) whilst giving her evidence has prompted calls for a public debate about the wearing of face veils in public more generally. Adam Wagner has already commented on the case here. A summary and analysis of the decision follows below.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“In this most recent case concerning access by private individuals to environmental information held by public authorities, the AG grasps the nettlish question of what precisely a public authority is. The issue was a subject of debate because the request for information had been addressed to private companies which manage a public service relating to the environment. The question therefore was whether, even though the companies concerned are private, they may be regarded as ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of the Directive governing access to environmental information (Directive 2003/4).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“To observe that substantive judicial review—and the notions of proportionality and deference in particular—constitute well-trodden ground would be to engage in reckless understatement. And that, in turn, might suggest that there is nothing more that can usefully be said about these matters. Yet the debate in this area of public law remains vibrant—and for good reason. Like the controversy about the foundations of judicial review in which many public lawyers engaged energetically over a decade ago, the controversy about substantive review is ultimately a manifestation of underlying disagreements concerning the nature, status and interaction of fundamental constitutional principles, including the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament. It is hardly surprising, then, that questions about the intensity of review and (what amounts to the reverse side of the same coin) deference remain under active discussion long after the debate was ignited by the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 17th September 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Yesterday, before His Honour Judge Peter Murphy ruled that a female Muslim defendant in a criminal trial must remove her face-covering veil (niqaab) whilst giving evidence, Home Office Minister Jeremy Brown said he was ‘instinctively uneasy’ about restricting religious freedoms, but that there should be a national debate over banning the burka.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.”
BBC News, 16th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“We’re finally up against it now, aren’t we? After years of dancing round the issue, the law is finally called upon to make a specific ruling on the wearing of the niqab. So let’s make sure we know what we are talking about, because without a doubt there will be proponents and opponents alike who seek to interpret the decision (whatever it may be) to suit their cause.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 16th September 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Scotland Yard is facing court action next week after refusing to hand over the results of investigations it was ordered to conduct into claims that it used counter-terrorism powers to discriminate against and harass innocent Muslims.”
The Guardian, 13th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025