“Last year Arthur Moore and I ran a seminar in Chancery Lane on the (then) vexed question of to what extent Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights impacted upon private landlords’ possession claims.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“This is the tale of how a solicitor from Harrow ended up litigating about his off-street parking in the Supreme Court – and reached for Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of ECHR, by way of a second string to his bow. Not his choice, as he had won in the Court of Appeal on other grounds. But his failure on the point reminds us that in the majority of cases A1P1 is a difficult argument to bring home.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Removal of right of appeal for family visit visas will save more than £100 million over next decade.”
Home Office, 25th June 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
“Remember Inhuman Rights, The Sun’s garbled reporting of this Court of Appeal decision on Criminal Record Bureau checks? In February, I wrote this: No, The Sun, the Human Rights Act is not the EU. My complaint was about the headline, which screamed ‘Now EU could let fiends like him prey on your children’. This was obvious nonsense, since the judgment had nothing to do with the EU.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Where the question arose as to whether a defendant who had committed an offence was a victim of trafficking the prosecution was, and remained, responsible for deciding whether to prosecute or not. The court’s role was to protect the rights of a victim of trafficking by overseeing the decision of the prosecutor and refusing to countenance any prosecution which failed to acknowledge and address the victim’s subservient situation.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The introduction of same-sex marriage could finally open the way for carers and relatives such as unmarried sisters who live together to be given the same legal status as married couples, the House of Lords has been told.”
Daily Telegraph, 24th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“An illegal immigrant jailed for hitting his children has won a battle against deportation in the UK.”
Daily Telegraph, 24th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“My post of earlier this week explained why the majority of the Supreme Court struck down a direction telling all financial institutions not to deal with this Iranian Bank. The legal ground (involving, as Lord Sumption described it, ‘an exacting analysis of the factual evidence in defence of the measure’ [20]) was that the direction was ‘disproportionate’. The judgments (particularly the dissenting one of Lord Reed) tell us a lot about the scope of proportionality. And there is a good deal more to it than there might at first sight appear.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Smith and Others (Appellants) v The Ministry of Defence (Respondent) and other appeals. So, the Supreme Court has refused to allow these claims to be struck out on the principle of combat immunity. It has also asserted that jurisdiction for the purpose of an Article 2 right to life claim can extend to non-Convention countries, and that the state can owe a positive duty to protect life, even in a situation of armed combat.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 19th June 2013
“Members of the United Kingdom’s armed forces serving in Iraq were within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Whether claims alleging breaches of the right to life protected by article 2 could be sustained would depend on the particular circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The supreme court ruling that the Ministry of Defence can be sued for negligence, that the scope of the Human Rights Act should be extended and the traditional doctrine of combat immunity should be interpreted narrowly, will have a huge impact on military commanders, senior officials made clear on Wednesday.”
The Guardian, 19th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Judges and Policy: A Delicate Balance (PDF)
Speech by Lord Neuberger
Institute for Government, 18th June 2013
Source: www.supremecourt.gov.uk
“It’s hard to see how any system that captures data from millions of law-abiding citizens satisfies our right to privacy”
The Guardian, 18th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.”
BBC News, 19th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A fundamental shift in the relationship between the government and the governed is taking place: by restricting access to the law, the state is handing itself an alarming immunity from legal scrutiny. There are several aspects to this: the partial or total withdrawal of state financial support for people who lack the means to pay for legal advice and representation; and for those who can pay, a restriction on which kinds of decision by public bodies can be challenged. In the area in which I work, criminal law, defendants who receive legal aid will lose the right to choose who represents them in court. Meanwhile, the misleadingly named Justice and Security Act, passed earlier this year, enables the government to conceal evidence from litigants by using national security as a trump card. All this is accompanied by an unbending hostility to human rights law, tainted by its association with Europe, even though this legislation at least offers the weak the possibility of redress for abuses by public authorities.”
London Review of Books, 6th June 2013
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
“Supreme Court judges will rule later on whether relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act.”
BBC News, 19th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Counsel for the defendant in this recent case, heard at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, provided a skeleton argument on the morning of the hearing, ignoring the set aside (it being conceded there was no merit in this) but rather arguing that the Court’s lack of discretion to delay execution of a possession order by over six weeks was incompatible with Article 8. It followed that he was seeking a transfer to the High Court for declaration purposes (CPR 30.3(2)(g)).”
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The provision in section 15(4) of the Commons Act 2006, allowing an application for registration of land as a town or village green to be made up to five years after a cessation of qualifying user predating the commencement of section 15, was not incompatible with the landowner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2); Lauchlanv Same [2013] UKSC 36; [2013] WLR (D) 231
“The right to a trial within a reasonable time under article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was a separate right from the right to a fair trial under that article. Consequently the time when a person was ‘charged’ with an offence for the purposes of time starting to run under the reasonable time guarantee might be different from the time when he should have had access to a lawyer for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial under article 6.1 read with article 6.3(c).”
WLR Daily, 13th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025