“A convicted rapist should be compensated after being unlawfully detained for two and a half years while awaiting deportation, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.”
The Guardian, 9th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ is the lead piece of statutory guidance on… well, working together to safeguard children. Originally published in 1999, a new edition was published in 2006 following the changes brought about following the death of Victoria Climbié. And the next edition in 2010 incorporated recommendations of the second Laming Report which followed the death of Baby P. It had grown longer over time, as we all learned lessons from Haringey; but its growing length was causing concern.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“This is a tale of common law rights, open water swimming, and individual freedoms. It is about the flip side of codified human rights: the time-honoured principle, that that which is not specifically prohibited, is – or should be – permitted in English law.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Vegetarian or vegan employees with deeply held beliefs should be allowed to exert their rights in the workplace by refusing to clean out office fridges containing meat or dairy products, according to new guidance.”
Daily Telegraph, 7th April 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina (Dowsett) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 687 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 126
“The Secretary of State’s policy that male prisoners could not normally object to “rub-down” searches being conducted by a female prison officer except on genuine religious or cultural grounds was not discriminatory on grounds of sex or lack of religion. The exceptions to the policy were a proportionate way of dealing with genuine objections by male prisoners to being searched by female officers and the width of the exceptions to the policy did not lead to an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Hot on the Home Secretary’s loss of the Abu Qatada appeal, a reverse for her in another deportation case about someone whom the Court of Appeal described as ‘an important and significant member of a group of Islamist extremists in the UK,’ and who was said to have links – direct or indirect – with men involved in the failed July 21 2005 bombing plot.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Omar Othman is a resident of this country – guilty of no crime and up to now facing no charges – whose home country wants to put him on trial in a case where the key evidence against him will in all likelihood have been procured by torture. The only reason he probably won’t be tortured is because the state concerned has reluctantly promised (as an inducement to get him back) not to follow its usual routine.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 30th March 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Fifteen living relatives of the monarch, the last English king to die in battle almost 500 years before the European convention on human rights came into force, are threatening to launch a legal challenge seeking the Richard III’s reburial in York Minster, rather than the proposed Leicester Cathedral. An application for judicial review is to be lodged by lawyers in Leeds on behalf of the Plantagenet Alliance to bring the action against the Ministry of Justice, which granted the archaeological excavation licence to Leicester University, the Guardian reported.”
Daily Telegraph, 27th March 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Human rights judges have adjourned until September consideration of more than
2,300 legal cases against the UK over prisoner voting rights.”
BBC News, 26th March 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Last year the Divisional Court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision to prevent a dissident Iranian politician coming to the United Kingdom to address the Palace of Westminster: see that decision here and my post discussing the ‘Politics of Fear’.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Deirdre Fottrell, barrister of Coram Chambers, reviews recent cases involving human rights issues which are of significance to family lawyers.”
Family Law Week, 22nd March 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193; [2013] WLR (D) 118
“The exclusion of a person, cohabiting for less than two years with another who had subsequently died, from the classes of family members entitled to claim damages for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, as amended, was a proportionate means of pursuing the legitimate legislative aim of confining the right to recovery to those who had relationships of some degree of permanence and dependence. Accordingly, section 1(3)(b) of the 1976 Act, as substituted by section 3(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, was not incompatible with article 14, in conjunction with article 8, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the choice made by the legislature was not manifestly without foundation and was one Parliament was entitled to make. And even if the section amounted to an interference with the right to respect for family life in breach of article 8.1, the interference was justified under article 8.2.”
WLR Daily, 18th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“From the beginning of April 2013 the chances of getting help with legal bills will be slim. The Law Society estimates 650,000 cases will no longer qualify, including 20,000 employment cases and 200,000 in family law.”
The Guardian, 23rd March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Commission delivered its Report – A UK Bill of Rights? – The Choice Before Us – to the Government in December 2012. It is an odd document, dominated by the lack of agreement in the Commission as to the role that any human rights’ instrument in Britain should play. That was unsurprising since at the inception of the Commission the Coalition partners appeared to want it to play two different roles – defending or attacking the HRA. From the very outset the Commission and the idea of a Bill of Rights (BoR) was relied upon by Cameron and other senior Conservatives to allay anger in the Conservative party, and among some voters, directed at decisions made under the Human Rights Act. David Cameron announced the Commission’s inception in March 2011 at Prime Ministers’ Questions as a reaction to criticism of the decision of the Supreme Court that sex offenders should be able to challenge their inclusion on the Sex Offenders’ register. He indicated that a BoR would address the concerns expressed (17.3.11; see the Telegraph in relation to R and Thompson v SSHD). The idea that a BoR could right the wrongs of the HRA – would provide a panacea for the HRA’s ills – had apparently been embedded in the Conservative party psyche for some years: David Cameron in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in 2006 Balancing freedom and security – A modern British Bill of Rights said that the HRA should be repealed: ‘….The Human Rights Act has a damaging impact on our ability to protect our society against terrorism…. . I am today committing my Party to work towards the production of a Modern Bill of Rights’. In contrast, the 2010 Liberal Democrat election manifesto promised to ‘Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act.'”
UK Constitution Law Group, 21st March 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionllaw.org
“Rapid expansion of human rights obligations at the European and international levels arguably undermines the system of International Human Rights Law. Countries like the UK, which place strong emphasis on the need to protect individuals from abuses, are faced with ever more obligations stemming from rights inflation. One crucial way in which this occurs is through rights replication.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Human rights will be a politically live issue at the next election. Leading on the issue will by the Conservative Party, urged on by elements in the media such as the Daily Mail with a commercial interest in resistance to any law on privacy deriving from human rights. So, the Working Men’s College has done well to identify this topic for exploration. This evening is a celebration of the college’s stated aim to ‘engage positively with the past, while finding new ways to pursue its founders’ aims into the 21st century.’ ”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“In Catt v ACPO and others; T v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another [2013] EWCA Civ 192, the Court of Appeal considered two appeals regarding the powers of the police to collect and retain personal information about members of the public. Both cases turned on the application of Article 8 of the Convention; in both, the Court held that there had been an interference with the Article 8(1) right to respect for private life, and that the interference was not justified under Article 8(2).”
Panopticon, 20th March 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Newspapers likely to take action over regulations that will require huge payouts when stories are wrong.”
The Guardian, 19th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The retention by the police of personal information on an individual stored on a police national database, or the issue of a warning notice against a person accused of harassment and its retention in police records, involved an interference with a person’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and such retention would breach the right unless justified.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024