“Allegations that British troops in Iraq were guilty of killing civilians and ‘terrifying acts of brutality’ were made at the High Court today [29 January].”
The Independent, 29th January 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has today [29 January] handed down an important judgment in R (T & others) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester & others [2013] EWCA Civ 25. The case concerned the blanket requirement in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, section 113B of the Police Act 1997 and articles 3 and 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 that criminal convictions and cautions must be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check (‘ECRC’) in the context of particular types of employment (such as with children or vulnerable adults), even if those convictions or cautions would otherwise be deemed spent by the 1974 Act.”
Panopticon, 29th January 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The home secretary, Theresa May, is facing urgent pressure to overhaul the criminal records system after an appeal court ruled that the way it operated was unlawful and breached human rights.”
The Guardian, 29th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The government has been ordered to pay damages to a convicted rapist because of delays to a review about whether he should be released.”
BBC News, 29th January 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Now that the idea of a new UK Bill of Rights appears to be buried, choices re-emerge. The predicted outcome of the London-based Commission’s work was finally confirmed in December. Where now for human rights?”
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
On 11 December 2012 Mr Justice Mostyn in the Court of Protection handed down judgment in a case he described as ‘a sad story’.
Hardwicke Chambers, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“In this article, we seek to identify how, when and why the courts have developed positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’ or ‘the Convention’) for the State to provide access to information. We propose to identify four distinct categories of information, and argue that the courts have taken a different approach in relation to each one. We will then consider why the courts have adopted these divergent approaches.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 28th January 2013
Source: www.11kbw.com
“The Commission on a Bill of Rights was established in March 2011 and mandated to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights which draws upon current ECHR obligations. On 18 December 2012, the Commission published its report. Seven of the nine committee members advocated the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, while the two dissenting members have voiced concerns that a Bill could be used as a means of decoupling the UK from the ECHR. The Commission’s Chair, Sir Leigh Lewis KCB, will discuss the report’s findings and likely impact.”
UCL Constitution Unit, 26th January 2013
Source: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit
“A Sudanese paedophile who was part of a group of immigrants who lured schoolgirls to a house for sex cannot be deported because he is a member of a ‘persecuted tribe’, it was disclosed at the High Court yesterday.”
Daily Telegraph, 26th January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Even since McCann v. UK (2008) 47 EHRR 40, a lot of people (around these parts) have been waiting for a case on Article 8 and the rule in Hammersmith v Monk (Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v. Monk [1992] AC 478) to reach the higher Courts. Is the rule that notice by one joint tenant determines the tenancy for both/all compatible with Article 8 (or Protocol 1 Article 1)? Now one case has got to a higher stage. In a somewhat eccentric fashion, the Court of Appeal has given a distinctly forthright view, even if what the Court could actually do with the appeal was, more or less, nothing at all.”
NearlyLegal, 25th January, 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“In assessing whether an individual would be at risk on return to a member state, the fact that the receiving state was itself bound by the same Conventions and Community law as the sending state was to be regarded as obviating the risk unless there was a systemic failure in the receiving state. Unless there had been such a failure, the person was adequately protected: he had his rights against the receiving government and, if necessary, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights from the receiving country.”
WLR Daily, 16th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Murderers, rapists and kidnappers have received compensation totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Government after complaining that delays in their parole hearings breached their human rights.”
The Independent, 20th January 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“This was a failed succession case where an article 8 proportionality defence was, at least in part successful.”
NearlyLegal, 17th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“Following today’s European Court of Human Rights judgment in Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom, David Renton analyses the how the fine balance between religious freedom and avoiding discrimination can be struck.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog. 15th January 2013
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“It’s good that the ECHR clarified issues about freedom of religion in the UK. But they got it wrong in the case of Ladele.”
The Guardian, 17th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The conclusion reached by the European court of human rights in Christian discrimination cases is no surprise but the principle is difficult to apply.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Nadia Eweida has succeeded in her claim that the UK breached her right to manifest her religion under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Readers may remember that she worked for British Airways, and refused to abide by its uniform policy, insisting on wearing a cross visible to customers. By a majority of five to two (the dissenters including the Court’s British former President, Sir Nicolas Bratza), the judges of the European Court of Human Rights found that the English court that dismissed her religious discrimination and human rights claim at national level, the Court of Appeal, gave too much weight to BA’s corporate aims and not enough to Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religion by wearing her cross. In consequence, the UK breached its ‘positive obligation’ to protect her right to manifest her religion.”
Head of Legal, 15th January 2013
Source: www.headoflegal.com
“The Strasbourg Court has today [15 January] come up with something of a mixed message in relation to religion at work. They have voted that there is a right to manifest individual faith by wearing religious adornments but not by objecting to practices that are protected by anti-discrimination legislation.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“After seven years of legal appeals and accusations that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs, the European court of human rights has ruled that a British Airways check-in operator should not have been prevented from wearing a cross at work.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A British Airways check-in worker’s right to express her religion was unfairly restricted when she was prevented from wearing a cross at work, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled.”
The Guardian, 15th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024