‘The government has announced controversial plans to force voters to bring photo ID with them to the polling station. The move has drawn criticism from MPs and campaigners who believe it will undermine thousands of people’s right to vote. So what is it and what’s at stake? Jodie Satterly explores.’
Rights Info, 16th October 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘Legal experts have warned that the government’s plans to restrict claims against the Ministry of Defence are also framed to stop service personnel seeking justice for mistreatment.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th October 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Mr Justice Cobb recently handed down two important decisions on the scope of the inherent jurisdiction at the border of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In the first of two articles on these rulings, the Court of Protection team at 39 Essex Chambers examine a case concerning a young adult and the use of the inherent jurisdiction to authorise deprivations of liberty where there is no statutory framework in place.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th October 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Ms Gilham appealed on all three grounds. She also appears to raise the distinct but related question whether she can bring her claim as a ‘Crown employee’ within the meaning of the ERA, s191.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Claire Gilham is a district judge. She claims that she was subjected to various detriments as a result of making complaints about her judicial workload and the poor management of the courts.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Writing only weeks before the (re)scheduled date of UK withdrawal from the EU, there seems little of which to be certain: it is still uncertain whether the UK will withdraw on a ‘No-Deal’ basis, or under a Withdrawal Agreement. Whatever the process of withdrawal, however, there should be no doubt that it will have a negative impact on the system of rights protection in the UK. Beyond the immediate loss of rights and remedies which arise directly from EU membership, the legal process of withdrawal has already indicated this negative impact: under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be retained, just as general principles (including recognisably fundamental rights) are retained only where they have been recognised by EU case law but given no right of action or remedy. The 2018 Act also follows similar Brexit legislation in delegating wide legislative power to the executive (unprecedented in scale and scope) to amend or repeal retained EU law. While the cumulative effect of Brexit is as yet near-impossible to fully gauge, the aim of this post is to introduce four categories of risk to the protection of rights posed by the Brexit process.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th October 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘In Dr David Mackereth v The Department for Work and Pensions & Anor [2019] ET 1304602/2018, Dr Mackereth had been recruited by Advanced Personnel Management Group (’APM’) as a Health and Disabilities Assessor (‘HAD’) on behalf of the DWP [3]. He was contracted to assess individuals on behalf of the DWP who were contemplating, undergoing or had undergone gender reassignment. However, as a result of his Christian beliefs he refused, in conscience, to refer to clients using the pronoun of their choice – as the DWP required. It later became apparent the issue also extended to styles and titles of address [8]. He was suspended and, ultimately, sacked [17].’
Law & Religion UK, 6th October 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘Jeremy Ford, a Solicitor-Advocate at Cambridge Family Law Practice, acted pro bono on behalf of the Litigation Friend for the child at the centre of the landmark case of TT v Registrar General of England and Wales and Secretary of State for Health and Social Careheard by the President of the Family Division. The judgment was handed down on 25 September 2019 and has been reported as TT, R (On the Application Of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales[2019] EWHC 2384 (Fam) (25 September 2019).’
Family Law, 7th October 2019
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘A doctor who refused to call a transgender woman “she” because of his Christian faith has lost his employment tribunal.’
The Independent, 3rd October 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘As a result of a new Supreme Court judgment, local authorities will no longer be able to offer residential care, with parents’ agreement, to 16 and 17 year olds where they are supervised and not free to leave – unless there is a court order. This decision potentially affects many thousands of teenagers who are in supportive placements.’
Transparency Project, 28th September 2019
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The names of nine strip-club performers who were filmed by private investigators working with campaigners concerned about the exploitation of women should be revealed, a judge has ruled.’
The Guardian, 30th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In Conisbee v Crossley Farms Ltd & Ors [2019] ET 3335357/2018, Employment Judge Postle gave a reserved judgment in which he found that the Claimant’s contention that vegetarianism could be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded. The judgment has already been noted in this blog; in this supplementary post I will be focusing on the ET’s sharp distinction between vegetarianism and veganism, which it used – rashly – to find that ethical vegetarianism was incapable of constituting a religion or belief under the Equality Act 2010.’
Law & Religion UK, 23rd September 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘The first transgender man to give birth has lost a landmark court battle that would have seen him become the first person in Britain to be listed as the child’s father instead of its mother after having a child.’
The Independent, 25th September 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin). The High Court has dismissed an application for judicial review regarding the use of Automated Facial Recognition Technology (AFR) and its implications for privacy rights and data protection.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th September 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The case of Fullick v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB) concerned an appeal of a Deputy Master’s order that the MET Commissioner pay the claimants’ costs in the sum of £88,356.22, following the settlement of a contemplated civil claim for damages for breach of article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, negligence and misfeasance in public office. Slade J held that the Deputy Master had not erred in awarding the claimants their costs relating to the inquest because the steps taken for the purposes of it were relevant to the civil claim.’
UK Police Law Blog, 14th September 2019
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Cameron Boyle, political correspondent for the Immigration Advice Service, explains the impact on the children of migrants of having no recourse to public funds and encountering problems with local authorities’ application of Children Act 1989, section 17.’
Family Law Week, 11th September 2019
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The question of whether non-married partners and wider dependent relatives (e.g. grown-up children) of EEA nationals (known as “extended family members”) have a right of appeal against a decision by the Home Secretary to refuse them a residence card under the EEA Regulations has had a fraught recent history.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th September 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025