‘The delicate balance between a person’s right to privacy and someone else’s right to freedom of expression were set at odds when they were enshrined in the Human Rights Act, brought in by Tony Blair’s Labour Government in 1998.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Five daughters of hereditary peers are to challenge a law that stops them from being elected to the House of Lords. They are taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights in a bid to end the system of male primogeniture which has resulted in almost all titles being passed to male heirs.’
BBC News, 16th July 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In a shock resignation at almost midnight, one of the leading figures responsible for Brexit negotiations has quit his cabinet post.’
Rights Info, 9th July 2018
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘Thousands of prisoners will be able to make calls from their cells, as part of government plans to reduce violence and crime in prisons in England and Wales.’
BBC News, 10th July 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Academics, journalists and those with “inquisitive and foolish minds” would be at risk of prosecution and prison sentences of up to 15 years under proposed counter-terrorism laws, a parliamentary human rights watchdog has said.’
The Guardian, 10th July 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In R. (on the application of Conway) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 1431 the Court of Appeal held that the blanket ban on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 s.2(1) was a necessary and proportionate interference with the ECHR art.8 rights of the appellant.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Lady Hale at the Royal College of Psychiatrists Annual Conference, Birmingham. Is it time for yet another Mental Health Act?’
Supreme Court, 24th June 2018
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘The UK government will give “careful consideration” to calls for a renewed judge-led inquiry into the country’s involvement in human rights abuses after 9/11, the Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan told MPs on Monday.’
The Guardian, 2nd July 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Civil partnerships were introduced by the New Labour government in the UK in 2005 to give same-sex couples many of the protections and rights afforded to married couples without actually extending the right to marry. In 2014 same-sex couples were granted the right to marry but the civil partnership status was not revoked. This created a clear inequality: Same-sex couples could choose to marry or to enter into a civil partnership, but the only way that different-sex couples could formalise their relationship was through marriage. In Steinfeld and Keidan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) [2018] UKSC 32 the UK Supreme Court held that this differential treatment was contrary to Art 14 (the prohibition of discrimination) when taken in conjunction with Art 8 (the right to respect for family life) under the European Convention on Human Rights.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 2nd July 2018
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Five Supreme Court Justices have ruled in favour of a heterosexual couple whose three and a half year legal campaign challenged legislation preventing opposite-sex couples from entering into a civil partnership. The court unanimously agreed that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is ‘incompatible’ with the European Convention on Human Rights as it applies only to same-sex couples and therefore amounted to discrimination.
This judgment will likely put the Government under significant pressure to change the law and allow heterosexual couples to become civil partners. Currently, opposite-sex couples may only marry, whilst same-sex couples may opt to marry or enter into a civil partnership.’
Family Law, 28th June 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Often, the road to equality is long and arduous, just ask the same-sex couples who had to wait until the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for recognition of the right to marry or those whose right to legal recognition will still feel a long way off. On any view, the road to equality in civil partnerships will be shorter. But that route has had its own difficulties and the significance of the success of this appeal should not be underestimated.’
Supreme Court Blog, 28th June 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that lack of provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership is incompatible with human rights law.’
Family Law, 27th June 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘A heterosexual couple who were denied the right to enter into a civil partnership have won their claim at the UK’s highest court that they have suffered discrimination.’
The Guardian, 27th June 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On Monday in the House of Lords, Lord Pannick withdrew his amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill retaining the EU Charter as part of the UK’s post-Brexit settlement. With this, the Charter’s fate in UK law post Brexit was sealed. When the UK leaves the EU, the EU Charter will cease to apply. The status of the Charter during the transitional period, whilst the UK is neither in nor out of the EU, is still to be confirmed but it would seem inconceivable that the Charter would not continue to apply during that period.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 20th June 2018
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concluded on the 7th June 2018 that Northern Ireland’s laws on termination of pregnancy are incompatible with human rights. More specifically, in situations of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality a majority of the judges concluded that the law breaches the right to private life protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court highlighted the disproportionate nature of the interference, which stresses and humiliates women and girls experiencing a time of crisis. It further recognised the possibility that individual cases, in the three circumstances, may fall within the scope of article 3 and reach the threshold of severity required to be considered inhuman and degrading.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 14th June 2018
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘In the age of the internet, privacy is an important and controversial issue. But what do privacy rights mean for children? RightsInfo takes a look.’
Rights Info, 15th June 2018
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘Julie Stather, barrister, Crown Office Row, Brighton advances the case for reform of the law relating to the rights of grandchildren to see their grandparents.’
Family Law Week, 8th June 2018
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Justice minister Phillip Lee has resigned from his position, during a keynote speech about the importance of human rights.’
Rights Info, 12th June 2018
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘All eyes were on the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) last week as it gave judgment in In Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s Application for Judicial Review [2018] UKSC 27, the case challenging the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) compatibility of Northern Ireland’s abortion legislation. Such a case is always bound to be headline-grabbing and controversial. But even more heat than usual was generated by this case. For starters, it followed swiftly after the Republic of Ireland’s referendum vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment of its Constitution, which acknowledges the equal right to life of the unborn child. That led to public and political pressure for change on the other side of the border too. But the Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended since January 2017 and Westminster legislating in this area in its absence – particularly if prompted by the UKSC – would provoke controversy. The Conservative Government’s Confidence and Supply Agreement with the traditionally pro-life Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) further complicates the possibility of reform on this side of the Irish Sea. The outcome of a challenge to the compatibility of the Northern Ireland legislation was therefore keenly anticipated by many. In the event, a Court of seven declined (by a majority) to make the declaration of incompatibility due to a lack of standing. Given the Court’s conclusions, however, the judgment may effectively be a declaration in all but name.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 12th June 2018
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Court of Appeal has held that proceedings for a gang injunction under Part 4, Policing and Crime Act 2009 (the “2009 Act”) and an anti-social behaviour injunction under Part 1, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) do not involve the determination of a criminal charge and therefore do not engage Articles 6(2) or 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Nor does the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6(1) require the criminal standard of proof to be applied.’
Arden Chambers, 23rd May 2018
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025