‘In R (C, T, M and U) v Southwark LBC (2016) EWCA Civ 707 the claimants challenged the lawfulness of the accommodation and the level of financial support provided by Southwark Council to a family who have no right of recourse to public funds.’
Local Government Law, 13th July 2016
‘Six years ago tomorrow [7 July], the UK Supreme Court said that gay people should not have to hide their sexuality in order to avoid persecution in their home country.’
RightsInfo, 6th July 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The claimant foreign nationals, NA, KJ, WM and MY, who had resided for significant periods of time in the United Kingdom, were convicted of offences to which they were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of 12 months or more. As a result, they fell within the definition of foreign criminals in section 32 of the UK Border Act 2007, in respect of whom the Secretary of State was liable to make a deportation order, subject to the exceptions in section 33, which included where deportation would breach the offender’s rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The claimants in each case made representations against their deportation in reliance on their rights to a private and family life under article 8 of the Convention. Paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules, as they applied between July 2012 and 27 July 2014 (“the 2012 Rules”), provided that when assessing a claim that deportation would be contrary to an offender’s rights under article 8 of the Convention, the Secretary of State was required to consider whether the circumstances in paragraph 399 and 399A of the 2012 Rules existed, and that if they did not, it was only in exceptional circumstances that the public interest in deportation would be outweighed by other factors. The circumstances: (1) in paragraph 399 were that the claimant had a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child dependent on the claimant or a partner and it was not reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom or there were insurmountable obstacles to family life with the partner continuing outside the United Kingdom; and (2) in paragraph 399A were the long residence of the claimant in the United Kingdom and lack of family, social or cultural ties with the country to which he was to be removed. Pararaphs 399 and 399A applied to offenders sentenced to imprisonment for at least 12 months but less than four years (“medium offenders”) but not to those sentenced to periods of four years or more (“serious offenders”). ‘
WLR Daily, 16th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In the first of an occasional series, we discuss a controversial human rights case and argue that there is another side to the way the case was reported.’
RightsInfo, 7th July 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘In this alerter Hannah Curtain & George Mallet consider the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald (by her litigation friend) v McDonald and Ors [2016] UKSC 28.’
Henderson Chambers, June 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Torture is wrong, we all know that. But so too is its lesser known sibling – evidence obtained by torture. In this opinion article, Corallina Lopez-Curzi takes us through why this practice cannot be relied on in court and how we are ultimately responsible for making sure this does not happen in the UK.’
RightsInfo, 28th June 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘Alex Laing, barrister of Coram Chambers, considers further the interrelationship of secure accommodation and the inherent jurisdiction and the principles which should govern its use.’
Family Law Week, 8th July 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The government’s Prevent strategy aimed at combating homegrown terrorism is stifling freedom of expression within the classroom and risks being counterproductive, a human rights report warns.’
The Guardian, 13th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
’17 years ago, the highest court in the UK declared that a policy prohibiting journalists from interviewing prisoners to uncover potential miscarriages of justice violated the right to free expression.’
RightsInfo, 8th July 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The Supreme Court will next week give its reasons as to why it concluded that the Ministry of Justice’s introduction of a residence test for civil legal aid via secondary legislation was unlawful.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th July 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘More than 7 years after Gordon Brown first announced that a public Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that could be learned from the Iraq conflict, the Chilcot report was finally published on7 July 2016. However, it was worth the wait. This post does not seek to summarise the report: there are many other good overviews (such as the BBC’s ). The report’s executive summary, in particular the key findings section, is also well worth a read. The intention is to cover in this and subsequent posts some of the key legal issues raised by the report. This post considers the relevance of the Chilcot report’s findings to the broader issue of whether Britain’s intervention in Iraq was legal – an issue which was not itself within the remit of the inquiry.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th July 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Theresa May, expected to shortly emerge as the “stop Boris” prime ministerial candidate in this post-referendum world, kept her head down during the Brexit campaign apart from one notable intervention.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th July 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the red button for the nuclear option of withdrawal from the EU, and in its design, it was never really, truly envisioned to be pressed. Without testing, and without precedent, we are left with no idea of the potential fallout of pressing that red button. Compared to the quasi-constitutionism of Article 2 TEU evoking the values ‘common to the Member States’ of ‘pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women’; or the brutal legalism of Title VII of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on competition, tax and the approximation of laws; Article 50 TEU is anaemic. It is, essentially, a button triggering a countdown clock, which is on a comparable level of advancement to the 1980s floppy disk.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th July 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
A Local Authority v D and others [2016] EWHC 1438 (Fam)
‘The applicant local authority applied, pursuant to paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989, for a six-month extension of a supervision order made in its favour under section 31 of the 1989 Act in respect of three children from the travelling community. The application was dated the day that the original order expired but was not issued until the following day.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Criminal proceedings against Kossowski (Case C-486/14)
‘The accused fled from Germany to Poland after being accused of committing a criminal offence in Germany, and a criminal investigation was initiated against him in that state. The Polish authorities subsequently arrested the accused with a view to the enforcement of a term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced in Poland in a different case. Subsequently, the Polish authorities opened an investigation procedure against the accused, accusing him of an offence based on his actions in Germany but decided eventually to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence. The Higher Regional Court, Hamburg, hearing an appeal brought by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office against that decision, took the view that under the German law, the evidence against the accused was sufficient to justify the opening of trial proceedings before the Regional Court, Hamburg, and the acceptance of the indictment for the purposes of those proceedings, unless that was barred by the principle of ne bis in idem (protection from multiple prosecutions in different member states) laid down in article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (1995) (OJ 2000 L239, p 19) (the “CISA”) and article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Accordingly, the Hamburg court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of those provisions.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In 2006 the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. In confiscation proceedings his criminal benefit was assessed at over £800,000 but, as he had no available assets, a confiscation order was made in the nominal sum of £1. Subsequently, the defendant having bought a house, the prosecution applied under section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for reconsideration of the available amount. In July 2015 the amount of the confiscation order was varied from £1 to £108,010, the value of the defendant’s equity in the house, with five years’ imprisonment to be served in default of payment. The defendant made a late application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence. The application was dismissed except that it was adjourned as to two of the proposed grounds of appeal, namely (i) that the default sentence was excessive because, at the time of the offence, the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of a confiscation order in relation to a sum between £100,00 and £250,000 was three years and the judge had therefore been wrong to have regard to the increased maximum period provided for in section 10 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which, by regulation 3(g) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (Commencement No 1) Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 June 2015; (ii) that the term imposed was manifestly excessive.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The British Government’s austerity policies are a breach of international human rights, a new report by the UN has warned.’
The Independent, 29th June 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Abortion is an emotive subject. It also raises several human rights questions, relating to women’s autonomy, religious beliefs and when the right to life begins.’
RightsInfo, 27th June 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘Legal aid will no longer be made available for cases with poor or borderline prospects of success that may have received funding, the government has said.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 25th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025