‘Indiscriminate acts of violence by both sides in the civil war in Yemen, including Saudi bombing of medical centres, is so widespread that the Britain has declared sending asylum seekers back to most parts of the country would likely be a breach of the European convention on human rights.’
The Guardian, 14th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The EU’s highest court will hear arguments on Tuesday concerning the validity of UK data retention laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Ever since R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2010] 1 WLR 363 (our report) there has been an ongoing issue as to whether housing associations (or specific housing associations) were public bodies both for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and public law/judicial review.’
Nearly Legal, 10th April 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Britain’s intelligence agencies are preparing to vet the final version of the Chilcot Inquiry’s report into the Iraq war ahead of publication this summer.’
The Independent, 10th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A three-year battle by the Foreign Office (FCO) to keep secret how diplomatic issues colour its human rights decisions reached its climax on Thursday, in a court case that was itself largely held in secret at the insistence of the security services.’
The Guardian, 7th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘When a major obstacle is removed to our progress, idealist intellectuals like myself rejoice. I was introduced to one such obstacle in the early l970s, when a woman hiding from her abusive husband in our home told us “violence wasn’t the worst part.” Like the millions of other victimized women we have served in the ensuing years, she understood that the prevailing equation of partner abuse with domestic violence has little relation to her lived experience of oppression.’
OUP Blog, 8th April 2016
Source: http://blog.oup.com
‘The lord chief justice has personally intervened in the case of a judge who is suing the government for racial discrimination.’
The Guardian, 7th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has held that the use of telephone recordings as evidence in a criminal trial, despite the inability of the accused to challenge the caller, did not violate his rights under Article 6, ECHR. This judgment follows a number of Grand Chamber judgments on similar issues that have altered the ECtHR’s stance on the subject of absent witness evidence.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Ministers are creating a “perception” that human rights are not a priority for the government, MPs say.’
BBC News, 5th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The law in England and Wales will continue to be regarded as “gold standard” internationally despite the fact that the development of case law risks being stifled by the number of confidential arbitrations taking place in London, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘“What could very easily happen with teaching about human rights is indoctrination…so let’s say someone says that racism isn’t wrong. Okay, so what would happen is that ‘racism is wrong. You have to learn it’. That’s the way it would be taught… Actually, I think a debate around that is needed, because I don’t think you can say that intrinsically racism is wrong. You can say that as a society, we’ve formed a set of values that have concluded that racism is wrong.”
When a primary school teacher says something like this to you as a researcher, it makes you sit up and take notice. Whilst it would be comforting to think that this is simply the isolated perspective of one wayward teacher, my research into teachers’ perceptions of educating primary school children about human rights was punctuated by similarly troubling viewpoints. One teacher found it difficult to talk about the atrocities that happened at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp without telling the children in her classroom that “this is the most heinous crime ever imagined”, following this up with “and you can’t do that, so it’s very difficult.” Another was loathe to teach that democracy was “the right way,” because she didn’t want to influence, but rather to simply “open children’s eyes.” Her final comment on this issue being “who am I to say that democracy is the right way?”’
OUP Blog, 4th April 2016
Source: http://blog.oup.com
‘This week, the mosaic shrine adorning the wall outside Stockwell underground station once again became the focal point for difficult questions surrounding the police response the terrorist attacks of 2005.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The UK was right not to charge any police officers over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an electrician who they thought was a suicide bomber, in 2005.’
The Independent, 30th March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person). However, the decision not to provide compensation to the individual following a failure to provide him with a lawyer during domestic proceedings resulted in a violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th March 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The parties were married in September 2001 and had one daughter born in October 2002. The husband, a Saudi national, was a businessman of substantial means who married again in 2012 when the parties’ marriage broke down. On their divorce the wife applied for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to strike out the wife’s application , claiming immunity from suit as the permanent representative of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”), a post to which he had been appointed on 1 April 2014. The United Kingdom was required, as a matter of international law, to grant privileges and immunities to personal representatives of member states to the IMO in accordance with the Specialised Agencies Convention and the Headquarters Agreement. A permanent representative was entitled to the same immunity from suit and legal process as the head of a diplomatic mission, except that, by article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002), a permanent representative who was permanently resident in the United Kingdom was only entitled to immunities and privileges in respect of his official acts. The Foreign Secretary certified that the Foreign Office had been informed by the IMO of the husband’s appointment as permanent representative of St Lucia, of his arrival date and had not been notified that his diplomatic functions had terminated. Although on the face of it that certificate was conclusive evidence of the husband’s appointment by virtue of section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, the judge balanced the husband’s claim to immunity against the wife’s rights to access to the courts under article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He concluded that the husband had not undertaken any duties or performed any functions as permanent representative, that the appointment was an artificial construct to defeat the wife’s claims on the breakdown of the marriage and that, since the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom, he was entitled to immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. In consequence the judge refused to strike out the wife’s claim.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 71
‘In each of the 13 applications before the court, the applicants applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection (“IPP”)), imposed between 2005 and 2008 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before the sentence of IPP was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the court was required to make the assumption that an offender was dangerous if he had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so. Where he was found to be dangerous, and over 18, the court was required to pass a sentence of IPP or life imprisonment; the 2003 Act removed all discretion from the court once it was found that the offender was dangerous. All the applicants had either been detained in custody long after the expiry of the minimum term or had been recalled for breach of licence. The applicants submitted (1) that whatever might have been the position at the time the sentences of IPP were passed, the Court of Appeal had power under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pass sentences that, in the light of what had happened over the intervening years, now would be the proper sentence; (2) the Court of Appeal should reconsider the assessments made by sentencing judges in the light of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 1 WLR 2509, and (3) a time could and had been reached when the length of the imprisonment was so excessive and disproportionate compared to the index criminal offence that it could amount to inhuman treatment under article 3 or arbitrary detention under article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That was because the detention no longer had any meaningful link to the index offence. A much delayed review of a sentencing decision could therefore be a mechanism the court could employ to avoid a breach of those Convention Rights. As the period now served by each of the applicants was so much longer than any conceivable determinate sentence would have required, the continued detention amounted to preventative detention and was therefore arbitrary. ‘
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Following three trials of former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’s congregations on charges of historic sex abuse the Charity Commission decided to initiate a statutory inquiry relating to a leading Jehovah’s Witness charity’s safeguarding policy regarding vulnerable beneficiaries in particular children, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, and to order the charity to produce a wide range of documents, under section 52 of the Act, even though none of those accused was connected with the charity. .The applicants, the charity and its trustees, sought judicial review of those decisions, on the grounds that (i) the commission had acted disproportionately by commencing an inquiry the scope of which was vague and undefined and by interfering with the applicants’ Convention rights, and had thereby breached its duty to act fairly so that the decision was irrational; and (ii) the scope of the production order was disproportionate in that information was sought of a personal and sensitive nature, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was furthermore in breach of the Convention rights of individuals affected. The judge in refusing permission to proceed with the judicial review clain held that the applicants had an effective statutory remedy by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity) against a decision to initiate an inquiry, and that any complaint relating to the breadth of a production order could be dealt with before that tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 15th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A court case that would have tested the right of sex workers to offer services together in brothels to protect themselves has collapsed after a police officer refused to give evidence.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A ruling on whether British police officers should have been charged for the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at a London tube station in 2005 is to be delivered by the European court of human rights on Wednesday.’
The Guardian, 30th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025