‘Taking account of the vulnerability of parties and witnesses is to be added to the overriding objective as well as the factors used to determine the proportionality of costs.’
Litigation Futures, February 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘If concerns are raised that a person might be vulnerable to radicalisation, how long can a police force hold data about that person? This was the question facing the High Court in the case of R (II) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2020] EWHC 2528 (Admin), which held that the police’s continued retention of data a sixteen year old was contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and article 8. In finding this, the court held that a force’s retention of data must be proportionate, what is proportionate in any given situation is fact-specific and that when the police cease to be able to identify a policing purpose for continued retention of personal data, it should be deleted.’
UK Police Law Blog, 28th January 2021
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 impose a second lockdown on England. They prohibit persons from leaving their home unless they have a reasonable excuse. They severely restrict the ability of persons to meet anyone who is not a member of their household. Various outdoors activities are banned, such as most organised sport. Numerous businesses and other premises are closed, including pubs and restaurants, cinemas and theatres, hairdressers, indoor and outdoor sports and recreation facilities, and most non-food retailers.’
39 Essex Chambers, 6th November 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘In R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Hackney London Borough Council and another (Respondents) UKSC 2019/0162, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful for a housing association to provide social housing only to Orthodox Jews, in its first ever ruling on positive action. In this blog, Charlotte Goodman, an equality law barrister at Cloisters, considers the importance of the judgment.’
Cloisters, 6th November 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Britain’s biggest police force must hire 40% of new recruits from ethnic minority backgrounds, while officers will have to justify stop and search to community panels under new plans designed to quell the race crisis engulfing Scotland Yard.’
The Guardian, 13th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has called for police traffic stops to be reviewed to look at whether black people are disproportionately affected by some police tactics.’
BBC News, 13th November 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Extending the amount of time unconvicted defendants can await trial in prison will have a disproportionate impact on people who are black, Asian or from other ethnic minorities, according to official advice handed to ministers.’
The Guardian, 16th October 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A student who was fined £10,000 for an illegal house party of more than 50 people has apologised.’
BBC News, 13th September 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘This case involved an appeal against a fine and a confiscation order following criminal proceedings for breach of an enforcement notice served under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). The appellant, Mr Roth, had converted a property into 12 self-contained flats without prior planning permission. His appeal against sentence was successful; insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea in the Crown Court, where the case had been committed for the purposes of confiscation. The appeal against the confiscation order was advanced on three grounds: firstly, that the wording of the summons restricted the criminality to one day; secondly, that the rent received was not linked to the breach of the planning legislation; and thirdly, that it was disproportionate for the benefit figure to comprise the gross rental received. All three grounds were dismissed.’
5SAH, 24th August 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘Children from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are almost three times more likely to have a Taser electronic weapon used on them by police than their white counterparts.’
The Guardian, 16th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘R (Mendes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 924 (17 July 2020): The only target of this appeal was Murray J’s order refusing interim relief in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Home Office to facilitate the return of Mr Mendes to the UK pending determination of the judicial review challenge of the certification of his case under regulation 33 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 that his removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the order of Murray J refusing the earlier application for interim relief in R (Mendes) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 2233 (Admin), and remitted the application to the Administrative Court for re-consideration and re-determination. A Portuguese national and an EU citizen, Mr Mendes, was born in 2000 and settled in the UK with his family in 2013 or 2014. But from 2015 to 2018, he was convicted of numerous criminal offences, including, on 6 March 2018, six robberies and he was sentenced to a 12-month detention and training order. While serving his custodial part of that sentence (and while aged only 17 years) the Home Office served notice of liability to deportation. Representations made by him were rejected. Instead, a deportation order was made on his eighteenth birthday on 17 September 2018. In the decision letter, the decision-maker certified under regulation 33, that Mr Mendes’s removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights.’
EIN Blog, 28th July 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines the right to the freedom of expression and Article 11 establishes the right of freedom of assembly and association. However, these rights are qualified, meaning that, in certain circumstances, these rights can be interfered with. The interference with these rights must be proportionate and necessary in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. For example, protestor rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly may be compromised where this is necessary in order to ensure public safety, prevent crime or disorder, protect the rights of others, or national security.’
St Pauls Chambers, 18th July 2020
Source: www.stpaulschambers.com
‘Mr Justice Lewis has refused permission to bring a judicial review in what is arguably the most comprehensive and wide-reaching challenge brought to date to the legality of the lockdown Regulations and the decision to stop providing education on school premises (save for the children of key workers) in R (Dolan and Ors) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1786 (Admin).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Banning religious services may have been illegal but other restrictions imposed by the government in England during the coronavirus lockdown were legitimate, a high court judge has ruled.’
The Guardian, 6th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Efforts to improve diversity among police officers are at risk of being thwarted by the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers against black men, a senior policing watchdog has warned.’
The Guardian, 2nd July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025