‘The government’s lockdown, which has closed schools, premises and companies while limiting free movement, is the “most sweeping and far-reaching” restriction on fundamental rights since the second world war, the high court has been told.’
The Guardian, 2nd July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Thinking of discontinuing, or settling a claim? This 21-page Judgment (admonishment) provides some important guidance on the dos and don’ts, particularly the don’ts.’
No. 5 Chambers, 19th June 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘According to the government quarantine policy, that came into force on 8 June, nearly all international arrivals at UK ports must quarantine for 14 days. Elsewhere we argued that the quarantine policy is irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate and therefore illegal. Here we argue that the policy was introduced mainly because of public opinion – and that public opinion in this case is an irrelevant consideration, one that should not have been taken into account by government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘As many Britons bask in a summer heatwave, Kylie Neuhaus will remain housebound for the next week or else she could face a fine of up to £1,000.’
Each Other, 24th June 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘An attempt by police chiefs to grapple with racism claims by launching a panel to recommend action has been criticised by victims’ representatives and met with scepticism from within their own ranks.’
The Guardian, 18th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Harsh criticism, mainly from politicians and the travel industry has been expressed regarding the new government policy, according to which, and from 8 June, nearly all international arrivals at UK ports must quarantine for 14 days. It is surprising that very little has been said about the clear illegality of this policy, despite a very recent judicial review process that has been brought against the policy by a few airline companies. In this post it is argued that the quarantine policy is irrational, unreasonable and disproportionate – and therefore illegal. A preliminary note about the differences between rationality and reasonableness will be followed by applying rationality, reasonableness and proportionality to our case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 26 May, judicial review proceedings were launched in the High Court which not only challenged the lawfulness of the Lockdown Regulations as having been made “ultra vires” under the 1984 Public Health Act, but also claimed that they are disproportionate to the threat posed by Covid-19. Philip Havers QC of 1 Crown Office Row is acting for the claimant.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Father of Stephen Lawrence says police’s promises to change have not been met.’
The Guardian, 9th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Cutting the maximum size of Compensation Fund awards from £2m to £500,000 could have a “devastating” impact on “unlucky claimants”, the Law Society has warned.’
Legal Futures, 4th June 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘It should not be necessary for the court to make express directions as to what should be included in a hearing bundle but failures to collate them properly may force them to, a High Court judge has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 1st June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A 67-year-old retired primary school teacher who has a neurological disorder that causes her to make involuntary sounds and noises has failed in a judicial review challenge over a noise abatement notice.’
Local Government Lawyer, 26th May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In this article, Dominic Ruck Keene and Henry Tufnell argue that the challengers to the legislation have not shown that the measures adopted by the Government are disproportionate in the circumstances of the pandemic.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th May 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Metropolitan police and the Greater Manchester force have been urged to make clear whether or not the use of stun guns against black men by officers this week was proportionate and reasonable.’
The Guardian, 10th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A prisoner convicted of stirring up religious hatred has won the first round in his legal challenge to emergency legislation preventing early automatic release of terrorism offenders.’
The Guardian, 5th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The government is facing a challenge to the legality of the coronavirus lockdown by a wealthy businessman who fears it will kill more people than it saves.’
The Guardian, 1st May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Coronavirus Act 2020, which was passed in less than three days by Parliament, does not contain the restrictions governing the lockdown in England. These are contained in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (the Regulations) passed under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. Devolved governments have pursued similar strategies in this respect. As Professor Jeff King has argued on this blog, s.45 of the 1984 Act can be ‘construed literally to confer powers to impose the lockdown’ because it allows for restrictions on ‘persons, things or premises in the event’ of a threat to public health. Like all secondary legislation, following s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 this needs to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, as this post sets out, some difficult rights trade-offs and restrictions may come from lifting lockdown restrictions requiring us to revaluate what we consider as normal in terms of balancing rights and liberties.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 20 April 2020, the Hospitality Union wrote a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for a “National Time Out” under which there would be a nine-month national payment pause granted to business tenants. This would be “a crucial period of payment postponement when commercial rents, and the debt and interest payments secured on those premises, are pushed to the back end of leases and term loans.”’
Falcon Chambers, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The basic position is well-known: in principle, the costs of an inquest are recoverable in a subsequent clinical negligence claim. The leading case in this regard, also well-known, is Roach -v- Home Office [2010] QB 256.’
Ropewalk Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The ‘lockdown’ imposed by the government to contain the coronavirus and Covid 19, the disease it causes has been enforced mainly through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’), imposed under powers delegated by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘As Hippocrates remarked at the height of the Plague of Athens in 430BC, desperate times call for desperate measures. The deadly coronavirus has brought forth desperate measures almost everywhere, and the keystone of this country’s response to the crisis is the Coronavirus Act 2020. This post focusses on some key aspects of it, asking how the new offences relating to “potentially infectious” persons are defined and whether the Act as a whole is necessary.’
6KBW College Hill, 16th April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025