News focus: law and justice pledges – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The general election manifestos are in – here’s our quick-fire summary of their headline pledges on law and justice.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 20th April 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Category: Supreme Court
Women who wear religious veils in court must be respected, says UK’s most senior judge – The Independent
‘Women who choose to wear religious veils in court must be shown respect, the country’s most senior judge has said.’
The Independent, 17th April 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
R (on the application of Evans) and another (Respondents) v Attorney General (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 26th March 2015
In the matter of S (A Child) – Supreme Court
In the matter of S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 25th April 2015
Pham (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Pham (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 19 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 25th March 2015
R (on the application of SG and others ) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – Supreme Court
R (on the application of SG and others ) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 18th March 2015
Supreme Court to rule on illegal pollution levels – The Independent
‘A Supreme Court ruling this week could finally force the Government to drastically speed up its plans to deal with dangerous levels of air pollution, as a long-running battle over illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide comes to a head.’
The Independent, 12th April 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Open Society Justice Initiative intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The question whether a person was not considered as a national by a state under the operation of its law, with the effect that he would be stateless if deprived of British citizenship, was not necessarily to be decided solely by reference to the text of the nationality legislation of the state in question, and reference might also be made to the practice of the government, even if not subject to effective challenge in the courts.’
WLR Daily, 25th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another intervening) – WLR Daily
‘A local housing authority, in carrying out its duties under the Housing Act 1996, was obliged to accommodate a homeless person in suitable accommodation within its district if it was reasonably practicable to do so. The authority was to determine the suitability of the proposed accommodation by reference to the needs of the individual homeless person and each member of her household and to its location. Where accommodation was offered outside the authority’s district, the placement was to be as close as possible to where the members of the household had previously lived. In reaching its decision, the authority was required to take account of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (SI 2012/2601) and the guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It was also required, by section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004, to have regard to the need to safeguard and to promote the welfare of the children concerned.’
WLR Daily, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re S (A Child) (Access to Justice Foundation intervening) – WLR Daily
In re S (A Child) (Access to Justice Foundation intervening) [2015] UKSC 20; [2015] WLR (D) 163
‘The principle that orders for costs were not normally made in cases about children applied in cases involving local authorities, whether in relation to first instance proceedings or on appeal. A costs order would only be made where a party had acted reprehensibly in relation to the child or had taken an unreasonable stance in the proceedings, or if it were otherwise appropriate and just, as where the child’s welfare might be put at risk if a costs order were not made.’
WLR Daily, 25th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
On fairness, elephants and principle – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Procedural fairness is a bit like an elephant. It is difficult to define in abstract, but you know a fair procedure when you see one. So Lawton LJ put it in Maxwell v Department of Trade [1974] QB 523, 539’
UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court gives reasons for quashing offer of housing 50 miles away – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Supreme Court has today given its reasons why it unanimously upheld a homeless mother of five’s appeal over a London borough’s offer of accommodation 50 miles away.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
On the Road Again – Nearly Legal
‘With remarkable speed, the Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in Nzolameso v Westminster City Council , having announced immediately after the hearing on 17/3/2015 that the appeal would be allowed, with reasons to follow.’
Full story
Nearly Legal, 3rd April 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Care orders and accommodation pending appeal – Nearly Legal
‘Our post on Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UKSC 22 is here, but behind the headlines of the judgment (and it is a good judgment) is a whole history, even between the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court hearings.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd April 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Tenant wins battle to stop Westminster council moving her out of London – The Guardian
‘A single mother of five children has won a protracted legal battle and prevented Westminster council from removing her family to Milton Keynes.’
The Guardian, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Alison Young: R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21 – the Anisminic of the 21st Century? – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘On Thursday 26th March the Supreme Court concluded, to the delight of The Guardian and the dismay of the Prime Minister, that communications between Prince Charles and government Ministers – the so-called ‘black spider memos’ – should be released. This has been a long saga, involving issues of freedom of information, discussion of constitutional conventions surrounding the behaviour of a Monarch in training, which now also includes the principle of legality and the nature of the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Such a cornucopia of delights for constitutional lawyers guarantees that the case has earned its place in the ‘Constitutional law Case list Hall of Fame’, with the promise of further delight as the memos, once released and savoured, cast an insight into the relationship between the Crown and the Government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 31st March 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
The Supreme Court on statelessness, EU citizenship and proportionality – UK Human Rights Blog
‘On first glance, this was not a judgment about human rights. It concerned the definition of statelessness under article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, and raised issues of competence and jurisdiction in relation to EU citizenship. Its specific interest for human rights lawyers lies primarily in the observations about the principle of proportionality; and in where the case, which most certainly does raise human rights issues, is likely to go next.
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Untangling the spider’s web: Evans at the Supreme Court – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘On Friday, 27th March, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which will be as much of interest to public lawyers as information rights practitioners alike. Evans, a journalist for the Guardian newspaper utilised the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to seek the disclosure of letters sent by Prince Charles to seven government departments between September 2004 and March 2005. The departments refused to disclose the letters (so-called “black spider” memos on account of the Prince’s handwriting) on the basis that they were exempt from doing so. In their view the letters represented private correspondence which effectively allowed the Prince to prepare for “kingship.” Evans subsequently complained to the Information Commissioner who upheld the refusal before appealing to the Information Tribunal. The Tribunal held that many of the letters should be disclosed as they constituted “advocacy correspondence.”’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 31st March 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
The Tale of the Black Spider: The Supreme Court speaks – UK Human Rights Blog
‘And so, the long legal saga of the Black Spider Letters finally comes to a close.
I last blogged about this case back in October 2012. At that time, the Attorney General had ignited controversy by invoking a little-known power under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
