In the matter of E (Children) [2011] UKSC – read judgment The Supreme Court has ruled that two girls, aged seven and four respectively, be returned with their mother to Norway, after she had removed them without the father’s consent. The decision was made largely under the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child [...]
Archive for the ‘Family’ Category
Court orders return of children abducted from father in Norway
Posted in Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Case summaries, Children, Family on June 10, 2011 |
The Adoption Dilemma: the rights of parents v child’s interests
Posted in Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Children, European, Family, In the news, tagged adoption on June 2, 2011 | 3 Comments »
R. and H. v. United Kingdom (no. 35348/06) – Read judgment This ruling from Strasbourg sheds little light on how Article 8 can help adoption procedure, but it does illustrate how courts and agencies are having to square up to the deepening crisis in adoption rates. Newspaper and charity campaigns are vocal about this issue but little [...]
Should journalists attend court?.. Part 2
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Children, Family, In the news, Media on May 22, 2011 | 73 Comments »
I asked in a recent post whether journalists need to attend court hearings to report accurately. The post arose from judgment in a family court case involving a mother’s abuse of her baby. The judge took the unusual step of criticising the Sunday Telegraph’s Christopher Booker’s reporting, which he called “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain [...]
Life or death injunctions not so super (or controversial)
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Family, In the news, Media, Medical on May 19, 2011 | 5 Comments »
W v. M, S, an NHS PCT and Times Newspapers Ltd. [2011] EQHC 1197 (COP) – read judgment. In the midst of all the fuss over the last two weeks about ‘superinjunctions’ and the law on privacy (see our coverage here, here, here and here) the Court of Protection (“CoP”) has just granted an injunction imposing extensive reporting [...]
Must journalists attend court hearings to report accurately?
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Family, In the news, Media on May 17, 2011 | 27 Comments »
I posted last week on a judgment given by His Honour Judge Bellamy in a family court case involving a mother’s abuse of her baby The judge took the unusual step of criticising media reporting of the case. He said the Telepraph’s Christopher Booker’s reporting was “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong“. There have been some developments [...]
No quick fix for the child protection system
Posted in Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Children, Family, In the news on May 11, 2011 | 5 Comments »
The Department of Education today published the final report of Professor Eileen Munro into the child protection system in England. After extensive consultation, the report concludes that the social work profession needs to be freed from a compliance culture and stifling levels of central prescription in order to allow social workers to have more time [...]
Judge: Telegraph reporting of family case was “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong”
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Children, Family, In the news, Media, Poor reporting on May 6, 2011 | 14 Comments »
L (A Child: Media Reporting), Re [2011] EWHC B8 (Fam) (18 April 2011) – Read judgment The thought of being personally criticised in a reported judgment would make most lawyers break into a cold sweat. Some journalists wear such treatment as a badge of honour. But surely it is professionally embarrassing for a high court [...]
Ban on religious couple adopting?.. On the naughty step
Posted in Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion, Defamation / Libel, Family, In the news, Poor reporting on April 26, 2011 | 6 Comments »
Human rights and discrimination law are often criticised in the press. Sometimes the criticisms are justified, but the level of anger which a system of universal rights can generate is sometimes surprising. Unfortunately, some of that anger is caused by inaccurate reporting of judgments. In yesterday’s Telegraph online, Cristina Odone blogged on a recent “scandal” [...]
Will churches really be sued for not allowing civil partnerships?
Posted in Art. 12 | Right to Marry / Found Family, Art. 14 | Anti-Discrimination, Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion, Family, In the news, Religion, tagged civil partnerships, Gay marriage on February 24, 2011 | 7 Comments »
On 17 February the Home Secretary announced that the government was moving ahead with changes to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which would allow the registration of civil partnerships to take place in religious premises. While welcomed by many, some have voiced concerns that permission will inevitably become coercion. They fear that religious organisations may face [...]
Rights breach council must pay out
Posted in Art. 5 | Right to Liberty, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Case comments, Costs and Procedure, Family, Medical, Mental Health, tagged G v E & Ors on February 7, 2011 | 5 Comments »
G v E & Ors [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) (21 December 2010) – Read judgment Manchester City Council has been ordered to pay the full legal costs of a 20-year-old man with severe learning disabilities who was unlawfully removed from his long-term foster carer. The council demonstrated a “blatant disregard” for mental health law. The [...]
Supreme Court extends meaning of domestic violence
Posted in Art. 3 | Torture / Inhumane Treatment, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Case summaries, Family, Housing, tagged Yemshaw on January 26, 2011 | 5 Comments »
Yemshaw (Appellant) v London Borough of Hounslow (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 3 – Read judgment / press summary The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that “domestic violence” in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 includes physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to [...]
Child detention: More smoke and mirrors
Posted in Art. 3 | Torture / Inhumane Treatment, Art. 5 | Right to Liberty, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Children, Family, Immigration/Extradition, In the news on January 13, 2011 | 1 Comment »
R (on the application of) Reetha Suppiah and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Interveners [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) – Read judgment A high court judge has ruled that two asylum seekers and their children were unlawfully detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration centre last year. This ruling will add fuel to [...]
Policy to prevent forced marriages “arbitrary and disruptive”, says Court of Appeal
Posted in Art. 12 | Right to Marry / Found Family, Art. 14 | Anti-Discrimination, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Case comments, Family, Immigration/Extradition, tagged forced marriage on January 4, 2011 |
Quila & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1482 – Read judgment A key part of the government’s strategy to combat forced marriages, preventing people under the age of 21 from entering the country to marry, has been heavily criticised by the Court of Appeal. The decision [...]
UK scheme to police sham marriages slammed by Human Rights court
Posted in Art. 12 | Right to Marry / Found Family, Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion, Case comments, Case summaries, European, Family, Immigration/Extradition, In the news on December 16, 2010 |
O’Donoghue and Others v. the United Kingdom(application no. 34848/07): The government’s system for preventing sham marriages as an entry ploy for immigrants breached the right to marry and was discriminatory – read judgment. By the time this case was lodged the Certificate of Approval Scheme had been much diluted by a series of amendments, but [...]
Welcome!
Browse by legal topic
Recommended- Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
- Supreme Court judgment: Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority - Carl Gardner May 30, 2012
- Julian Assange's extradition stayed thanks to quick legal footwork | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk May 30, 2012
- New Judgment: Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22 May 30, 2012
- What if Julian Assange loses in the Supreme Court? May 29, 2012
- Secret justice concessions won't silence its critics | The Spectator May 29, 2012
- ICLR's case summaries are now on Guardian Law | Daniel Hoadley | Law | guardian.co.uk May 29, 2012
- The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal - David Allen Green May 28, 2012
- Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
- Case law
- Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
- SCOPPOLA v. ITALY (No. 3) - 126/05 [2012] ECHR 868 (22 May 2012) May 23, 2012ECtHR Grand Chamber: automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners unlawful but up to individual states how to implement changes were such a ban exist
- Dishonesty in entry clearance applications May 21, 2012An Upper Tribunal (UT) decision confirms that, where an application for entry clearance is “marred by dishonesty” – whether in the applicant’s knowledge or not and even where the applicant is presently eligible for entry – it is not a disproportionate response for the Home Secretary to refuse the application, even in light of Article 8
- MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) May 18, 2012Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into 2009 protest at Immigration Detention Centre. Challenge by children separated from parents during protest and claiming pschiatric damage as result.
- British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (17 May 2012) May 17, 2012Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeed in JR of decision by court to order production of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of Dale Farm protesters: "... there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation"
- Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012) May 16, 2012Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to "main" care giver not discriminatory under art.14 ECHR to father caring for child 3 days per week. The specific test for justifying discrimination in the context of state benefits is that with questions of social and economic strategy the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless i […]
- Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
-
UKHRB on Twitter
- #Assange loses SC appeal 5 votes to 2. Like to be #ECtHR application to block #extradition 4 hours ago
- #Assange Supreme Court decision imminent bbc.co.uk/news/uk-182594… #extradition 5 hours ago
- Also fresh on the blog- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on by David Hart QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/the… 5 hours ago
- Good morning all, @IsabelMcArdle here. Justive and Security Bill- the govt is not for turning by Angela Patrick ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… 5 hours ago
Adam Wagner on Twitter
- RT @simonmckay: Catt v Metropolitan Police. Important case on #protest and #dataretention. Would be surprised if it was not appealed:htt ... 54 minutes ago
- For anyone who hasn't read it > Justice & Security Bill: Government is not for turning - Angela Patrick of @justicehq: wp.me/pJiO3-3Gc 1 hour ago
- RT @CrowtherSimon: Excellent piece by @justicehq's Angela Patrick on Just& Sec Bill on @ukhumanrightsb ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… #secretj ... 1 hour ago
- RT @I_am_peevee: @AdamWagner1 @gideonconn "and excellent artist"... 1 hour ago
- My friend and brilliant musician @GideonConn has a brand new video: youtube.com/watch?v=tX-ZrZ… 1 hour ago
- Excellent from @joshuarozenerg on the potentially embarrassing mess surrounding the #Assange ruling is.gd/4Qs0h3 1 hour ago
- Recent posts
- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on May 29, 2012 David Hart QC
- Justice and Security Bill: The Government is not for turning – Angela Patrick May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
- We need to think about Kevin May 29, 2012 Rosalind English
- Key Justice and Security Bill resources May 29, 2012 Adam Wagner
- Free Speech at Work: A 1COR Seminar and Mock Trial – Wed 27th June May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
- Time and time again: Article 6 to the rescue May 27, 2012 David Hart QC
- Prisoner voting, Bratza’s replacement and peaceful protest – The Human Rights Roundup May 27, 2012 Wessen Jazrawi
- The case for letting prisoners vote – Reuven Ziegler May 24, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
Disclaimer
Abduction and the child’s “best interests” – analysis
Posted in Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Case comments, Case law, Children, Family, In the news on June 14, 2011 | 1 Comment »
E (Children) FC [2011] UKSC 27 – read judgment ; see previous post for summary This case shows some of the difficulties thrown up by the interesting tension between the primacy of children’s interests implied by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the controls on child abduction exerted by the 1980 Hague Convention. The Human [...]
Read Full Post »