Human rights roundup: The FCO, Shoesmith, and local authorities taking over the world

2 September 2010 by

Some of this week’s human rights news, in bite-size form. The full list of our links can be found on the right sidebar or here:

FCO decision on human rights report ‘puts businesses at risk’ – The Law Gazette: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has threatened to cut back on its annual international human rights report. The President of the Law Society has said human rights are an “increasingly a prominent risk factor in business”, but it is not clear what this really means, beyond corporate social responsibility which is at most seems a peripheral business consideration. We questioned earlier this week (see post) whether foreign policy and human rights could or should mix.

Treasury attacked over equality impact of budget – The Law Gazette: More details of the Fawcett Society’s threatened judicial review of the budget, on the grounds that the Treasury did not carry out an appropriate equality impact assessment. Apparently, research by the House of Commons library has shown that 72& of the savings will come from women’s income. See our post on the disappearing Public Sector Equality Duty.

Permission to appeal granted in Sharon Shoesmith v Ofsted and Ors case: Sharon Shoesmith was the leader of Haringey Council at the time of the Baby Peter affair in 2007. She was sacked after a scathing report by Ofsted, and failed in her judicial review of the decision. Her case against Ofsted, the Secretary of State for Children and Families and the London Borough of Haringey, which will now go to the Court of Appeal, is one of the many ripple effects of the scandal, alongside the government’s recent announcement that it would review the child protection system. The full judgment is here. Also, kudos to Mr Justice Foskett (a former member of my Chambers) for his excellent use of the internet in publishing decisions, summaries and even submissions in this case. If more judges followed suit, there would be better understanding of legal issues by the general public.

Free up councils by abolishing ultra vires principle, says think tank – Local Government Lawyer: “Ultra Vires” means “beyond the powers”, and is a commonly used remedy in judicial review proceedings. A court can rule that (for example) a local authority has acted outside of its powers as set down by statute or statutory instrument. The New Government Network, a think tank, argues in a report that the principle should be abolished to give more powers to local authorities. The coalition have recently proposed a rule of “general competence” which would effectively allow LAs to abolish and institute byelaws without approval from central government; they would only need to put the issue to locals. This is the kind of news which may escape the radar of many but could have an enormous practical effect. As to abolishing ultra vires, this seems a step too far as it would effectively leave the local population with no remedy if they feel that LAs have expanded beyond their powers.

Sittingbourne man jailed for giving woman HIV – BBC News: See our recent post on the law of reckless or deliberate HIV transmission in the UK.

G20 pathologist guilty of misconduct  – BBC News: Dr Freddy Patel, a pathologist, carried out the first post-mortem examination of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009. He has now been found guilty by the General Medical Council on misconduct charges relating to three previous post-mortems, although not in relation to the Tomlinson post-mortem. This will put further pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions to look again at the decision not to prosecute the police officer who hit Tomlinson with a baton around an hour before he died. One of the main justifications for not bringing a prosecution was that the pathologist’s evidence would provide reasonable doubt and a jury would not be able to convict. But if Dr Patel has been found to be generally unreliable (and this is debatable), a prosecution may now be more likely. But as is often the case, it is very difficult to look behind the findings of the initial post-mortem.

Reporting Privacy Injunctions (re third Premier League Footballer Injunction) – Inforrm: Inforrm provide a sober analysis of the myths surrounding the so-called “privacy law by the back door”; a favourite expression of the press but not necessarily backed up by reality – see also Journalism, entrapment and the public interest.

We welcome your comments on any of the above items

Recent posts:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: