Human rights roundup: Control orders, Google rapped and Henry VIII clauses

5 November 2010 by

Updated | For your weekend reading pleasure, some of this week’s human rights news, in bite-size form. The full list of our external links can be found on the right sidebar or here.

Abu Hamza wins passport appeal – BBC: Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has won his appeal in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against government attempts to strip him of his British passport. Apparently he won as taking his passport away would have rendered him “stateless”. We will comment on the case once the judgment is released (update – judgment is here and our post is here). In the meantime, you can read the background to his extradition appeal here.

A breathtaking Bill of which even Henry VIII would have been proud – Law and Lawyers: The Public Bodies Bill is making its way through Parliament, and the Law and Lawyers blog has sounded the alarm that the bill, if passed into law, will amount to a “permanent extension to Ministerial powers exercisable with quite minimal Parliamentary oversight.” It is “replete” with so-called Henry VIII clauses, which could provide unchecked power to the Executive. I discussed the issue of Henry VIII clauses in July, in light of the Lord Chief Justice’s comments on the issue.

Ruling of Lady Justice Heather Hallett on secret evidence in 7/7 inquests – We will have more on this next week. The court of appeal judge who is taking charge of the 7/7 inquests (inquests website here) has ruled that she does not have the power to hold closed hearings at which evidence is called from which Interested Persons can be excluded. Whilst not a ‘court’ decision, this is certainly of interest in light of the recent open justice trend in the civil courts (see my post on the Binyam Mohamed litigation).

Google escapes fine over Street View cars, but must sign undertaking – Panopticon Blog Google has been censured by the Information Commissioner’s Office for accidentally (it says) collecting private data which could be traced to individuals whilst taking photographs for its Street View mapping feature. It has escaped a fine, however, and need only sign an undertaking to not do it again. Junior barristers who are instructed in road traffic accident claims can breath a sigh of relief that the service is still available…

Control orders are like nothing I have experienced in my career – Matthew RyderControl orders have been back in the news recently, as members of the government are apparently arguing over whether to scrap, diminish or keep intact the controversial anti-terrorism measure (see our most recent post on the topic for the background).

The Observer called this a “fierce battle behind the scenes for the coalition’s soul “. This may be putting it a bit strongly. Control orders have only affected around 50 people since their introduction in 2005, so surely the economic cuts and the state of the justice system will be the true measure of this government’s ‘soul’. But the debate is important and the ultimate decision may set the tone for the rest of the coalition’s term, particularly on anti-terrorism issues (see Alasdair Henderson’s post).

Meanwhile, Bagehot, in this week’s Economist suggests that the issue shows how much of an influence the Liberal Democrats have on “life and death” issues, as compared to economic ones.

Equality Act 2010 – Nearly LegalThe Nearly Legal blog provides an excellent analysis of the main provisions of the new Equality Act – our post is here.

Human rights and constitutional reform – Halsbury’s Law ExchangeSimon Hetherington at the HLE discusses Jack Straw’s recent article. My comment on the topic is here.

LSC rules out appeal against family tender judgment – The Law GazetteThis means the Law Society has won its challenge against the Legal Services Commission family legal aid tender. The background is here. The LSC will now rethink the tender, but given the cuts to the legal aid budget this is no guarantee that family lawyers will end up any better off in the end.

Lord Phillips: “There is a risk that cuts will go too far and have a damaging impact on the administration of justice.” – UKSC blogThe head of the Supreme Court adds his voice to the many worrying about what effect the 25% justice budget cuts will have on the administration of justice.

And don’t forget our posts, including some new authors…

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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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: