Human rights roundup: Pickles pickled, judges feminized, Twitter demonized

12 November 2010 by

The best of human rights news from the web in the past week. You can read our full list of external links here.

Alternative feminist judgment: R v A (No 2) [2001] UKHL 25 – guardian.co.uk: This ‘alternative’ judgment is part of the new Feminist Judgments Project, an interesting attempt by academics, practitioners and activists to produce 23 alternative feminist judgments to a series of key cases in English law. An introductory article in the Guardian explains that the project’s aim is not to encourage judges taken an ideological viewpoint but, rather, to accept that prejudice may have coloured even the highest judges’ reasoning at various points in English legal history and see whether things could have been different. It could be said that all they are doing is replacing one form of prejudice with another.

In any case, no matter how clever our judges are – and they are very bright indeed – it must be of some relevance that at the highest level they are almost exclusively white males aged 60+. The debate over judges’ prejudices is still much more alive in the United States than it is here, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to ignore it, particularly after the passing of the Human Rights Act which means courts are ruling on increasingly sensitive social issues. This project seeks to tease out the potential of an alternative viewpoint.

Charlemagne: A grim tale of judges and politicians – The Economist: The Economist tackles the strength of the constitutional court in Germany, whose judges are the “creatures of dread” in the European Union (see our post from earlier this week).
The court has been threatening to scupper the International Monetary Fund’s €750m Euro zone bail out. This issue is highly relevant to the UK: only yesterday, William Hague announced a new European Union Bill which seeks to enshrine British sovereignty. The foreign secretary is clearly jealous that he cannot attend European Union meetings in fear (or hope) that the UK’s courts may render negotiations irrelevant, as the German leader Angela Merkel can. In any event, there is a general consensus in the commentariat that the bill will make no difference.

Law Review: Twitter Joke Trial – A travesty… why do we really bother? – Charon QC: Paul Chambers has lost his first appeal against a criminal conviction for a tweet in which he (jokingly, he says) threatened to blow up Nottingham airport. Most in the legal blogosphere, many of whom probably have a better appreciation of the emerging tone and custom of Twitter than the courts, think the decision is a daft one. This may well be overturned on appeal; if every silly or potentially misunderstood Tweet or Facebook status were pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service, they would have time for nothing else. Afua Hirsch also asks if Twitter has lost its innocence. Our (rather serious) Twitter feed is here.

Nick Clegg rejects call for law change after ‘hundreds denied vote’I blogged in July on the Electoral Commission’s damning report into the 2010 general election. It called for its wide-ranging reform program to be brought forward, including a “comprehensive electoral modernisation strategy”. This call has apparently been rejected by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Commission “is “disappointed” the government had ignored its call for legislation to prevent a repeat of angry scenes during May’s general election, when some people queuing to vote were turned away at the deadline“.

Nick Clegg told Parliament that the problem was “lack of resources… poor organisation by the returning officer“, and that reaching “for the statute book” would not solve the problem. He may or may not be right; we may not find out until it is too late. It might be asked what information he is basing his conclusions on, given he has rejected the conclusions of the official election regulator.

Senior British officers could face war crimes trial over alleged Iraqi abuse | Law | guardian.co.uk: Joshua Rozenberg examines the possibility that various members of the Army and intelligence services may face war crime trials relating to events during the Iraq war, following a 3-day judicial review in the High Court into the treatment of Iraqi civilians. The 200 or so Iraqis are demanding a full public inquiry.

‘Big society’ decision to scrap regional housing targets ruled unlawful – guardian.co.ukThe High Court has ruled that the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles acted unlawfully in scrapping the regional plans which set housing targets across councils in England. The decision is here (law report here), and Mr Pickles has said the government does not intend to appeal. The decision is interesting as it shows the power of the courts, following the famous (in public law circles) 1960s decision of Padfield, to quash a Minister’s decision if they did not properly construe (that is, follow) an Act of Parliament. These kind of challenges may increase if ministers are given the sweeping new ‘Henry VIII’ powers proposed by the Public Bodies Bill (see our post).

And don’t forget our 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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 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 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 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 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 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 Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: