Human rights roundup: More cuts, phone-hacking and pets’ rights

19 November 2010 by

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

Legal aid cuts – some early thoughts on implications – Lawyer Watch More thoughts on the principles underlying the legal aid cuts (see our post) by Professor Richard Moorhead. Also see The cuts to legal aid are closing the law to all but those with money by Jonathan Freedland, who argues that Labour should fight the cuts “root and branch” as “These £350m of savings will come at a much greater cost, either to other public services – including the NHS, forced to pay the higher costs that come with defeat in “no win, no fee” cases – or to society as a whole.”

News of the World phone hacking investigator must give court names of clients – Inforrm: This is the latest decision relating to the long-running News of the World phone-hacking investigation. The case is of interest from a human rights perspective as it highlights the tricky balance to be struck by the courts and the police between protecting journalistic sources, a necessary requirement for freedom of the press, and uncovering criminal activity such as phone-hacking. I posted last on the issue, in relation to Wayne Rooney and William Hague too, here. In the latest decision, the High Court has ordered that the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire was ordered to provide information identifying the “News of the World” journalists who instructed him to hack into voice mail messages.

Ken Clarke: jury-less trials in extreme cases to continue – BBC: Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has said (click the link to watch a video) it is “unlikely” that the use of juryless trials “in extreme cases” will be scrapped. During an evidence session with the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 16 November 2010 he said he recognised that trials without a jury should only be used where there is a clear risk of jury intimidation. Trial by jury is still a basic right in the vast majority of Crown Court trials (that is, trials of the most serious criminal offences). However, in recent years the right has been eroded by legislation which allows for jury-less trials in exceptional circumstances such as when there is a real risk of jury intimidation – see our most recent post on the issue.

… and with good timing, the Lord Chief Justice has given a speech on jury trials to the Judicial Studies Board. He supports the system in strong terms:

My starting point is simple. Everything in my own personal career, both at the Bar and then on the Bench, has served to demonstrate the value of our jury system, and the reason for its pre-eminence in our constitutional arrangements for the administration of criminal justice. The jury system ensures that in our jurisdiction no one can be convicted of a serious crime or subjected to a lengthy term of imprisonment unless he has admitted his guilty in open and public court or a body of his fellow citizens has considered the evidence and satisfied itself on the basis of that evidence that they are sure of guilt.

Petsafe Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 2908 (Admin) (16 November 2010): Do pets have human rights? That eternal question is answered (well, sort of) in this High Court judgment in relation to the Welsh Ministers’ decision to ban electric shock animal collars. The parties did not go as far as arguing that dogs and cats have human rights (which isn’t as silly as it sounds), but the applicants did argue that the ban on the collars amounted to a breach of potential purchasers’ Article 1, protocol 1 rights, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. We will post more fully on this early next week.

Response to Equality Act 2010: The public sector Equality Duty – Equality and Human Rights CommissionThe public sector equality duty (or the “socialism clause” see our post), originally part of the Equality Act 2010, always looked doomed as the Conservatives had made clear they opposed it. The ECHR has issued its response, arguing that  the duty must “be unambiguous in their requirements” but also argues that the proposed regulations do not match the government’s ambitious vision for specific duties. The obligations are “unclear” and the ECHR offers ways of making them more specific. Ultimately, the regulations may be deliberately unclear, given the government’s stated distaste for prescriptive, top-down regulation on this issue.

And don’t forget our posts…

1 comment;


  1. ObiterJ says:

    Once anything is breached – in this case the right to jury trial in the Crown Court – history tells us that things will never return to what they were. The next step is likely to be creeping extensions to judge only trials.

Comments are closed.

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: