Roundup: Bringing rights home weekly

15 February 2011 by

 

 

Today we are reinvigorating our weekly human rights news and case law roundup. Look out for regular bulletins of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts.

by Graeme Hall

Bringing Rights Back Home, with foreword by Lord Hoffmann – Policy Exchange: A report by political scientist Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, commissioned by the thinktank Policy Exchange, offers a strong academic criticism of the European Court of Human Rights’ current composition and powers, as well as the affects its judgments are having in Britain. Click here for our previous commentary on the report.

Ben Emmerson: The European Court of Human Rights enhances our democracy – The Independent: In a detailed article, Ben Emmerson QC examines the thinktank Exchange Policy’s recently published report ‘Bringing Rights Back Home’, which criticised the current practises of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the barrister pays attention to the comments of Lord Hoffman (a former law Lord) who authored the report’s foreward. See our previous post for a commentary on the report.

UK will not defy European court over votes for prisoners, says Kenneth Clarke – guardian.co.uk: The Guardian reports that Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, has stated that the UK government has to comply with the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment that the blanket ban on disenfranchising prisoners was a violation of their human rights. However, Mr. Clarke made clear that the mechanics to achieve compliance were “still to be settled”. See our most recent post on this issue.

MoJ Consultation – Is there a legitimate demand for live, text-based communications to be used from the courtroom?: The Ministry of Justice has opened a consultation on the media’s use of live, text-based forms of communication for the purposes of fair and accurate reporting in the courts of England and Wales. The MoJ is inviting responses between 7 February 2011 and 4 May 2011. See our recent post regarding the Supreme Court’s guidance on live text-based communications

Julian Assange’s extradition hearing – Head of Legal: Carl Gardner writes the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, is likely to be extradited back to Sweden. Click here for our overview of the case and our concurring opinion that whatever the outcome, there is likely to be an appeal.

BBC News – Supreme Court independence ‘threatened’ by fundingThe BBC reports on a recent lecture of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, who warned that the Supreme Court’s independence is threatened if it continues to be directly funded by the Ministry of Justice. See our recent post on Lord Phillips’ lecture.

DNA profiles of most people questioned by police but released will be deleted, says Government: OUT-LAW.com reports that under the Freedom Bill, the government will require the destruction of DNA samples taken from suspects who are not charged or convicted of a crime. See today’s

In the courts

Luton Borough Council & Nottingham City Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin) (11 February 2011): Coalition cancellation of school-building program was unlawful. Lack of consultation, failed to regard equalities impact. The secretary of state must now reconsider “with an open mind”.

SA (Iranian Arabs-no general risk) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 41 (IAC) (10 February 2011): Upper Tribunal: Being Iranian Arab does not itself generate risk of persecution upon return to Iran. Our post on this coming soon.

BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC) (10 February 2011): Iranian who demonstrated against regime in UK is at real risk of being persecuted as a result upon return. Tribunal gives general guidance on such cases. Our post coming soon.

Mustafa Kamal MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) (No. 1) v the United Kingdom – 31411/07 [2011] ECHR 211 (18 January 2011)The European Court of Human Rights has rejected Abu Hamza’s claim that his trial in the United Kingdom for soliciting to murder, inciting racial hatred and terrorism charges was unfair. See our commentary of the Court’s decision here.

Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6 (9 February 2011)Supreme Court updates Pinnock (article 8 and council possession) judgment, re order and costs.

And don’t forget our 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.

Subscribe

Categories


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: