Rights in flux – The Human Rights Roundup

22 March 2011 by

It’s time for the human rights roundup, a regular bulletin of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts. The full list of links, updated each day, can be found here.

by Graeme Hall

In the news

As the UK government is requesting the referral of Greens and M.T. v UK to the Grand Chamber, with the intention that the European Court of Human Rights reconsiders the issue of prisoner voting, the Committee of Ministers, vested with the responsibility to oversee the enforcement of the Court’s judgments, has put on hold its ongoing review of the UK’s compliance with the decision in Hirst v UK (No. 2).  This comes at a time when a senior human rights academic, as well as other states (according to the PoliticsHome blog), are also questioning the Court’s legitimacy. The background to these controversial decisions can be found in Adam Wagner’s post.

Linked to the issue of the European Convention, both The Times (click here) and the Guardian (click here) report that the recently announced Commission to examine a British Bill of Rights will end in a stalemate due to its composition of human rights supporters and sceptics. A short Who’s-Who? of the Commission’s members can be found here.

Unsurprisingly, the media have also been very interested in the Defamation Bill. Whilst David Allen Green, a media defence lawyer writing in the New Statesman argues that the bill is a great step forward, Inforrm, the international forum for responsible media blog, concludes that the bill is neither radical nor wide-ranging. Click here for Rosalind English’s detailed discussion of the bill.

Finally, Pink Tape, a blog written by a family barrister, calls into question the breadth of a recently launched, yet under publicised, Department for Communities and Local Government consultation paper, which aims to review the statutory obligations placed on local authorities.

In the courts:

Mohamud, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 573 (Admin) (15 March 2011): Asylum seekers entitled to work under Reception Directive whilst waiting for judicial review decision.

EM and others (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC) (14 March 2011): Immigration: Upper Tribunal gives updated country guidance on Zimbabwe.

A-S v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 564 (Admin) (17 January 2011): Bizarre “catch-22” case of Kuwaiti Bedoon asylum seeker who cannot stay in UK as he has no valid ID, but cannot return to Kuwait as they don’t recognise their Bedoons as citizens.

The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors [2011] EWHC 585 (QB) (17 March 2011): Anti-war protester Brian Haw loses High Court appeal against eviction from Parliament Square. See our latest post on protest rights.

Grand Chamber Judgment in Lautsi: No Violation: The appeal chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, overturning a 2009 Chamber judgment, has ruled that the practice of displaying crucifixes in Italian State schools does not violate the applicants’ rights to education or freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

…and don’t forget to take a look at our recent posts:

1 comment;


  1. John Hirst says:

    I have difficulty with the Committee of Ministers putting on hold its responsibility to supervise execution of the Court judgment in Hirst v UK (No2), on the ground that the UK is seeking to appeal Greens and MT v UK.

    Both the UK and the Committee of Ministers have failed to act responsibily, in relation to my case.

    It used to be the case that the Committee of Ministers was a toothless watchdog, however, since the Lisbon Treaty and ratification and coming into power of Protocol 14, in addition to the Interlaken process, it beggars belief that after over 5 years of delay there should be even more delay!

    In my view, the Court decision should have direct effect or direct application in the same way that the Court of Justice of the European Union operates. By handing the case back to politicians has only facilitated this game of political ping pong. In effect, what was a legal case has now become a political case.

    The “senior human rights academic” Tom Zwart opines that “The reasoning applied by the Court is not very convincing”. However, I am not convinced by a one line criticism which the author fails to back up with evidence. Similarly, he only offers a one line solution “To prevent the Court from losing its legitimacy, reforms are necessary”. If I was marking his paper he would get 1/10 and the comment “could do a lot better”! PoliticsHome blog has merely regurgitated the mumblings from Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky before the JCHR.

    Perhaps, these so-called experts could turn their attention to the illegitimacy of the UK’s failure to fufill its obligations under the Convention rather than attack the Court?

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 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 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 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 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: