School’s out – The Human Rights Roundup

1 August 2011 by

The higher courts may have shut for the summer and judges escaped to tropical retreats, but the UK Human Rights Blog rumbles on. Welcome back to 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. You can also find our table of human rights cases here.

by Graeme Hall

In the news:

Legal Aid

The Pink Tape blog picks up on another “teensy glitch” with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, noting that applicants for non-molestation orders will be disinclined to accept an undertaking from a respondent (“a solemn promise to the court not to behave in a particular way, which is punishable by imprisonment and can stand in the stead of an non-molestation order”), as in doing so, s/he will be disqualified from legal aid entitlement.

However, it is not just the government’s act which presents problems. Writing in the Guardian, Richard Moorhead concludes that “legal aid cuts do not lose votes” and that, in turn, the legal profession’s objections to the cuts need to start to chime with voters. Presently, as intimated from the somewhat provocative title, “Lawyers are their own worst advocates”.

Incapacity and disability

Two interesting posts from The Small Places blog this week regarding the Court of Protection. The first, Authoring our ends, looks at the application by a family to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from ‘M’, currently in a minimally conscious state. This piece takes an expansive look at end-of-life decision-making and is vital reading for anyone interested in the interaction of ethics and law. With the recently announced publication of a Guide to Media Access and Reporting in the family courts, the second post, Access, reporting and judgments in the Court of Protection, highlights that despite over 1200 welfare-related applications to the CoP alone, only 18 judgments are available on Bailii, begging the question: why is such a low proportion being published?

Eilionoir Flynn, writing on the Human Rights in Ireland blog, remarks on two cases currently before the European Court of Human Rights. The first, Gauer v France, concerns the enforced sterilisation of women with mental disabilities. The second, RP and Others v UK, concerns the removal of a child from its mother, with particular emphasis on the role of the Official Solicitor. In both cases capacity, consent and access to courts will be key issues, along with the potential for the European Court to consider the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Whilst on the topic of the European Court, blog reports on the publication of an interesting article regarding one of the court’s more fluid legal tools: the margin of appreciation. Click here for further details.


The Law Society Gazette has welcomed the government’s decision to provide legal aid for immigrants suffering domestic violence. The need for such funding is no better highlighted than by the United Kingdom Immigration Law blog’s exposition of APP’s case; an immigrant subjected to domestic violence, let down by the immigration political and legal systems.

However, as Halsbury’s Law Exchange blog’s Simon Hetherington has posted this week, an inspection report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons into Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre shows that improvements are being made into the conditions of detained immigrants. Hetherington focuses on the report’s recommendation to stop the “inhumane” “distressing” and “objectionable” practice whereby reserve deportees are taken to the airport in case individuals scheduled to be deported are unexpectedly able to remain.

Other legal news roundups:

For anyone with the Monday blues, Charon QC offers an amusing “non structured and, possibly random, review of the law”: Postcard from The Staterooms: Lawyers giving us a ‘good name’? – and a UK Education onslaught by News Corporation?. For those whose time is limited, try Pink Tape’s Bog Post and, as always, Obiter J’s roundup of some recent legal items offers a detailed and succinct account of this week’s legal wranglings.

In the courts:

Bahta & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 (26 July 2011): UK Border Agency still liable to costs even if claimant gets what they want (e.g. leave to remain) before trial – this is an important decision in respect of liability for costs in settled judicial review claims: see Free Movement Blog and Nearly Legal



Cockburn, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 2095 (Admin) (29 July 2011): High Court rules NHS pension scheme for widowers human rights compliant, despite widowers getting less than widows. Wide discretion as socio-economic policy.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v CD [2011] EWHC 2087 (Admin) (29 July 2011): Control order ruled lawful: “reasonable grounds for suspecting CD is a leading figure in network of Islamist extremists” – see

SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA – 30141/04 [2010] ECHR 1996 (22 November 2010): 2010 decision of Euro court that states not obligated to allow for gay marriage becomes final.

X, Y & Z v the United Kingdom – 32666/10 [2011] ECHR 1199 (5 July 2011): Euro HR Court claim re local authority’s duty to protect residents with learning disabilities from harassment settled – see Nearly Legal’s post.

Condliff, R (on the application of) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 910 (27 July 2011): CoA: Refusal of NHS gastric bypass surgery to obese man not breach of article 8 right to private/family life. Proportionate for PCT to adopt “exceptional circumstances” test without reference to personal characteristics – see Adam Wagner’s post

Thomas & Ors v Bridgend County Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 862 (26 July 2011): Decision to build new road close to claimants’ homes and subsequent depreciation in value breached their human rights to peaceful enjoyment of property – see David Hart QC’s post.

Smith & Ors, R. v (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 (19 July 2011): Court of Appeal: Blanket internet bans for Sexual Offences Prevention Orders always disproportionate; court gives general guidance.

Huitson, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs [2011] EWCA Civ 893 (25 July 2011): Revenue’s retrospective enforcement of rules preventing Isle of Man tax avoidance scheme not breach of human rights to property.

Case-law commentaries from across the blogosphere:

… and don’t forget to look at out recent posts:

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 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


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: