Immigration judges ‘named and shamed’ by Sunday Telegraph [updated]

17 June 2012 by

Updated | Today the Sunday Telegraph (ST) has named and shamed the “three judges who allowed the most appeals” in cases involving the deportation of foreign criminals (Judges who allow foreign criminals to stay in Britain).

Apparently:

The investigation looked at all 184 appeals against deportation by foreign criminals in the 12 months up to June 1 which were brought under Article 8, in whole or in part, in the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

David Barrett (who has form on this blog for poor reporting) and Josie Ensor, who wrote the piece, do not reveal the source of the investigation. Why ever not?

Whomever has produced or leaked the study clearly has their sights on the Parliamentary debate surrounding the new immigration rules – see Article 8 and a half – wider than thought, but will it work?

But some words of caution for Parliamentarians considering this article. However the Home Secretary’s changes have been presented, foreign deportations account for only a tiny fraction of the cases in which Article 8 plays a role (the ST identifies 184 in 12 months, although as you might guess, they are not listed). By contrast, the proposed changes to the immigration rules will affect all immigration cases, involving thousands of people each year. What is proposed isn’t a simple tweak, but rather a completely different approach to the courts’ role. The key paragraph is 39:

Where the rules have explicitly taken into account proportionality, the role of the Courts should shift from reviewing the proportionality of individual administrative decisions to reviewing the proportionality of the rules.

In other words, it is proposed that the courts will have an initial role in assessing the fairness of the rules, but save for exceptional cases, will then not have a role in individual cases. This is arguably against the grain of the Human Rights Act, which allows individuals to seek a judge’s opinion in relation to any decision by a public authority which arguably contravenes  their fundamental rights.

Another point is that there were 184 foreign deportation appeals last year, apparently. How many were successful, according to the ST? 96, or “just over half”. But the ST does not mention how many of those 96 were won on Article 8 grounds. For example, how many cases were won because of a UKBA mistake? Or a basic error of law by a court? Since we cannot see the original data, it is impossible to find out.

Without this information, statements such as “In 11 he ruled in favour of the criminal bringing the appeal, with just two going in the Home Office’s favour” are meaningless. To say there is a “startling variation in the “hit rate” under different judges” when the sample size is so small (it is assumed), exposes the lazy logic behind the claims.

The article has an unpleasant tone, which is explained in part by the crimes committed by the men. But full  biographical details are provided for the judges, including the fact that one of the judges is a Methodist lay preacher. What exactly will this achieve?

As the Judicial Office’s fairly anodyne statement to the ST rightly says, “Judges make a decision in each case according to the evidence before them.”

This means it is dangerous, particularly when there are relatively few cases each year involving foreign deportations, let alone won under Article 8 grounds, to use this kind of ‘league table’ or ‘name and shame’ approach. And the ST has loaded the dice rather by not saying where the data came from in the first place, meaning it is impossible to challenge. Shoddy stuff indeed.

Update, 19 June 2012 | Josie Ensor, one of the article’s co-writers has tweeted the following in response to me asking where the data came from:

https://twitter.com/Josiensor/status/215034458930294784

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

22 comments


  1. freemovement says:

    Let’s see the ‘research’ so that it can be assessed. Without that it is impossible to describe this as ‘new and important’ as David Barrett asserts. On the contrary, it looks irrelevant and misleading. The point of the exercise was obviously very much a political one and it appears to ignore countless considerations that would profoundly affect the results.

    The failing here is not the politics — a journalist is of course entitled to make political points in all sorts of different ways — but the attempt to dress up a hunt for a certain pre-identified ‘type’ of judge as a respectable research exercise. Barrett virtually admits that this was the purpose of the exercise in his comment.

  2. “good old fashioned journalism” doesn’t quite have even as good a ring as, “twitter endorsed” any more.

  3. Adam Wagner says:

    David,

    Thank you for the reply – much appreciated. You are quite right about the cricket post, which I should have included too.

    Re the source of the investigation, it was fair to speculate that the source may have been a think tank on the basis that (a) the article began “An investigation into decisions”, not “a Telegraph investigation” – what not just make it clear? and (b) your immigration coverage regularly quotes from think tanks, and particularly Migration Watch – see http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=telegraph+migration+watch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=foftT5_RDoe18QPs4Nn7DA

    The most important criticism of your methodology, which you have not answered despite the lengthy reply are:

    “Another point is that there were 184 foreign deportation appeals last year, apparently. How many were successful, according to the ST? 96, or “just over half”. But the ST does not mention how many of those 96 were won on Article 8 grounds. For example, how many cases were won because of a UKBA mistake? Or a basic error of law by a court?”

    In other words, no analysis at all of the merits. Phrases like a “startling variation”, “In stark comparison” are meaningless in this context. Simply stating that a judge allows lots of appeals (or more than another judge) without analysing the merits of the individual cases is no analysis at all.

    I am sure the research took some time, but this isn’t a case of turkeys voting for Christmas, its about the most basic statistical trap which (I still think) your analysis fell into.

    Court cases aren’t like football matches where you can look at which team won the most matches in a season and from that extrapolate which is the best. The circumstances are essential.

    To use an example, take the X-Factor. Simon Cowell is asked to judge a group of singers who the producers have singled out because they are particularly terrible but will make good TV. By contract, Louis Walsh’s group includes the 10 best singers who have been auditioned so far. Unsurprisingly, Cowell lets through 0 but Walsh lets through 7.

    A bare analysis of the statistics would suggest that Walsh is a soft touch, and Cowell is perhaps overly harsh. But, without considering how those singers got to the judges in the first place, that analysis is meaningless and potentially (in that example, certainly) misleading.

    This is completely different from the criminal context where statistics have been published about which judges are more lenient on sentencing. In those cases, the statistics are based on the number of sentences which have been overturned on appeal. Therefore, there is an objective (i.e. a judicial) analysis of each sentence and a conclusion – accessible to the public – on whether it was indeed more lenient. Arguably, if a judge is consistently being ruled against because his judgments are too lenient, then that might suggest he is more lenient than others.

    But in this context, it really is different. I still believe your methodology was fundamentally flawed and the article was therefore misleading.

    1. Dear Adam and others,
      If anyone can come up with a better methodology, and has time to do the work, I’d be delighted to consider the results for publication in The Sunday Telegraph. (I’d rather not have any X-Factor influences in there, mind you.)
      I also look forward to Adam introducing an “accurate reporting” tag to accompany the “poor reporting” one already in use on this blog, for the sake of fair play.
      Sincerely,
      David Barrett

      1. Ben says:

        Presumably the Telegraph will reciprocate with an article praising judges when they apply the law correctly?

  4. Dear Adam and others,
    To correct some of the most unfortunate misinformation in this blog, and subsequent comments, here are a few points which I hope you will find helpful.
    The source of the research was the Upper Tribunal’s own website, where all of that court’s judgments are published. The analysis was completed by examining ALL judgments over a 12 month period, and isolating those which concerned foreign national criminals appealing against deportation wholly or partly on Article 8 grounds.
    A tally was kept of whether the claimant lost or won at the Upper Tribunal, and which judge heard the application. Where more than one judge was on the bench, the case was included in the tally under the name of the most senior judge only.
    One commentator’s blog questions whether we appreciated the difference between an appellant’s appeal and a SSHD appeal. I can assure him or her that we do.
    This process was rigorous and took many working days to complete, as you may imagine.
    Commentators have questioned whether it was “misleading” to analyse the relatively small number of cases which involved foreign national criminals and Article 8 grounds. But it is this type of case which is specifically addressed by the Home Office’s Statement of Intent document, and which will see new limitations imposed on the use of Article 8. Why do writers here effectively suggest broadening the scope of our research beyond the type of case which is at issue, and which the government is about to restrict?
    I fail to understand why there are conspiracy theories here suggesting that the data must have come from a think tank or lobby group. Sunday newspapers carry out investigations using their own reporters and this was such a case, involving deployment of not inconsiderable resources in terms of our time and effort.
    The Judicial Communications Office was specifically asked a number of questions which could have thrown further light on the wider issues. For example, we asked what auditing processes of judicial decisions may be in place to ensure consistency. The JCO chose to provide only a brief statement, which was included in full, and did not answer our specific points.
    Information about the judges’ backgrounds was taken from their Who’s Who entries.
    Adam writes that I have “form on this blog for poor reporting” (in his view) but neglects to point out that I also have “form” on these pages for accurate reporting;

    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/01/09/are-some-rights-to-private-life-just-not-cricket/

    Indeed, the contributor of that piece concluded that I was “near enough spot on” in my article.
    So I fear Adam is guilty of exactly the kind of selective reporting of which he accuses me.
    The Sunday Telegraph has highlighted a series of worrying developments in this kind of Article 8 case, examining flaws in UKBA procedure, questioning ministers’ decision making and drawing attention to cases involving serious, violent criminals which have attracted widespread public debate.
    I appreciate this is a blog written by and for human rights lawyers. One cannot expect (without intending to be rude) “turkeys to vote for Christmas”, but when new and important information is put forward about the operation of our immigration tribunals it would be more productive, in my opinion, to embrace that information rather than dismiss it out of hand because it challenges one’s preconceived ideas.
    Sincerely,
    David Barrett
    020 7931 3518
    david.barrett@telegraph.co.uk

    1. Ben says:

      “A tally was kept of whether the claimant lost or won at the Upper Tribunal, and which judge heard the application. Where more than one judge was on the bench, the case was included in the tally under the name of the most senior judge only.”

      Are you saying you didn’t look at the merits of the decisions, but just did a purely numeric tally?

  5. William Ulmann and I am prepared to use my name says:

    We shall see what MPs say.

  6. William Ulmann and I am prepared to use my name says:

    I shall read all the above again for my book as I truely beleive some judges need to be sent to Coventry and called to Parliament…..once it starts by internet there is no where for judges to hide, other judges need support.

    Giving refuge to Talaban…. giving refuge yo xyz rapists…..let these judges pay all out of their own money.

    Their judgemens are as political as my comments to come.

  7. David Chirico says:

    Thanks IC. Yes, we have thought about lodging a complaint, but we are going to apply for anonymisation first, before further irresponsible and inaccurate journalism puts our vulnerable client at further this.

  8. David Chirico says:

    I acted for one of the successful appellants referred to in this article. The information given about his personal circumstances is so limited as to be misleading, as is the summary of the proceedings, and even the reference to the judge (the judge who is ‘named and shamed’ is not the one who wrote the decision). If the feeble quality (or worse) of the reporting is replicated in the other cases referred to, then this article misleads, not only by giving a false sample of Article 8 cases, but also by giving misleading and misleadingly incomplete information about the cases which are referred to.

    1. immi costello says:

      Have you thought about lodging a complaint with the Telegraph? I would certainly consult the Bar Council. Very surprised the Judicial Communications Office has not taken action in at least issuing a statement as to the (ir)relevance of judges’ backgrounds to the decisions they take…

  9. freemovement says:

    Thanks for highlighting this, Adam. I’ve put up a blog post on Free Movement about the article. Using Upper Tribunal decisions for this exercise is pointless because of the error of law jurisdiction. Blog post here:

    http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/06/18/the-telegraphs-witch-hunt-for-lenient-judges/

    It isn’t about really finding the lenient judges, though, it is about judges as a class and the fact that some of them allow these appeals. The named individuals are just very unfortunate to have their names thrown up in a spurious ‘research’ exercise.

  10. […] the journalists do not say. As Richard Moorhead has said over on the UK Human Rights Blog in a comment, it is unlikely that the research was carried out in a remotely rigorous academic fashion. The most […]

  11. immi costello says:

    The Telegraph’s article has to be one of the most shoddy articles I have read in recent times. It obviously has no fear of breaching data protection laws in respect of the “criminals” (who Esnor omits to mention would have already served their sentences in respect of their crimes) or indeed of the immigration judges who are doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. Where did the details come from? The Immigration Tribunal does not, save for exceptional cases, promulgate decisions publicly.

    The judges have had the benefit of assessing all the evidence and have had the benefit of oral evidence, something which the poorly educated author of this article had not. One would not dream that a newspaper of the Telegraph’s pedigree would declare that independent juries regularly had reached the “wrong verdict”. Are the writers mates of Theresa May? It serves the political aims of the Home Office’s proposals this week rather too neatly.

    The tone of the article suggests that only Home Office “yes men” should be recruited to the Tribunal (lets do away with the Tribunal altogether then?) The part that did make me laugh was in respect of “.. a Jamaican drug dealer who made two successful claims under the human rights law.” Well, if one claim was successful there would be no need to make another human rights claim?!! The article displays the ignorance and arrogance of the writers contributing nothing but abhorrence of any public debate.

  12. Joe Ury says:

    So no one gets confused – all Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) judgments supplied to BAILII by the tribunal are published. A rough calculation of judgments received this year shows we are only getting about 20% of these judgments – so if any statistical analysis is done using BAILII as a data set it would be very misleading as would any analysis of individual judges decisions (given that the individual judge may have made five times the number of judgments for a given period than the number found on BAILII). The actual criteria for deciding which judgments are sent to BAILII and appear on the tribunal’s website “Reported judgments” is not given,

    Decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) are not published by BAILII and as far as I know are not generally available for publication.

  13. I presume this is original research by Telegraph staff, not because it names judges, but rather because it seems not to consider at all other factors.

    One thing which makes it incredibly difficult to assess is that the cases they mention explicitly do not seem to be reported on either on BAILII or on http://www.ait.gov.uk/

    I tweeted at Josie Ensor, but haven’t heard anything back yet.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Chris- unfortunately not all Immigration Tribunal decisions are on Bailli. And the Telegraph in particular seems regularly to be sent Tribunal decisions which are not even available to the general public.

      My guess is that this is not an internal Daily Telegraph report, but rather by a think tank such as Migration Watch, or possibly Policy Exchange, although the latter tend to be a bit more rigorous.

  14. dw says:

    What an appalling article.

    Judges, an their decisions, should not be immune from criticism. But this “investigation” simply looks at raw numbers without going into detail on any individual case.

    The only British paper from which one can expect anything approaching high journalistic standards is the Financial Times.

  15. r1xlx says:

    do all cases go to the same court and these are the three judges most likely to get the case?

  16. Richard Moorhead says:

    One other thing. The fact that judges are named, suggest that this was not a study done by academic researchers. Ordinarily, research subjects would be protected by anonymity. This suggests to me that the purported differences between the judges may not have been subject to the kind of proper scrutiny I’d expect.

  17. My anxieties about the underlying study here are that it is not clear how many judges were looked at or what factors were controlled for when comparing judges decisions. In looking to compare I’d expect the researchers to conduct mutlivariate analysis to control for (as far as possible) differences in underlying case type. I note here that some of the judges in the story are referred to as senior immigration judges and others are not. I do not know how such cases are listed but the likelihood is that Senior Immigration Judges get different kinds of case from their less experienced colleagues. This may well explain, in whole or in part, their different outcomes. One judge may be getting a batch of cases with a lots of mistakes on them (perhaps from one bit of the UKBA) and others with less such problems.

    I also note that the numbers of deportation cases considered by judges is small (up to 11 or 12 deportation cases). I suspect many judges only looked at even smaller numbers of deportation cases. If there are particular types of deportation case with very different ‘success’ rates then one would not expect the study to be able to control for these with sample sizes for judges of this kind of size.

    Quantitative studies of judicial decision making have a very important place. And I would fully support the Tribunal Service looking at this kind of data with their judges as part of their process for understanding their decisions. But such research needs to be properly designed (I am not saying this study was not, we simply do not know) and sensitively handled. One cannot of course expect that sort of sensitivity from the Telegraph, but I would hope such sensationalisation does not discourage research. Roger Hood’s study Race in Sentencing is one of the most impressive and well known studies of judicial decision making of an analagous kind: (http://prb.sagepub.com/content/40/2/106.extract). Even then it was strongly criticised by the judiciary who argued that it oversimplified sentencing; but it provided powerful evidence of differences in judicial sentencing that appeared to be related to ethnicity. The Telegraph study may or may not really suggest underlying differences in the way judges approach cases; we simply cannot know on the available information.

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


#50cases #catgate #fighthatewithhumanrights #lawblogs 7/7 7/7 bombing 7/7 inquest 7/7 inquests 9/11 100 years of women in law 1688 bill of rights 2010 General Election 2012 in review 2012 year in review 2017 @Iamspartacus a1p1 a1p1 breach A1P1 damages Aarhus Aarhus Convention A B and C abbas hall Abid Naseer ablyazov abortion Absent Witness Abu Hamza abu qatada abuse of dominant position abuse of private information abuse of process academic freedom access to courts access to information Access to justice accountability acoustic shock acquired disorder AC v Berkshire Addison Lee Adetoro v United Kingdom adjudication administrative law admissability criteria adoption adoption orders advance decision advance directive advertisements advertising affirmative action Afghanistan age assessment agency age of criminal responsibility aggravated damages agreement Agriculture Ahava Ahmad Faraz Khan AI air noise air pollution air quality air travel Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi Alan Turing ALBA alcohol dependence algorithm algorithms Alien Tort Statute alignment problem Al Jedda allergy allocation of resources Al Qaeda Al Quaeda Al Rawi Al Skeini alternative medicine alternative therapy altruism American Declaration of Independence Amnesty International Amnesty International 2010 Report amphibians amusement parks ancillary relief Andy Coulson animal cruelty animal culls animal rights Animals animal welfare anonymising anonymity anonymous website anorexia nervosa an rights Ansari ANS v ML [2012] UKSC 30 anti-blasphemy laws anti-discriminatiom anti-semitism anti-terrorism review anti-terrorist legislation antibody antiretrovirals anxious scrutiny AONB A P Herbert appeal Appeals archeology Arctic charr Arhuus Convention Armed forces army arrest Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 UNCRC article 5 Article 5 ECHR article 5(3) Article 6 article 6 criminal Article 6(3) Article 8 Article 8 claim against council Article 8 protection of privacy Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Article 50 article 263 TFEU artificial hydration and nutrition Artificial Intelligence artificial nutrition and hydration Artile 8 asbestosis Assange Assange extradition assisted reproduction assisted suicide assisting suicide associated newspapers asylum asylum amnesty asylum claim asylum law asylum seeker asylum seeker death driver asylum seekers ATE premiums atheism Atul Gawande audio Australia australian constitution autism autonomy axel springer axel springer ag ayslum Azelle Rodney babar ahmad baby Baby P badger cull badgers Badger Trust bad judges bad tackle Baha Mousa Public Inquiry Bahta & Ors bail BAILII bailout Balen Report ban bankers bonuses Bank Mellat baptism barclay brothers barristers bats' rights battlefield BBC beaches bedroom tax beijing belief benefit cap benefits bereavement damages best interests big business bike training service bilateral trade treaty bill of right Bill of Rights Bill of rights commission Bingham Rule of Law Centre Binyam Mohamed bioethics biology biomedicine biometric data biotechnology bipolar disorder birds directive birmingham birth certificate births deaths and marriages BJ (INCAPACITATED ADULT) sub nom SALFORD CITY COUNCIL v BJ Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson blawg blawg review blight blogging blogosphere blogs blood Bloody Sunday Bloody Sunday findings BNP boaters boats Body scanners Boris Johnson bovine TB bradley manning BRCA BRCA gene BRCA mutation breach of Article 6 breach of Article 6(1) breach of confidence breast cancer brevet brexit Brian Haw bribery Bribery Act 2010 Brighton Conference Brighton Declaration British Airways British Airways v Unite British Bill of Rights British Chiropractic Association British citizenship British constitution British embassy british lawyers British soldiers Broadmoor bronze soldier brownlie browsing BSkyB BUCKLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 40060/08 - HEJUD Buddhism budget Bull v Hall burkha Burnham Market Book Festival Cadder Cafcass Canada canal cancellation cancer CAP capacity carbon capture cardio-pulmonary resuscitation Care and Support Bill care home care home; elderly people; dementia; capacity; deprivation of liberty care homes care order Care orders care proceedings car insurance carnivores Carson v UK case law Case Note Catholic Care Catholic Church catholic midwives CBI CCTV cerebral palsy CETA CFAs chagos Chagos Islanders charitable objects charity Charity Commission Charles J read judgment Simon Lewis Charlie Hebdo charter Charter of Fundamental Rights chemotherapy chief coroner child child's best interests child abduction child poverty Child Poverty Action Group child protection Children children's homes children's rights Children Act children giving evidence child welfare chimpanzees China Chindamo Chris Grayling Chris Packham Christian christianity church church of scientology CIA circumcision citizens advice bureau citizenship citizens rights civil liberties civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships civil proceedings civl partnerships CJEU CJEU rule of law class of degree client earth climate change climate change sceptic climategate climate research unit clinical need clinical negligence cloning closed material procedure Closed Material Procedures Coalition agreement Coalition Government Code Civile code of conduct cohabitees cold calling Cologne combat immunity comments comment thread commission Commission for Equality & Human Rights Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law common law rights communications Communications Act 2003 communications data Communications Data Bill 2008 Compassion in World Farming compelementary medicine compensation competition complementary medicine compulsory detention compulsory labour computer hacking computer science concentration camps conditional fee agreements conditions Confederation of British Industry confidentiality confiscation order conscience conscience clause conscientious objection consent conservation Conservative Party Conservatives constitution constitutional court of south africa constitutional disorder construction consultation consultation responses contact order contact point contempt of court contempt of court act content neutrality content providers contingency fee arrangements contract control and restraint Control orders Convention system of protection Conway cookies copying Copyright copyright infringement cornrows coronavirus coroner Coroner's inquest coroners Coroners and Justice Act 2009 corporal punishment cosmetics testing costs Costs and Procedure costs budgets council Council of Europe Counter Terrorism and Security Bill cour de cassation court Court of Justice of the European Union Court of Protection Court of Session Court Orders court procedure Courts Bill Courts Martial Covent Garden Coventry Council CPR gateway CPS CRB challenge credibiility] credibility cricket crime crimes against humanity Criminal criminal conviction Criminal Courts Charge criminal justice Criminal Justice and Courts Bill criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal prosecution criminal records criminal responsibility criminal sentencing Cross Examination Crown Prosecution Service crr crucifix cryonic preservation custody custody dispute cuts Cybersecurity D daily mail Daily Mirror Dajid Singh Shergill Dale Farm evictions damage Damages dangerous nonsense database data controller data processing data protection data retention data sharing data snooping date rape david cameron David Chaytor David James David Kelly David Miranda day care closures death death match death penalty Debbie Purdy declaration declaration of incompatibility defamation Defamation Act Defamation Bill defaming the dead defence of illegality defendant's costs order deficit defmation DEFRA delegated legislation democracy Democracy village demolition order demotion Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees Department of Health deportation deportation cases deprivation of liberty deprivation of property derogations Detainee inquiry Detention determinism devolution devolved government Dewani diagnosis Diane Pretty Dica diego garcia Digital Economy Act 2010 Digital Economy Bill Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy diplomatic immunity direct action Directive direct marketing director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Disclosure of Previous Convictions discretionary leave to remain discretion to quash Discrimination Discrimination law disease dismissal disqualification dissenting judges Divisional Court divorce DNA DNA database DNA home-testing DNA retention DNA testing doctor doctor-patient relationship doctors doctrine of double effect doctrine of state act does it matter? domestic violence domestic workers Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell donor Do Not Resuscitate Notices Doogan and Wood do trees have rights? double conviction DPP guidelines Dr Chhabra dripa driving licence driving penalty Drones Drone strikes drug dealer damages drug offence Dr Zakir Naik Dublin Convention Dublin II Dublin III regulation Dublin II Regulation Dublin Regulation Dudko duties duty of care duty to investigate duty to rescue eastenders eating horses ECHR economic and social rights economic loss economic rights ECtHR Ed Snowden Education Edward Snowden EHRC elderly election election court election results Electoral Commission report Electoral law electric cars electricity Elizabeth Warren ellie butler el masri embryo embryonic stem cells embryos emergency budget emissions trading employers Employment employment appeal tribunal employment disputes employment law employment rights Employment Tribunal fees employment tribunals employment vetting English Defence Leauge English translation enhanced criminal record checks entitlement Environment environmental challenges environmental impact assessment environmental information environmental justice Environmental law environmental law foundation environmental liability directive environmental protection environmental rights environment brexit Envrionmental Information Directive epa endangerment finding eployment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Equality and Human Rights Commission Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) - equality of arms equal marriage equal marriage consultation equal treatment erika espionage ethics EU eu and strasbourg EU Charter EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms eu commission EU competence eu costs eu courts EU criminal Law opt out eu documents eu law Europe european european arrest warrant European Charter European Charter of Fundamental Rights European Charter of Fundamental Rigths European Commission European Communities Act European Convention European Convention on Human Rights European Court European Court of European Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights reform European Court of Justice european disability forum European law European Sanctions Blog European Social Charter european union Eurozone EUSFTA eu state liability euthanasia EU transparency EU Turkey summit EU waste directive eviction evidence evidence-based medicine Evidence-based policy evidence of torture evironmental assessment evolution ex-pats exceptional case funding exceptionality excessive taxes exclusion exclusion order executions exhaustion of domestic remedies expenses expenses scandal expert evidence Expert evidence on foreign law Express extinct extinction rebellion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Eyjafjallajökull volcano Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition factitious disorder factory farming fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news false imprisonment false passport Families Need Fathers Family Family Court family courts Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person family division Family Justice Review family law family legal aid Family life farage farm farm animals farming fast-track removal fatal accidents act fathers fathers rights feature fertility treatment FGM finance Financial Conduct Authority financial dependency financial harm financial information Financial Services Authority Firat Dink First Amendment first publishers fisheries fishing claims fishing industry fishing quota fishing rights fitness to practise Flood v The Times Flood v Times foetus foia food banks forced marriage force feeding foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy forensic science format shifting Fourteenth Amendment fracking France francovich freedom freedom of assembly Freedom of Association freedom of conscience Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech freedom of the press free expression Freemen of the land free movement of goods free speech free will freezing assets French schools FTP fundamental rights Funeral pyre Future of legal blogging G (Children) G4S G20 protest Gabrielle Giffords Gaddafi regime gainsborough game birds Gamu Nhengu gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay couple gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict gazza GCHQ gdpr GE 2017 gearbox Gender gender reassignment General Dental Council General Duty General Election general election 2010 general election 2019 General Medical Council genes genetic affinity genetic discrimination genetic disorder genetic engineering genetic information Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act genetic modification genetics genetic testing Geneva Convention genome genome sequencing Geoff Hoon George Osborne German Chancellor German court Germany germ line mutation Ghailani GlaxoSmithKlein gmc Goldman Sachs golf course Google government governmental bodies GP privacy grayling consultation Great Repeal Bill green belt grenfell Gresham College grooming gross offence Guantanamo Bay Guardian News and Media Ltd guernsey G v E & Ors G v E & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 939 gwyneth paltrow gypsies H1N1 habeas corpus habitats habitats protection hackgate Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk hancock Haney happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council haringey council tax benefit Harkins and Edwards hate speech Health healthcare health insurance hearing loss Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary high speed train route Hindu Hirst No. 2 Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust home homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy Homo Deus homophobia homo sapiens homosexual hooding horisontality horizontal application horizontal effect horsemeat hospitals Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefit housing benefits Howard Donald Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRA incorporation Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ human being human dignity Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome humanism human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights in private disputes human rights news human rights record Human Rights Watch human right to education Human Tissue Act human trafficking hung parliament hunting Huntington's Chorea Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Ian McEwan ICAO Igor Sutyagin illegal immigration illegality illegality defence illegitimacy image rights imaginary litigation immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity Imports incorporation HRA increase of sanction indefinite leave to remain indian advocates indian supreme court indirect discrimination Indonesia Industrial Action informed consent Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction injunction continued inland revenue Inquest inquest law Inquests inquiry insanity inshore fleet insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intellectual property intelligence intelligence services act intensive care intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international comity international conflict international court of justice international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law International Labour Organisation international law International Stem Cell Corporation international treaty obligations internet internet libel internet service providers internment internship interrogation intrusion inuit invasive species invention investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program iran sanctions Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland Irish Constitution irrationality ISC ISIL islam isolated nucleic acids isolation Israel israeli palestinian conflict italian ships Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban Jack Dorsey jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan japanese knotweed Jason Smith jean charles de menezes Jeet Singh Jefferies jehovah's witnesses Jeremy Clarkson Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt jihad Jihadi brides jihadists JIH identity jim duffy job jobseekers' allowance Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy jonathan sumption Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging judgment judgment in default Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference Judicial immunity judicial no-mans land judicial oversight judicial power judicial review Judicial Review reform Judicial Studies Board judiciary Julian Assange Julian Asssange Juncker jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Cameron Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justiciability justification just satisfaction Kant Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK kazakstan Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Khan v Advocate General for Scotland khordokovsky Kings College Kiobel Klimas koran burning laboratory animals laboratory test Labour labour law lack of reasons Lady Hale land landfill gas landowner landowners language lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain Lee Rigby legal advice privilege legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legality legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal privilege legal profession legal professional privilege legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure Lewis Malcolm Calver liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberal Democrats liberal humanism Liberty libraries closure library closures licence conditions licence to shoot licensee life insurance life orders life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania litigant in person litvinenko live exports livestock livestock trade living instrument living will LME local authorities local government locked in syndrome locus standi london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Carey Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge Lord Judge speech Lord Justice Jackson Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Mance Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sales Lord Saville Report Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta Magna Carter Mail Online mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy male circumcision malice malicious falsehood mandela M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury manifestation of belief manifestos Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui Marie Colvin marine conservation marine environmental law marine sanctuaries Mark Kennedy mark twain marriage marriage act 1949 material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton Mcfarlane McKenzie friend me/cfs research Media and Censorship media judge Medical medical confidentiality medical ethics medical evidence medical liability medical negligence medical profession medical qualifications medical records medical treatment medicine mental capacity mental capacity; press; reporting restrictions Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts mental health hospital Mental illness merits review mesothelioma metgate MGN v UK michael gove Middle Temple Midwives Milly Dowler minimally conscious minimum income minimum sentence Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts miscarriage of justice misfeasance in public office missiles misuse of private information mitochondrial disease MMR MMR vaccination modern slavery Mohamed monitoring powers monsanto montgomery mooring moral circle morality morocco mortgage fraud mortuaries motherhood motor neuron disease Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa movement for democratic change MP expenses Mr Brewer Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady Mr Justice Sharp MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Munchausen Munchausen by proxy murder murder reform music Musician's Union Muslim mustafa kamal mutation mutations myanmar MY Cannis my kingdom for a horse Myriad NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 Nadja Benaissa naked rambler Naomi Campbell narcolepsy National Health Act nationality National Origin National Pro Bono Week national security national sovereignty Natural England natural rights nature nature conservation naturism Nazi neanderthals necessary implication need for legal aid needs assessment negligence neighbour dispute Neuberger neural degeneration neurogenerative disease neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World news roundup new Supreme Court President NGO standing NHS NHS Risk Register NICE Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab niqab No Angels Noise Regulations 2005 non-justiciability nonhuman animals non voluntary euthanasia Northern Ireland Northern Irish Assembly notification requirements nuclear challenges nuisance nurse nursing nursing home obiter dicta Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt official solicitor of Rights Commission oil and gas oil spill olympics open justice oppress oppressive treatment OPQ v BJM orchestra orthodox schools Osama Bin Laden Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 ouster clause overseas aid Oxford University Palestinian Territories palliative care palliative sedation paramount consideration paramountcy principle parental responsibility order parental rights parenthood parents responsibility parking spaces parliament parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole parole board party funding passengers rights passing off passive smoking passport passport seizure pastor Terry Jones patent patents paternity Pathway Students patiets' rights Patrick Quinn murder Paul Chambers PCOs peace-keeping operations Pensions people for the ethical treatment of animals (Peta) performers' rights permanent injunction persecution persistent vegetative state personal data personal information Personal Injury personality rights Personal life perversity Pet Animals Act 1951 Peter and Hazelmary Bull Peter Gibson pet shops PF and EF v UK Philip Lawrence Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps photos photovoltaics physical and mental disabilities physical restraint physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy PJS placement order planning planning human rights planning system planning time limits plantagenet plebgate pleural plaques POCA podcast points poison Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance policing Policy Exchange report political advertising political judges political persecution politicians for hire Politics Politics/Public Order pollution polonium poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict porsche 917 portal possession order possession proceedings post mortem Posts power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy preliminary reference prerogative powers press Press Association press briefing press freedom Priest priests primary legislation Prince Andrew Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers prison rules Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door private disputes Private life private nuisance private use procedural unfairness Procedure proceeds of crime Professional Discipline professional indemnity Professional life Property property rights proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill protective costs Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals psychology psychotherapy Public/Private public access publication public authorities public authority public bodies Public Bodies Bill public figure public funding public inquiries public inquiry public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity public interest litigation publicity public law unfairness Public Order public powers public procurement Public Sector Equality Duty Public Services Ombudsman Putin putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 472 R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 Race race relations Rachel Corrie racial discrimination Racial equality radio radiotherapy Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate randomised controlled trial rape rape case raptors Ratcliffe 6 Ratcliffe on Soar Ratcliffe power station rating rationality rcs RCW v A Local Authority reasonableness reasons reasons challenges recent case law and news Recent posts reception conditions recognition of judgments recreational rights Redfearn v UK referendum reform refugee applications refugee crisis refugee status refusal of treatment Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages registration regulatory rehabilitation of offenders Reith Lectures Re J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204 relgious freedom Religion religion in the courts religious beliefs religious discrimination religious freedom religious prosecution remedies renewables subsidies rent repeal reporting restrictions representation reproductive rights reproductive technologies reproductive wrongs rescue rescuer's claim resettlement of offenders resource allocation respect for family life responsibility in tort restrictions on exports restrictions on liberty results 2010 resuscitation retrospective application of the Human Rights Act retrospective legislation retrospective penalty retrospectivity rev paul nicholson reynolds Reynolds defence Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1233 richard III Richard O'Dwyer right of appeal rightsifno RightsInfo rights of children Right to a fair hearing right to a fair trial right to a home right to a remedy right to artistic expression right to a student loan right to autonomy right to autonomy and privacy right to die right to dies right to die with dignity right to dignity right to education right to expression right to family life right to food right to free enjoyment of possessions right to information right to liberty right to life right to peaceful enjoyment of property Right to Privacy right to private and family life right to refuse treatment right to respect for private life right to silence right to strike right to swim right to truth right to vote Rihanna Rio Ferdinand riots ripa rise of fascism risk risk assessment rival supermarkets Roma Roman Catholic Roman Catholic Church roman catholic schools Romania Rooney's Gold roundup roundup ready Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust royal dutch petroleum royal name Royal Oper House Royal Prerogative rule of law Rupert Jackson Rusal Russia russia and human rights Russian Federal Security Service Rutherford Ryanair s sadie frost Safari same-sex same sex parents same sex partnerships same sex relationship sanctions set aside sanctity of life Sandiford Sapiens Sarah Ferguson sark satire saudi arabia Savage (Respondent) v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Saville Report schedule 7 schizophrenia school building school surveillance schrems science scientific atheism scientific research scientology Scoppola Scotland Scotland Act Scotland Act 1998 Scotland Bill Scottish Government Scottish Human Rights Commission scottish landlord and tenant Scottish Parliament SCOTUS sea fishing seals Seal v UK search engines search powers secondary legislation secondary smoking secrecy Secretary of State Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP secret courts secret criminal trial secret evidence secret justice Secret trials sectarianism secularism security security cameras security services security vetting Sedar Mohammed segregation Select Committee on AI self-defence self-incrimination seminar sentencing September 11 serco serious harm sermon Seroxat service outside jurisdiction set-off Sewel Convention sex abuse sex ban sex ban low IQ sex offender Sex offenders sex register sexual abuse Sexual Offences sexual orientation sexual orientation regulations SFO investigation sfo unlawfulness shaker aamer Shamima Begum sham marriage shared residence order Sharon Shoesmith shetland shipping shipwreck Shirley Chaplin shooting shoulder shrug should trees have rights SIAC sihkism Simon Singh sir alan ward Sir Nicholas Wall Sir Peter six months rule slander slaughterhouses slavery smacking small claims court small solar Smith Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 smog smoking ban Snyder v Phelps social and economic rights social benefits social housing socialite social media social security law social welfare social workers Solicitorsfromhell website solitary confinement soma somali pirates sources South Africa south african constitution sovereignty Sovereignty clause soviet union soybean Spanish properties spare room subsidy special advocate special advocates species specific performance spending cuts spielmann squatters Standing standing rules starvation state immunity statelessness statute statutory power Statutory purpose stay of execution stem cell research stem cells stem cell therapy Stephen Gough stephen sedley stepping hill hospital Sterilisation steve macqueen Steven Neary stobart-law stop and search stop powers Stormont Assembly storms Strasborug Strasbourg Strasbourg Court strasbourg damages pirates strasbourg law Strasbourg terminology strategic environmental assessment strike strike out Strikes student loans sturgeon subsidies Sugar v BBC suicide suicide act 1961 super injunction super injunctions supermax prisons superstition Supreme Court Supreme Court Live Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court Scotland surgery surrogacy surrogacy arrangement surveillance swine flu Syria systemic violence Take That tallinn tariff Taser Tax tax avoidance tax discrimination tchenguiz technology Telegraph telephone preference service television justice tenancy tent city termination termination of pregnancy terror asset freezing Terrorism terrorism act terrorism act 2000 terrorism legislation terrorism prosecution terrorist finance terrorist threat terry pratchett Tesla testamentary dispositions The Bike Project the Catholic church The Corner House theism The Law in These Parts therapy Theresa May the right to privacy The Stig The Sun third countries third party appeals three way case time limits time limits in human rights Tobacco tobacco cartels Top Gear tort Torture torture inquiry totally without merit TPIM TPP tracking trade trade secrets trades unions trade union congress Trade Unions transexual transsexual transsexuals travel travellers travel restrictions treason treatment treaty treaty accession trial by jury trolling TTIP TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors Tugendhat tumour Turkey tweeting in court Twitter twitter in court Twitter Joke Trial UK UK citizenship uk constitution UK election UK Human Rights Blog UK Human Rights Roundup UKIP UK Jewish Film Festival ukraine UK Supreme Court UK Uncut ultra orthodox jews ultra vires UN unable to vote unacceptable behaviour policy unaccompanied minors unborn child UN Convention on the Rights of the Child unelected judges unemployment unfair consultation unfair dismissal unfairness at hearing Unison Unite United Against Fascism Group United Kingdom United Nations United States United States v Windsor universal declaration of human rights universal jurisdiction Universal Periodic Review University University Fees university of east anglia University of Southampton unjust and oppressive unlawful arrest unlawful detention unpaid work schemes UN Resolution unsolicited calls UPR US aviation US Constitution use as of right US Supreme Court vaccination Valkyries variants veganism vehicle breakdown vetting and barring vicarious liability victim victim status Victoria Climbie victorian charter Vienna airport vigilantism villagisation vinton cerf violence violist visa scheme vivisection voluntary euthanasia Volunteers voter compensation voters compensation voting voting compensation vulnerable Wagner Wakefield Wales War war correspondents ward of court War Horse water utilities Watts Wayne Rooney Websites welfare of child welfare of children welfare of the child welfare state welsh bill western sahara whaling What would happen if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights whimbrel whisky Whistleblowing WHO who is JIH whole gene sequencing whole life orders whorship Wikileaked cable Wikileaks wiklleaks Wild Law wildlife Wildlife and Countryside Act will William Hague William Marbury wills wind farms wind turbine Winterbourne View witchcraft withdrawal of treatment women's rights Woolas worboys Workers working time directive wrongful birth wrongful conception wrongful life WTO wuhan X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA - 19010/07 - HEJUD [2013] ECHR 148 X Factor XX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 742 X Y and Z v UK Yemshaw Yildirim v Turkey Your freedom website YouTube yukos Yuval Noah Hariri Zakir Naik Zanu-PF Zero Hours Contracts ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Zimbabwe Zimbabwe farm invasions ZN (Afghanistan) (FC) and others ZZ [2015] CSIH 29 [2015] CSOH 168 £750

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: