Prince Harry’s photos, squatting and defining rape – The Human Rights Roundup

2 September 2012 by

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly dose of human rights news. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.

This week the Sun published naked photos of Prince Harry, squatting was criminalised, and commentators continued to discuss the question of rape in the context of Julian Assange and the various sexual crimes he has been accused of. In so publishing the photos, the Sun claimed a public interest defence, something which the legal bloggers have been examining. In news from South Africa, a group of 259 miners has been charged with the murder of their 34 colleagues who were shot dead by the police.
by Wessen Jazrawi
The news

Prince Harry and those photographs

Unsurprisingly, the legal blogs had a lot to say about the publication of the naked photos of Prince Harry. The Inforrm blog listed the 5 lessons for media regulation that have come out of it, including that the media does not understand privacy, it pays no attention to the PCC or its editors’ code, and no opportunity will be lost to blame Lord Justice Leveson. It concludes that effective media regulation is a necessity. Also on Inforrm, Brian Pillans has provided a thorough analysis of the legality of the publication, concluding that it is questionable whether the publication breach privacy law or even breach the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Halsbury’s Law Exchange has also written a piece on the photos that also concludes that on balance the Sun is entitled to publish the photos and notes that, contrary to the statement by the Sun’s Managing Editor, the PCC does not make law.

Squatting now a criminal offence

The Ministry of Justice provides a short statement on the new rules while Nearly Legal provides some very interesting commentary and points out some issues with the new legislation. Definitely worth a read.

Defining rape

Felicity Gerry on the Halsbury’s Law Exchange has written an excellent piece on defining rape which follows on from the Assange case and the comments made by George Galloway. It deals with the two offences Assange has been accused of – that of sex with a sleeping woman and the attempt to have sex with a woman without a condom, both of which are offences in this country.
Liberty’s human rights awards
The deadline for nominating someone for Liberty’s Human Rights Awards is this Friday so get thinking! Previous winners have included Janis Sharp for her campaign to protect her son, Gary McKinnon, from extradition to the USA and Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholas Mercer for his integrity and courage in the face of the denial of human rights abuses by British forces in Iraq. For more information on how to nominate, see here.
Miners arrested for murder

259 Marikana miners have been charged with the murder of their 34 colleagues who were shot dead by the police. In so doing, the police relied on the “common purpose” doctrine that was heavily used in the apartheid era. Pierre de Vos on the Constitutionally Speaking blog has written an excellent piece on the history of this doctrine as well as the law applicable to what has happened. He concludes that – as no court could find that those charged intended to make common cause with the police to shoot their own comrades – there must be another aim, such as to stigmatise the miners in the eyes of the public or to intimidate them in an attempt to break their spirit.

The latest updated from the BBC is that South Africa has provisionally dropped the miner murder charges.

Dissent in the UKSC

Chris Hanretty on the UK Supreme Court blog has taken a look at the levels of dissent in the Supreme Court. He admits that he had expected Baroness Hale to be the most dissentient judge based on her dissents in a number of high profile cases, and in particular on the manner of her dissents. Instead, the facts showed it was Lords Rodger (who died last year) and Kerr have shown the greatest propensity to issue dissenting judgements, doing so in 10/63 and 13/86 cases heard respectively, a large number of which concern Scots and Northern Irish cases.

Scottish adoption law compatible with human right to family life

For those interested in family law, Alasdair Henderson has analysed the case of ANS v ML [2012] UKSC 30 on the UK Supreme Court blog (first published on this blog).

Tribute to Judge Tulkens
The Strasbourg Observers have posted a tribute to Judge Tulkens by Professors Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck and Frédéric Krenc that takes a special look at the recent kettling judgment of Austin v UK.
The courts
R (on the application of Foley) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor [2012] EWHC 2184 (Admin). Parole Board correct not to allow female arsonist half way through determinate sentence release on licence, and no discrimination under ECHR.

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


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 costs costs budgets Court of Protection 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 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 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: