The thorny issue of religious belief and discrimination law (again)

20 October 2012 by

Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson (unreported, 18 October 2012, Slough County Court) – Read judgment

The Christian owner of a B&B in Berkshire was found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to allow them stay in a double-bedded room because of her belief that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

Although a county court judgment, this case has been splashed all over the headlines, partly because of BNP leader Nick Griffin’s comments on Twitter (about which see more below) but also because it is so factually similar to the high-profile case of Bull v. Hall and Preddy which is currently before the Supreme Court (see our analysis of the Court of Appeal judgment here). This judgment has also come along at a time when the European Court of Human Rights’ decision is awaited in the four conjoined cases of Ladele, Eweida, Macfarlane and Chaplin, all of which involve issues of religious freedom and two of which involve the same potential conflict between the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation and the right to religious freedom (see our posts here, here and here). Moreover, Recorder Moulder’s comprehensive and careful judgment has helpfully been made available online (see link above), so it can be considered in detail.

Some novel points

There were two elements which made this case different from Bull v. Preddy. First, Mr Morgan and Mr Black are not in a civil partnership, whereas Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, the claimants in the Bull case, are. Mrs Wilkinson said this was an important difference, because it meant the correct comparator for a discrimination claim was an unmarried opposite-sex couple, and she would also have refused to allow such a couple to have a double bed. However, Recorder Moulder considered that the decision in Bull was not dependent on the fact that Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were civil partners, and thus she was bound to follow the Court of Appeal.

He also noted that, if she were wrong about that, it would still be direct discrimination using an unmarried comparator as it appeared Mrs Wilkinson had allowed unmarried opposite-sex couples to share a bed on a few occasions because she had not found out, until it was too late to refuse, that they were unmarried (see para 44).

[One interesting side-issue to note from this judgment is that much turned in Bull, and therefore in this judgment as well, on the fact that same-sex couples cannot get married, so discriminating on the grounds of marriage was in effect the same as discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation. On the other hand, Recorder Moulder referred to regulation 3(4) of the relevant Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which provides that there is no material difference between marriage and civil partnership. This seems to contradict Bull. If, as is proposed, same-sex ‘civil’ marriage is to be introduced, but not ‘religious’ marriage, this issue might become even more complex (particularly as it is unclear what the difference would be between the two).]

Second, the ‘Swiss B&B” which Mrs Wilkinson owns has its guest bedrooms in the centre of the family home (unlike the Bulls’ B&B where the guest bedrooms were in a separate part of the house) . She argued that this meant her B&B was not a hotel or boarding house for the purposes of regulation 4(2)(b) of the Regulations. However, Recorder Moulder held that, although different to a hotel or boarding house, the Swiss B&B is clearly a commercial venture and is a “similar establishment” to a boarding house, so did fall within regulation 4(2)(b).

Alternatively, Mrs Wilkinson argued that because she treated guests as if they were part of the family, her B&B fell within regulation 6(1), which exempts from the scope of the Regulations:

anything done by a person as a participant in arrangements under which he (for reward or not) takes into his home, and treats as if they were members of his family, children, elderly persons or persons requiring a degree of special care and attention

Recorder Moulder did find that Mrs Wilkinson provided a personal and caring, even loving, service to her B&B guests. However, this did not fall within a straightforward reading of the regulation, which is intended to cover people (such as children) who are taken in as if they were family and/or require special care and attention. B&B guests such as Mr Morgan and Mr Black did not fit into this category.

Recorder Moulder therefore held that the Regulations did apply to the Swiss B&B and there was direct and indirect discrimination, following the decision in Bull. The final stage was to consider whether this effect of the Regulations was in breach of Mrs Wilkinson’s Article 8 (private and family life) and Article 9 rights (religious freedom) under the European Convention. After considering the case-law and the circumstances, he held that whilst Mrs Wilkinson’s Article 8 and 9 rights were interfered with, such interference was justified because Parliament had decided the approach to be taken where rights conflicted in this way and its decision should be deferred to (see para 103).

Unsurprisingly, given the fact that Bull is currently before the Supreme Court, Recorder Moulder granted permission to appeal.

Comment

Given the current case-law it is not surprising that Recorder Moulder reached the conclusions he did. It is up to the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights to change the approach taken thus far to these cases.

There does seem to be a good argument for a different approach to cases where religious belief clashes with discrimination law (as has been suggested previously on this blog). At present, the impression given by the courts is that Article 9 is about the least effective part of the European Convention. Although the protection of the holding of a belief under Article 9(1) is absolute, the protection of manifestations of belief under Article 9(2) is interpreted so narrowly as to have almost no impact at all in relation to whole swathes of public life.

As the UK Government argued before Strasbourg last month in Ladele et al, the reading of Article 9(2) by the European Court in previous cases has the effect that if people find their religious beliefs conflict with their jobs, they should either ‘leave their beliefs at home or get another job’. Article 9 will not help them. The practical effect of decisions like Bull and Wilkinson is that, at least in relation to some issues, self-employment is no escape either – if people find their beliefs conflict with their customers’ beliefs, they should either keep their beliefs to themselves or start a different business.

Article 9 protects a poor form of religious freedom indeed, if it does not extend to either the workplace or the marketplace. The current approach is in danger of forcing millions of people to be hypocrites; able to act in line with their beliefs in their own homes or at the mosque/church/synagogue/temple, but having to put on a different face at work or in business. That is unacceptable and unworkable.

But the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is also hugely important, and carving out exceptions would make it meaningless. Reconciling the two is difficult, but there must be a means of doing so that ensures religious freedom is more than just the freedom to believe what you want in private, and which celebrates and protects the fact that we live in a society which tolerates all kinds of different belief systems.

Postscript – how to debate these issues (and how not to)

The manner in which the parties in this case have gone about resolving their dispute stands in stark contrast to many would-be ‘supporters’ of either side. Whilst Mrs Wilkinson was firm in her refusal to offer a double bed to Messrs Black and Morgan, they confirmed that she was “polite and courteous” and said she would have offered them single rooms had any been available. Mr Black and Mr Morgan did not kick up any huge fuss, but simply had their deposit returned and left. The case itself appears to have involved very little argument over the facts, turning almost solely on careful legal argument.

In contrast to the measured way that both sides dealt with this, Mr and Mrs Wilkinson described last month how they and their children have been subjected to months of hate mail, death threats and fake negative reviews about their B&B on TripAdvisor by various anonymous ‘supporters’ of Mr Black and Mr Morgan’s position.

Then on Thursday Nick Griffin of the BNP tweeted Mr Black and Mr Morgan’s address and appears to have threatened them with reprisals as a result of this judgment. Thankfully the couple do not seem too frightened by this – calling the threats a ‘damp squib‘ . Mrs Wilkinson also immediately issued a press release expressing sympathy for the couple and condemning Mr Griffin’s comments.

Given that the issue of how best to reconcile religious beliefs with discrimination law does not seem likely to go away any time soon, it is to be hoped that the debate will be carried out in the style of Mrs Wilkinson, Mr Black and Mr Morgan, rather than that of Mr Griffin and the anonymous trolls who made Mrs Wilkinson’s life so unpleasant.

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

Related posts:

27 comments


  1. David Shepherd says:

    I am concerned with the judge’s interpretation of the ‘special care and attention’ exemption to the Equalities Act.

    Regulation 6(1): ‘regulation 4 does not apply to anything done by a person as a participant in arrangements under which he (for reward or not) takes into his home, and treats as if they were members of his family, children, elderly persons, or persons requiring a special degree of care and attention.’

    The judge explains that: ‘In my view the correct interpretation is that “how” a person treats the relevant categories is “as if they were members of the family” and “who” is so treated are children, elderly persons and persons requiring a special degree of care and attention. Accordingly it seems to me on a straight reading of the regulation 6 (1) that this exception applies only to “children, elderly persons or persons requiring a special degree of care and attention”.

    He sees ‘children, elderly persons, or persons requiring a special degree of care and attention’ as a strict qualification of which members of the family would incur the exemption. Whereas defendants read these as examples of familial treatment under a commercial (or non-commercial) arrangement that might involve the use of one’s home.

    The key to understanding the exemption is to ask, ‘under what sort of arrangement for reward is a person taken into your home and treated as a family member is treated?’

    The judge says the claimants are neither children, nor elderly, nor *require* special care and attention. However, the sentence expressed explicitly would be: ‘takes into his home, and treats them *as he would if* they were members of his family’

    The focus of the exemption is on:
    1) where the commercial arrangement takes place: one’s home;
    2) treatment of that person *as if* they were a member of the family, etc.

    So, can anyone show me any other commercial arrangement in one’s own home that might fall into this form of familial hospitality, apart from a home-based B&B, bed-sit, or caring arrangement. As far as I’m aware, there are none. The purpose of the exemption is to exclude any impositions on one’s personal domain of family life, even where there is a commercial element to the arrangement.

    Strangely, when the judge considers a part of the regulation relating to its applicability to specific businesses, he uses,
    ‘paragraph 1 applies in particular to (b) accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment…’ to *extend* to B&B’s which are not explicitly mentioned, not limit the applicability of the regulation.

  2. frednach says:

    The idea that religion and discrimination are two separate entities is fundamentally flawed. For this simple reason, I do not know of any religion that says one has a right to discriminate whether directly or indirectly against another because of their individual beliefs or practices. Indeed, each scripture makes clear reading that such acts or conduct is an anthesis of any religious virtue.

    However, religion does have a moral code which emphasis how one should live and behave in society, but this code is for each person to consider without any compulsion or rendition. And so where individuals hold such religious convictions this must not be a dictat or an yardstick in which to discriminate in public or private; there is a difference between observing a religious doctrine and blatant disregard of that doctrine through discrimination.

  3. Stephen says:

    Just a quickie on religion and discrimination.

    It is a tenet of many religions to condemn homosexuality. It is not a tenet of religion to condemn people on the basis of their race, religion, creed, nationality, colour, or gender. Sexual orientation is the only protected characteristic that clashes with religious belief and Article 9.

    It is unlikely therefore that affirming an Article 9 right to discriminate in cases of sexual orientation would open the door to discrimination against other protected groups.. So although this gateway argument is often put forward, there appears to be no logical basis for it.

    That is not to say that an Article 9 right to discriminate should be affirmed; it is simply to say that the gateway argument is fallacious.

  4. John D says:

    I cannot agree with Roger’s sentiments above that ‘all this “anti-discrimination” legislation..[should be]… abolished.’ I can still remember the days when accommodation vacancy cards in shop windows read “No blacks, Irish or dogs”.
    If we abolish anti-discrimination legislation, we risk returning back to the bad old days when such discriminatory practices – which were hurtful and upsetting for many perfectly innocent people – would become re-enshrined into our belief systems. Having packed-off the bad old days, let them stay buried.
    There is another aspect to this debate which does involve the current case. Most recently, we have seen individuals whose religious beliefs have been “offended” engage in unlawful activities leading to the deaths of others; I refer, of course, to the recent apparent outrage at the making and publication of the film known as “The Innocence of Muslims”. I have no idea as to what was portrayed in the film and I suspect the vast majority of those who rioted over the alleged contents of the film did not either. This absence of knowledge, however, did nothing to stop their religious leaders from urging their followers to take actions which led to large-scale deaths and injuries for other innocent individuals. What we need to learn from these sorry events is that allowing religious beliefs to attain a position of superiority in any society can only lead to eventual widespread anguish and suffering for substantial minorities of all kinds.
    This may yet happen again. Europe was torn apart for well over a century during the 16th and 17th Century religious wars. If the European courts give a green light to religious persecution, we could yet all find ourselves living in another era of religious oppression and persecution. I hope the European judges remember that we ended up choosing a secular way of life for a very good reason – that way we all keep our lives and beliefs, however imperfect.

  5. Roger says:

    It’s sad that our days have become so intolerant that people mainly describe not how the law should work, but whether or not they hate the victims of it.

    The issue is not, I beg to suggest, a thorny one. We have a whole bunch of new laws, unknown in previous history, all of which interfere wildly with the lives of ordinary people by obliging them to believe (or not believe) various things, and observe those novel beliefs. What we are seeing here is the downstream consequence of passing laws about ideology.

    We have been here before. What else were the Test Act, the Act of Uniformity, etc? Where only people willing to say the Right Things could do this, could live here; and dissenters were subjected to legal penalties and (more) harassment? I remember from Pepys diary a telling entry, where these acts were to be brought into the House of Lords and applied to their lordships; who suddenly discovered that the acts were oppressive, once they would be affected by them themselves, and introduced various alleviations and modifications. Doubtless they too would have described the problem as “thorny”.

    How is it that in England we have reintroduced these evil pieces of legislation, made for evil purposes. Indeed I recall from Augustine Birrell that the wretch who framed one of them boasted that it would damn one half of England and starve the rest.

    It is almost a litmus test for oppression, whether a state interferes with the Christians. Any free state finds no difficulty in leaving these peaceable folk alone. Any oppressive state cannot avoid dragging them through the courts.

    My suggestion is that all this “anti-discrimination” legislation is abolished. All of it interferes with the principle of equality before the law. All of it involves the power of the state being used to force individuals to do things which they may well believe are perfectly justified, and are certainly no business of David Cameron, or a bunch of people in London.

    Until this is done, our courts will be filled with harmless ordinary people like Mrs W., and her well-funded, well-connected tormentors, their agents provocateurs, the malicious, the informer, and other creatures of the night. They are not lacking in these comments, indeed, I notice.

    1. “Creatures of the night”? What on *earth* are you implying here?

  6. Jon Holbrook says:

    On Spiked I have argued that ‘In the courts, equality trumps tolerance’. Focussing on four cases before the ECHR I show how the state puts ‘diversity’ before religious freedom.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12885/

  7. To me, it’s very simple – if you are charging money for people to stay in your home then you abide by the rules. This couple don’t want certain people to stay in their place so don’t run a B&B – simple.

    On a lighter note, many years ago my school friend’s parents bought a B&B – they were surprised that most of their guests were gay men – but also delighted to be full….the previous owner had not cancelled their ad in a gay magazine.

  8. Charlie Klendjian says:

    Quite a well-measured article, and I liked the bit at the end emphasizing the positive aspects of how the litigation and reporting were conducted, but this bit was pure horsefeed:

    “Article 9 protects a poor form of religious freedom indeed, if it does not extend to either the workplace or the marketplace. The current approach is in danger of forcing millions of people to be hypocrites; able to act in line with their beliefs in their own homes or at the mosque/church/synagogue/temple, but having to put on a different face at work or in business. That is unacceptable and unworkable.”

    Belief is and should be protected, but actions aren’t and shouldn’t be. If beliefs manifest themselves as actions which infringe the lawful rights of others, such as the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation, that’s wrong. Is that a difficult concept?

    We all have to keep our opinions to ourselves occasionally, be they views on clients, colleagues or members of the public. If those views manifest themselves, with the result that someone’s lawful rights are infringed, we must accept the consequences. The non-religious are expected to justify their prejudices: a non-believer who wanted to discriminate against homosexuals simply because he didn’t like them would reveal himself for what he was – prejudiced.

    The religious, however, are often not expected to justify their prejudices. But they must be because all of us – believer and non-believer – are and must remain subject to the same law if “human rights” is to mean anything at all.

  9. Panikos says:

    Andrew, If having a lodger is just a business arrangement then I don’t think it should be legal to discriminate on race, politics, gender preferences and so on. You are exchanging part of your home and privacy for money.

    Now if a lodger is part companion and part paying guest then that might be different.

    I would say that it was about relevance. If I need a worker who can reach the top shelves in my shop I can ask for a tall person. That’s not discrimination against short people because it’s a necessary part of the task.

    So we might argue that a single woman would prefer a female lodger. Having a man around might mean she would feel constrained to be fully dressed on the way to the bathroom etc. A clearer thinker might ask for women or homosexual men in that case, but still there is an argument there that the gender is relevant.

    If you are just renting rooms out to strangers then their personal relationships are not relevant to the arrangement.

    In the case of clubs for men, women, chess players etc the purpose of the club is to associate with that category of person, so once again it is relevant.

  10. Stephen says:

    Mr [edit – Henderson] makes a very good point, in my view, when he says,

    “Article 9 protects a poor form of religious freedom indeed, if it does not extend to either the workplace or the marketplace.”

    Power is the freedom to curtail someone else’s freedom. Perhaps analysing these issues in terms of power and freedom can help resolve some of these issues.

    In the workplace or the marketplace, the respective positions of the parties are rarely equal. Generally one side has more power, either legal or economic, than the other. In my view, freedom should, where practicable, prevail over power and this rule may suggest a way forward in resolving conflicts between Articles.

    The marketplace
    In the B & B cases, of course, it is feasible to argue that the host parties had no more economic power than the guest parties – the latter were able to find an alternative place to stay.

    However, it the law finds in favour of the hosts (the B & B owners) then it effectively confers power on them. The freedom of the guest party to choose, compared to a heterosexual couple, is restricted as a consequence. So from a Libertarian perspective the decision must favour the guests (the gay couple).

    The workplace
    In the case of employees, power invariably rests with employers. This is because employment law has its roots in a “master-servant” relationship – a clear power relationship if ever there was one

    If freedom is to trump the application of arbitrary power, then In cases where employees wish to wear religious insignia, absent substantive business objections. the Courts should should side with employee Article 9 rights. This conclusion is relatively easy to arrive at because there is no clash with any employer Article rights as may occur in marketplace transactions..

    It is too easy to forget that the ECHR stands for human rights and FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. The right to manifest is a fundamental freedom although one could be forgiven for missing this point as as Mr Wagner observes in his comments above,

    “At present, the impression given by the courts is that Article 9 is about the least effective part of the European Convention. Although the protection of the holding of a belief under Article 9(1) is absolute, the protection of manifestations of belief under Article 9(2) is interpreted so narrowly as to have almost no impact at all in relation to whole swathes of public life”

  11. Andrew says:

    Well, Panikos, do you say that the rule which excludes genuine lodgers – long-term residents in somebody else’s spare bedroom – from protection if that somebody else does not want gays, black people, Irish people, whatever it may be, in their homes, should be abrogated?

    That rule represents in your words ‘just a little religious discrimination’ – and may be hateful and hurtful – but that is the price we pay for protecting the privacy of the home, which is also an important social and legal value.

    And the gentlemen’s clubs and WI represent freedom of association, which is another important social and legal value.

    Those values are like freedom of expression – they don’t only apply to the liberal bien-pensant elements of society. Once you accept that there is a balance of rights there will be winners and losers depending where you draw the line.

    I agree with Keith that the B and B cases are not identical to the long-term lodger case. The latter case falls firmly on the personal privacy side of the line; the former is on the cusp, and I can’t admit to being greatly troubled about which side wins. But then, I am not gay and I am also not a religious owner of a B and B!

  12. Catherine Stephens says:

    I’m not a person with legal training, so it may be this comment is entirely irrelevant (if so, apologies). It occurred to me while reading Alasdair’s comments on the law’s promotion of “private values” vs “work and marketplace actions”, that there may be a parallel with immigration judgements in which, I believe, LGB applicants have been told fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation offers insufficient grounds for right to remain as they have the option to “be discreet” about their orientation. I’d be really interested to read opinions on this. 

    Either way, many thanks for an interesting and informative blog.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Try http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/07/25/the-right-not-to-hold-any-belief-is-fundamental-says-supreme-court/ – see links at bottom, HJ Iran in the Supreme Court says people can’t be sent back if they are expected to be discrete about sexual orientation (or for that matter political views, or even their non-political views)

  13. Panikos says:

    Good article, but the suggestion that religious freedom should mean some freedom from the law doesn’t hold up.

    Even if we were so inclined there is no way to allow ‘just a little religious discrimination’. Any rule allowing Christian beliefs to override the law where it conflicted would have to be extended to all religions. Unless you plan to make a law defining which beliefs are valid.

    I’m sure we could all think of ludicrous and hateful consequences. ‘Decent Christian’ drivers who won’t allow Muslims on their bus, ‘Devout’ Muslim High Street shops that won’t serve woman with their faces uncovered. Perhaps B&B owners could refuse to allow female guests who were not ‘sewn up’.

  14. kindle says:

    The current approach is in danger of forcing millions of people to be hypocrites; able to act in line with their beliefs in their own homes or at the mosque/church/synagogue/temple, but having to put on a different face at work or in business. That is unacceptable and unworkable.

    Yes and how things have changed. I remember my mother’s story. When she trained to be a physio in the early 50’s she lived away from her parents in a bigger town. Before she got married, she had to go every Sunday morning (in hat and gloves), to church. She had no religious belief, but to keep her training place, then her job and her lodgings she had to know tow to the society around her and be a ‘respectable’ woman, seen in church every Sunday.

    People who want to force others into complying with the often bizzare rituals set down by their particular religion are always about. Things have changed and their power has eroded considerably. Now they squeal.

    The law must not allow the religious to use their economic and social power to force other people to put on another face, in any aspect of their lives. This certainly includes when they wish to buy non-religious services from others.

    And as a further point, I happen to know several B&B owners. As they run their businesses all year long, the bulk of their trade, even though they are near the sea, is commercial travellers and people who use then to hold down jobs away from where they have permanent homes. The owners would certainly say, – as I have people who come here, week in week out for months, sometimes at a certain period for year after year, I try to provide a home away from home for them – but its not my job to patrol what I might think of as their moral lives. I’m running a business.

    The debate has got a bit skewed, as I think the average lawyer just thinks of a B&B as some sort of small hotel for a quick weekend in a rural area, and the average user is just on a jolly.

  15. Paul de Mello says:

    Keith, the point is that she was not free NOT too sign the contract with them, just like faith organisations have no right not too accommodate trade unions opposed to their beliefs, despite TUs being a philosophical belief. TUs are an atheist privledge. Religious workers should have the same right to withdraw their labour to consentual acts as athiests workers. All consentual acts are manifestations of the forum internum, and so are beliefs. Paul, thats not quiet true, if say Eweida went to a B&B, and they had a no crucifix policy, they could turn her away.

  16. Paul Crofts says:

    What if the B&B owners were Gay and refused accommodation to two Christians because they believed them to be anti-Gay/homophobic and therefore this clashed with their fundamental beliefs. The law would also protect the Christian couple from such discrimination/prejudice based on religious beliefs on a similar basis.

    The ECHR protects people from discrimination on grounds of their religion or belief (Article 9), but does not allow people to use their religion or belief to undermine the human rights of others (Article 17) e.g. the right not to be discriminated against (Article 14). The UK courts are currently following these principles and I doubt very much if the ECHR will change this in the cases currently before them.

  17. Keith Wood says:

    I agree a family should not be subject to discrimination law on lodgers, i.e. those that use the accommodation as their home and it becomes their address. But for casual vacancies, whatever the house layout, the law should apply, otherwise the B&Bs would also be allowed to display “no gays” signs. Such rejection, including signage, would be deeply hurtful to those affected and sends an message unacceptable in terms of the law’s declaratory role.
    Mr Henderson does not seem to me to give enough weight to this.
    It is none of Mrs Robinson’s business what people lawfully do, or don’t do, behind closed doors in her house as part of a contractual arrangement. She is able to manifest her beliefs in her place of worship and with her family, and she is not being forced to have sex with anyone out of marriage; her Article 9 rights are not compromised.
    If this case (or indeed Ladele and McFarlane at the ECtHR http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/nss-intervention-to-european-court-of-human-rights.pdf ) were to reverse the law, it would create a hierarchy of rights with religion at the top and hugely undermine the equality laws of which we are rightly proud. Then someone who disapproved of mixed race couples could send them packing too, provided they waived the religious flag. And the Christian conscience of Lillian Ladele, the Islington registrar, that prevented her conducting same-sex civil partnerships didn’t prevent her from solemnising marriages involving divorcees, Curious, that.

  18. Pavlos says:

    Using and abusing Christianity as a means and an excuse to discriminate against LGBT’s.

  19. Great post but the judgment link isn’t working.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Sorry about that – should be working now

      1. Thanks.

  20. Andrew says:

    The “private home” aspect cannot be wished away. People who take in a lodger have, ever since the first Race Relations Act, been allowed “if they must” to refuse an applicant on racial grounds, and however painful that may be to the applicant, privacy trumps equality: just as it does in the case of the gentlemen’s clubs, the Women’s Institute, the London Welsh, and similar associations. These cases of a business run in the home are right on the cusp, and for my own part I would prefer a narrowly drawn exception.

  21. Religious freedom is indeed just the freedom to believe whatever superstitious silliness you want in private and no more than that. Any more is clearly a recipe for chaos and largely unworkable.

  22. That’s not just bigotry – that’s fine, age-old *religious* bigotry.

  23. Michael Duncan says:

    Good summation and analysis. Thanks for posting.

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: