Speaking for the dead, prisoner votes and equal pay – The Human Rights Roundup

28 October 2012 by

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly bulletin 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.

In the news

This week, free speech continues to be widely discussed, along with prisoner votes and the popular conception of human rights law in the UK. A group of Birmingham women win a landmark equal pay case in the Supreme Court and the Chief Coroner speaks.

1 Crown Office Row seminar on inquests and inquiries

Public Inquiries and inquests have dominated the headlines recently, with members of One Crown Office Row appearing in many of them. On 8 November 2012 One Crown Office Row will be hosting a mock trial and panel discussion on the topic – there are still a few places left for legal practitioners, full details here.

Prisoner Votes and the HRA

Probably the biggest news this week was the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament that “no one should be under any doubt – prisoners are not getting the vote under this government“. Joshua Rozenberg, writing in the Guardian, has called this decision, especially as it expressly contradicts the “excellent” Attorney-General Dominic Grieve QC’s position, “depressing”, and believes that while the immediate consequences won’t be serious, the UK government will lose a lot of respect internationally. Our own Adam Wagner agrees with him, in a thorough post that laments the UK’s decision to dig in its heels on this issue when the actual decision could have been dealt with fairly easily (as it gave a good degree of latitude to states as to its implementation) – you can also listen to Adam interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight (click here – fast forward to 27:40).

The departing UK representative on the ECHR, Sir Nicholas Bratza, has also weighed in on this issue this week, asking in the Independent why human rights have become so vilified in Britain when the UK was instrumental in creating the system. He explains that the UK’s human rights record is actually excellent, and its judgments “enrich” the Convention system, but the culture in this country has become so toxic and anti-ECHR to appreciate the benefits of the Convention. Even John Rentoul, who is critical of the Strasbourg court’s decision in this article on the Independent website, concedes that it is not worth giving up on the ECHR over, and we as a country should grit our teeth and accept it.

Finally, Alice Donald’s guest post on UKHRB this week explores why keeping the Human Rights Act (as opposed to a UK Bill of Rights) is a good idea. Specifically, the post focuses on the value of section 6 of the HRA, which is designed to create a “culture” of compliance with the Convention by requiring all public authorities to act in a way compliant with the Convention unless UK legislation dictates otherwise. The issue will be discussed at greater length at the Human Rights in Healthcare event at Aintree, Liverpool on the 21st of November.

Free Speech and Twitter

On Wednesday, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC gave a speech at the London School of Economics; Legal Cheek has reproduced a significant point: the DPP’s statement that re-tweeting a statement that would be offensive under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 can, itself, constitute an offence. The post also includes some of the commentary created by this announcement: “Twitter Joke” trial solicitor David Allen Green suspects that including the phrase “[re-tweeting] is not an endorsement” would not insure one against liability for re-tweeting.

On a different note, comedian Frankie Boyle has won a defamation case against the Mirror group of newspapers, which called him a “racist” in print after a joke in his show Tramadol Nights which used the word “Paki” to poke fun at what Boyle saw as institutional racism in our news reporting. The Guardian’s Siobhan Butterworth reports on this case, and our general “obsession with punishing speech”, here.

Equal Pay in Birmingham

174 female ex-Birmingham City Council manual workers have won the right to make claims against their employers for equal pay after the council lost an appeal to the Supreme Court concerning whether the claims were time-barred. The women’s claims are based on their not receiving bonuses that their male counterparts received; salaries for manual council workers are equal between the sexes. For full details, see this BBC News article; the Supreme Court’s press summary and judgment

Disclosure of Sex Offender Information

As reported by Anya Proops on the Panopticon blog, the High Court ruled  on the legality of the government’s new, non-statutory Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, which would allow people to request information about any sex offence convictions held by people working with children, with a presumption in favour of disclosure of information (X (South Yorkshire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2012] EWHC 2954 (Admin)). It was held that these guidelines did not sufficiently reflect the need to consult individual sex offenders prior to releasing information, so that the balancing exercise performed by the decision-maker can be performed properly. The post concludes by observing that our sex offence disclosure laws are far from being at the level of “Megan’s Law” in the USA (which affords sex offenders no right to privacy under any circumstances in respect of their convictions  if a request for information is made).

The Speed of Extradition in the UK

Joshua Rozenberg, writing in the “Jurisprudence” column of Standpoint magazine, offers a look at current extradition procedure in this country, focusing on the high-profile Abu Hamza and Gary McKinnon cases, and asking the fundamental question – why did a final decision take so long to be reached in each?

The Chief Coroner speaks

The new (and first ever) Chief Coroner Peter Thornton QC gave a fascinating speech on the history and future of coroners courts – trust us, it is worth a read: The Coroner System in the 21st CenturyThe coronial system, which investigates deaths, is as important as it is ancient (going on 800 years), and often involves human rights considerations – see our posts on inquests/inquiries here.

And finally, coming on Wednesday at 10am…

… Judgment in the Supreme Court in Rahmatullah, a very interesting case about the ancient concept of “Habeas corpus” (a legal action through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention). This case has everything: terrorism, US-UK relations and the proper jurisdiction of the courts. Full details in Rosalind’s post on the Court of Appeal judgment.

In the courts

J, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall [2012] EWHC 2996 (Admin) High Court rules that the Chief constable’s decision to include mistreatment allegations in nurse’s enhanced criminal record certificate breached her article 8 rights.

AA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1383 The Secretary of State was entitled to rely upon an age assessment which had been confirmed by a court in justifying the detention of (it turned out) a child – Secretary of State’s age assessment policy is therefore compliant with Article 5 ECHR.

Whiston, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 1374 Court of Appeal held that revocation of decision to release a prisoner on home detention curfew licence doesn’t engage Article 5(4) ECHR.

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


by Sam Murrant

1 comment;

  1. Andrew says:

    If an equal pay case is brought in the High Court and fails – does anyone disagree that the employer should ask for costs – and that in the case of a public sector employer failure to do so is an audit issue?

    Whether they would be enforceable is another question, but in the case of a home-owner they certainly would be in part – and there is always attachment of earnings.

    it would be quite wrong if claimants could have the benefit of a longer limitation without the disadvantage of an adverse-costs regime.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: