The biggest human rights stories of 2012 – Part 2

30 December 2012 by

UKHRB 2012 year in review2012 has been a busy year on the UK human rights front, never short of controversy, hyperbole and even some interesting points of legal principle along the way.

Here are some of the biggest stories from April to June 2012. The first part of this post, January to March, is here. Feel free to comment on my choices, and add your own if you think something is missing.

April (read all posts from that month here)

  • Freedom of information – Not the most glamorous of rights, but one of the most important. In a decision which may represent a landmark, the High Court confirmed the principle of open justice in ordering that the Guardian should have been granted a request to see key court documents in an extradition case. Some great statements of principle for journalists and bloggers to keep in their back pockets when faced with intransigeant judges.

May (all posts here)

  • Retreat but no surrender on prisoner votes – The European Court of Human Rights resolved some of the mess over prisoner votes by reinstating the broad discretion enjoyed by states following the 2005 judgment in Hirst (No. 2). This meant that the UK’s six month time limit for putting a law before Parliament to allow prisoners to vote was back in place… as we know now, things are still unresolved on that front.

June (all posts here)

  • Naming and shaming immigration judges – Poor stuff from the Sunday Telegraph, although to their credit the journalist concerned responded to the article in the comments. Recommended reading for an interesting debate on lies, damn lies and statistics.
  • Article 8 an a half. Or 7 and a quarter? – The Home Secretary announced significant reforms to the Immigration Rules, most notably an attempt to ‘codify’ the way in which Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Can you really do that? The effects are still being ironed out by the Courts, with only a November Upper Tribunal decision so far addressing the issue. No doubt more to come.

Part 3, July to September, is here.

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

Read more:

4 comments


  1. Gillian King says:

    Excellent as usual! Very grateful for this blog which makes the law far more assessible. My worry as a practising Christian, which is well articulated by CoE is that the law seems to be moving in the direction of narrowing the right to freedom of religion. This is not just due to human rights law admittedly, but the decisions coming of the courts, both European and domestic seems to imply that people should be content to have freedom of worship. The issue of gay marriage seems to be an example of this. I have to disagree with your analysis that a case against a church in an equality case would only have a ‘reasonable’ chance of succeeding. Surely in light of discrimination laws and decisions made in those cases, it is more likely that a court will view a convention state’s decision to legislate for ‘ equal marriage’ no less, as an intention to create equality between all sexes when it comes to marriage and thus the religious doctrine of not allowing same sex marriage will become analogous to human sacrifice! I may be overstating, but such is the nature of deeply held beliefs, which are a part of one’s being and which when threatened cause more harm than would praying in a council chamber. The right to religious freedom should not be relegated to freedom of worship because religious belief is part of the human condition. I recommend a book called Religion and Law produced by the think tank Theos for shedding more light on the matter.
    Thank you once again for your excellent analyses and being a source of an intellectual banquet.

  2. Miguel Cubells says:

    Cheers Adam, another interesting case picked up on via your blog that escaped my attention – “MM and AO (a child), R (on application) v SoS for HD [2012] EWCA Civ 668” in respect of the investigative obligation. Another handy case for reference as per application to the ECtHR in respect of our case. Keep um coming.

  3. Geraldine Ring says:

    Hello, I am wondering if fracking features anywhere in your stories.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      No – but we have regular posts on environmental rights (see here) so I am sure it will come up in the future if the issue reaches the courts, which seems likely.

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


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 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 disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary 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 Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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: