Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays… oh no, wait

11 January 2013 by

TelegraphOn 29 December 2012 The Daily Telegraph published an article under the headline Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays

This has now been shown to be nonsense. The judgment in Mba v London Borough of Merton was released yesterday and is analysed here. Mr Justice Langstaff made entirely clear that the judgment only applies to the individual worker who brought the appeal, not more generally. Here is some inaccurate reporting from David Barrett (remember this by him?), Telegraph Home Affairs correspondent:

A new ruling by a High Court judge… says that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday as it is not a “core component” of their beliefs. The judgment – which upholds an earlier decision – means that individual Christians do not have any protection from being fired for not working on Sundays.

Compare and contrast, as this blog does, paragraph 3 of the ruling:

We should make it clear at the outset of this Judgment to anyone who expects the conclusion to amount either to a ringing endorsement of an individual’s right not to be required to work on a Sunday on the one hand, or an employer’s freedom to require it on the other, that they will both be disappointed.  No such broad general issue arises.  The questions raised must be determined in the specific circumstances of this particular case alone.

The difference between saying that a Christian did not have the right in her particular circumstances to refused work on Sundays (which the judgment says) and no Christian has the right to refuse work on a Sunday in any case is very large indeed. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of discrimination law will have known instantly that the latter option cannot have been right.

I have it on good authority that the judgment was delivered in full, orally, in court before it was published in writing yesterday. So no excuses. If a journalist cannot be there in person to hear a judgment being given, they should either wait to read the published version or make sure they have a very accurate understanding of what it said before writing about it.

It is like a football journalist not attending a match and then reporting on it based on interviews with a few fans of one team. No surprises that the report turns out to be wrong.

Joshua Rozenberg rightly calls for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to publish controversial rulings such as this quicker as “there is little point in publishing this summary after the ruling has been widely reported and debated” (his own analysis is, as usual, spot on). I have made similar points before about the courts’ responsibility to disseminate rulings quickly and in an understandable way.

But the blame does not solely lie with the Tribunal. For whatever reason, whether  the Telegraph relied on a biased information from one side, through complete misunderstanding of the law or simple exaggeration, they got it wrong. They will have frightened believers from many faiths and unfairly increased the perception that the courts are anti-religion.

As Rozenberg points out, this was a complex judgment involving the tricky question of what constitutes a ‘core’ belief. Having read it, I think this was actually quite a narrow win for the council, and the Tribunal did get itself into a bit of a tangle over the idea of a ‘core’ belief. But the judge made clear that it any future cases would be decided on their individual facts, and that is the opposite of what was reported.

Being charitable, it could be argued (as it was in the article by someone from Christian Concern, whose own analysis was also wrong) that the ruling will in fact have a wider effect than the judge claimed it would, but the article presents that as the settled view, not just the opinion of campaigners.

Thankfully, when the European Court of Human Rights releases four important religious discrimination judgments on Tuesday, its policy means that nobody will see the judgments before they are released alongside a helpful press summary. This may help, although I doubt it will prevent poor reporting of what the judgments actually say.

Meanwhile, no correction from the Telegraph. If this mistake had been made about an individual, a libel threat would have been made and a correction (probably) printed. But because this is about a legal judgment, despite the number of people it affects, there is little recourse except a complaint to the Press Complaint Commission. Now, there’s an idea.

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

Read more

24 comments


  1. John D says:

    There is, I believe, an old saying: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. As Anya has pointed out, most ordinary people want legal matters resolved as speedily as possible and ex tempore judgments are helpful in this regard. I assume this practice arose out of a largely pre-literate era and has continued for the convenience of speed and certainty for all parties involved.
    I think everyone concedes that there is either deliberate mis-reporting by some journalists and/or that their copy is distorted by their employers. What to do about it?
    Can I suggest that a small informal group of legal practitioners (and, possibly, others) be established in order to scrutinise the most egregious examples of legal mis-reporting in the course of a year, with a view to “awarding” the offending journalists and/or newspapers or other media a “Legal Blunder of the Year” trophy?
    This might then encourage newspapers and other media to get their legal reports right.

  2. […] Rabid lawyers reap terror (see comments) on hapless underpaid journalists [UK Human Rights Blog] […]

  3. Anya Palmer says:

    On the narrow point, it is simply not true that ex tempore judgments are exceptional or reserved for urgent cases. Joshua gives no authority for this proposition. I have never heard such a test applied and I do not believe it exists. It is not in the Civil Procedure Rules or Practice Directions. So far as I am aware the giving of ex tempore judgments in an appropriate case is completely unexceptional and it is always a matter for the discretion of the judge hearing the case whether to do so.

    It is patronising to suggest that because I point out the interests of the parties (which Joshua ignores) I have no interest in the broader issues. Of course I recognise there is an interest in cases being correctly reported, but in my comments above I question (a) how often this problem arises (b) where there has been misreporting, whether that can properly be ascribed to the giving of an ex tempore judgment as opposed to, say, bad journalism, and (c) whether the issuing of judgment summaries would prevent misreporting, given that this has not been the case with Mail and Telegraph reporting of ECHR cases. Joshua does not address these points, he simply gives further details of his own proposal.

    The present case is clearly one of bad reporting by a newspaper with an obvious agenda. It would be nice to see Joshua recognise that and come up with proposals for how the press might be more accountable rather than simply blame the legal system.

    1. I was not seeking to be patronising and I apologise if my remarks appeared as such.

      I did not say that judges were required by law, or the rules, or by practice directions, to give extempore judgments in urgent cases and reserve judgment in less urgent cases. Of course it is a matter for the court’s discretion. My “authority” is not a decided case; it is simply some 30 years’ experience of reporting leading or newsworthy cases in the higher courts.

      You ask how the press might be made more accountable. If I were to tell you that a certain Lord Justice of Appeal has spent the past year or so considering just that, you’d again accuse me of being patronising. So I’ll just remind you that I was the first to draw attention, in the Guardian, to inaccuracies in the Sunday Telegraph article.

      You ask specifically how issuing judgment summaries (or, indeed, judgments themselves) would prevent misreporting. I would have thought this was obvious from what has already been said. Since it is not, I shall spell it out. If a newspaper reports a case badly and there is no authoritative source for what the court said, nobody can put the record straight. If there is a judgment or even a summary available, everybody can see whether or not the newspaper has got it right. People who think the report was wrong can say so, as you did. Word soon gets around. This doesn’t stop individual reporters from getting it wrong. But it does make it more likely that the reporting of the case, as a whole, will be accurate.

      What you don’t seem to accept is that the courts can play a part in ensuring that their rulings are reported accurately. Fortunately, that proposition is fully accepted by most members of the senior judiciary. That is why they support the Judicial Communications Office in the valuable work it does. I was simply pointing out that the Employment Appeal Tribunal does not seem to have caught up with accepted practice in other courts of record.

      1. Anya Palmer says:

        I’m afraid you misrepresent what I said. I did not ask how written summaries would prevent misreporting; I queried whether they would in fact do so, “given that this has not been the case with Mail and Telegraph reporting of ECHR cases”. You ignore that point. The ECHR does issue judgment summaries and yet still certain sections of the press misreport them, as documented on this blog and others (eg http://darrennewman.wordpress.com/author/daznewman/). I don’t see why, in a case where the judge feels able to give judgment immediately, the parties should have to wait for judgment (in all but the most urgent cases) in order that the court can issue judgment summaries in which, in the vast majority of cases, the press will have no interest, and in those few cases where the press does have an interest, experience suggests the press will continue to misreport regardless of being given a judgment summary.

        You say the advantage of press summaries is they make it obvious when the newspaper has got it wrong. But the judgment in Mba v Merton issued last week also makes it clear the Telegraph got it wrong, and this has now been widely pointed out, including by you, and yet the Telegraph shows no sign of amending its story. It is shameless, it seems, and as Adam says there is little recourse other than a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. I personally have already taken that route in relation to one ECHR story that was misreported in the Mail, so I know from personal experience that it’s a huge waste of time. That’s why although we can agree there is an interest in the press reporting legal stories accurately, I believe the starting point is not that the court system needs to change but that the press needs to be more accountable.

        1. Thanks for responding. I don’t think we are very far apart and I have no wish to prolong this correspondence.

          We both agree that newspaper reporters should report legal stories accurately. I believe they should be helped to do so. You believe they should be held to account if they don’t.

          On the latter point, I agree with you. I hope you will now agree with me that, whenever possible, the press should be helped by being provided with written copies of reserved judgments at time of delivery. That is all I am calling on the EAT to do.

        2. James Wilson says:

          I have done a short blog on this point at http://timesandotherthings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/mba-v-merton-london-borough-council.html?spref=tw as well as a couple of comments above. I would simply repeat what I said before, namely that in urgent cases, or where the judge or tribunal has a resoundingly clear view on the outcome but wishes to spend longer putting down the reasoning, the common practice is for the judge to announce the result with reasons to follow. But (and I don’t think anyone disagrees) that where there is an extempore judgment (for which there is still some justification) the onus is on the press to exercise caution in reporting it.

  4. John D says:

    This is not the first time this sort of newspaper behaviour has been observed – and it will almost certainly not be the last. Why do they do it? As Helena Kennedy identified at the Bill of Rights Commission, there is a deliberate anti-Europe sentiment among some in this country, which newspapers such as the Mail and Telegraph welcome and foster among their readership. This is why they will continue mis-reporting human rights judgements.
    Until such time as the Zeitgeist changes in Britain to one in which most people are relaxed about EU and ECHR membetrship, this shoddy sort of journalism is bound to continue.
    Most journalists are hacks for hire: they write whatever their bosses want them to write so they may not have the degree of autonomy accorded to them by Adam Wagner. Some lawyers have similar relationships with their clients, do they not? Roll on Tuesday !!!!!!!

    1. This was not a human rights case, as such.

  5. Anya naturally gives priority to the interests of her clients. My interests are wider.

    On the narrow point, it is standard practice for the High Court, Court of Appeal (civil division) and Supreme Court to reserve judgment, prepare a written ruling, circulate it in draft to counsel and then deliver it in writing. Extempore judgments are the exception and are reserved for urgent cases. Even if a judgment is extempore, a note of the operative paragraphs may be provided to the press on the day. Sentencing remarks in high-profile criminal trials are also provided in writing immediately after judgment. The EAT is clearly an exception to this practice.

    But there is a broader point here, which perhaps I need to spell out. In a case such as this, the EAT president must have prepared pretty detailed notes of what he planned to say in his judgment. No doubt he did not trouble to copy out all the citations. But putting the judgment in a form in which it could be handed down would not require very much more work. He might need somebody to type up the judgment for him. But that would be cheaper than a shorthand-writer. And there is no reason why it should delay delivery of the judgment by as much as a month.

    1. James Wilson says:

      ” Extempore judgments are the exception and are reserved for urgent cases” – Joshua, this is mostly but not wholly correct. Extemps are still reasonably common in the CA, Civil Division – about a third of the time (not so at the end of term when there is always a deluge of handed downs on the last day or two as of course you would already know) – and by no means just when the hearing is urgent either. They are often given in short, uncomplicated cases where the judges are in agreement and there is no need to prolong anything. At High Court level they are common in the Administrative Court – at least 50% off the top of my head – though very rare in the Commercial, TCC or Chancery Divisions. For the most part in the senior courts they are used when there is no wider interest in the case and hence the misreporting issue doesn’t really arise. To the extent that they are reported it will usually be by what Lord Neuberger calls the Scholarly Law Reporters – for All England, the ICLR and Lawtel (declaring my interest in the first of those) as opposed to the general press. Extemps are the norm in the CA, Criminal Division but unknown at Supreme Court level.

      1. James, Your experience is broader than mine and I stand corrected on the detail. I don’t often cover the sort of cases in which there is no wider interest. And I should have said I was talking about cases of substance rather than interlocutory rulings and the like.

        1. James Wilson says:

          Cheers Joshua. I think that they will become less common as younger judges are used to writing things themselves on their laptops as opposed to dictating everything or writing by longhand. In some cases I think where a judge has formidable grasp of the subject matter, they tend to knock out an extemp at the end of even substantive and highly contested hearings – Sullivan LJ used to do this as a matter of routine in planning cases (I believe he also had something of a dislike of computers) and Jacob LJ when in the Chancery Division. Or Lord Brown when he was in the CA – I well recall his amusing interjections where he would isolate the sole worthwhile point on the appeal, challenge counsel to address it and then give a short extemp immediately afterwards. Laws LJ is another who can deliver an extemp at a furious pace after a contested hearing.

  6. Adam Wagner says:

    Judith – I have to disagree on that one. This blog’s policy is always to state the author of the article. Here is my reasoning:

    1. The journalist’s name is on the article. Any member of the public would assume that they wrote the article, at least including all of the main points made in it. As in any professional context, by putting your name to a piece of work you accept responsibility for anything which goes wrong (the flip side is you get credit for what you get right).

    2. To use an example from my professional context, a junior barrister will sometimes draft most if not all of a document which a senior barrister puts their name to. If something in it is wrong, the senior lawyer can’t then claim that in fact they didn’t write that bit. They either put their name to it or not.

    3. If it is the case that news desks manipulate and/or change the meaning of articles without the input of journalists (and I have no doubt that this happens), then that is a problem not just for the newspaper but also the journalists themselves. By putting them at the centre of the debate – it is after all their name on the byeline – this should encourage exposure and (being optimistic) systemic change.

    4. This strategy works to an extent on this blog as since we have been naming (and shaming) journalists, they journalists have often responded, creating a healthy debate. See e.g.

    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/06/17/immigration-judges-named-and-shamed-by-sunday-telegraph/ (involving the same journalist)

    and

    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/05/22/should-journalists-attend-court-part-2/

    A similar issue arose with this Daily Mail article (http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/12/31/avalanche-daily-mail-on-new-year-dishonour-list-for-dodgy-prisoner-human-rights-article/) – the body text below about the third para is fine, a fairly interesting article about prisoner legal aid. But the title and the first few lines completely changed the message to something which was utter nonsense. I imagine may not have been Jack Doyle’s fault, but his name is on the article so he must bear responsibility.

    Would be interested in your thoughts.

    1. I agree. Name and shame. You can’t hide behind the shield of freedom of the press and not expect to be rumbled when you misreport (for whatever reason) a story that is of high public interest. It doesn’t matter whether the journalist or the editor is at fault. Let the journalist defend the story with his/her byline.

    2. jtownend says:

      I wasn’t suggesting not citing a byline, just making a general point that the attention should be on the issue and the overall treatment (including headline etc.), which should also apply to legal debate and criticism. Interesting practical points – especially about accountability strategies – there is plenty of discussion around ideals for media accountability and transparency, but how is it achieved in practical terms? What makes a publication pay attention and correct the record in an effective way?

      1. Adam Wagner says:

        Gotcha – agree about your general point.

        I’m not an expert on media accountability but I do think that the age of social media has removed many of the old barriers to holding newspapers to account purely through embarrassment. Many times it doesn’t work but I have found that sometimes a number of articles can reach a critical mass or the particular journalist can have a professional/ethical epiphany.

  7. First, my thanks to Adam for alerting me to this judgment on Twitter yesterday afternoon when I was looking for something to write about for the Guardian.

    Secondly, thanks to all concerned for the thoughtful late-night tweets.

    Anya Palmer is right to say that, in a perfect world, judgments delivered when there were no reporters in court would not be reported until copies are available. But it’s not a perfect world.

    It would also be nice to think that both sides in litigation would instruct their lawyers to help reporters. But that rarely happens.

    Adam is right to say that newspapers should correct errors of this kind. But it’s not always the fault of the by-lined journalist when a story is distorted and exaggerated. That’s sometimes the fault of the newsdesk, as I know to my cost.

    If the EAT behaved in the same way as other courts of record and simply handed down copies of its judgments, it would save the judicial time taken by reading out a ruling to an almost empty courtroom. It would also ensure that inaccurate press reports and misleading claims by interested parties are corrected quickly by bloggers and tweeters.

    1. jtownend says:

      “That’s sometimes the fault of the newsdesk,”
      That’s why fullfact’s approach makes sense, I think – playing the ball not the man (fullfact.org/about/background)

    2. Anya Palmer says:

      The EAT gives ex tempore judgments in cases where it feels able to do so. The judgment is recorded and a transcript is made available at a later date. The courtroom may be nearly empty, but the people who really matter are there: the parties involved. In my experience the parties invariably appreciate knowing the result immediately where the court feels able to do this. It enables them to get on with their business and their lives. Once judgment is reserved there is often a wait of several months. Of course in an ideal world that would not be so, but that is the case in my experience.

      I am puzzled by Joshua’s suggestion that other courts of record do things differently. I have had ex tempore judgment in the High Court in an appropriate case, and it was not an urgent case other than that the parties concerned quite understandably wanted to know where they stood. Even the Court of Appeal will give ex tempore judgment in an appropriate case.

      In 12 years practising employment law I am not aware of any other case where the delivery of an ex tempore judgment has given rise to difficulty in terms of a case being misreported. This problem does however arise in the reporting of human rights cases by certain newspapers even where summaries have been issued such as ECHR judgments. To suggest that in all but urgent cases the parties should henceforth have to wait a month or more for written judgment because in one case one party with a campaigning agenda and one newspaper sharing that agenda have misrepresented the judgment in that case seems a little extreme to me.

  8. Anya Palmer says:

    Completely agree with your football analogy, it’s a very good one. Perplexed by “The blame does not lie solely with the Tribunal.” Surely the blame lies with the Telegraph? They seem to have relied on one side only, a campaigning party whose views the Telegraph clearly wishes to promote. If they had checked with the other side, I cannot believe the respondent side would have agreed with the claimant side’s account of this judgment. Moreover as you say, any lawyer with a rudimentary understanding of discrimination law could have told them the claimant side’s account could not be right. So why blame the Appeal Tribunal? It’s one thing to say that judgment summaries might be helpful in future – although that’s debatable, as they have hardly prevented bad reporting of ECHR decisions. But it’s going too far in my opinion to say the Appeal Tribunal is somehow to blame for not doing so already.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Anya – I do think that courts generally have a responsibility to disseminate judgments and prevent misreporting (see my democratic deficit post), but that really is a quite separate issue from the Telegraph article. Perhaps I was being a little charitable.

      If you that analogy, see my spat with the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker who denied he was like a bad football journalist.

      And if you like analogies in poor legal reporting fact check articles generally, see my X-Factor one

  9. jtownend says:

    I think Anya Palmer’s comment on Twitter is an interesting one for discussion: “nothing wrong with ex tempore judgments and if press misreport them press should be held to account and required to give correction” [https://twitter.com/anyapalmer/status/289460163881091072]
    The problem is, as others have identified, is that a. there’s a long wait for the judgment and – if you’re lucky – a summary. By that time, the myth in question has taken root. Additionally, as Adam points out here in the last par, there are issues around media accountability mechanisms. Contemporaneous written summaries and published judgments wouldn’t guarantee accuracy, but they would help – and would allow the public / other writers to check the facts [see approach of FullFact, for example: http://fullfact.org/about/background%5D.

    The other point that I think is really important is one of access. In Joshua Rozenberg’s piece he says “Reporters are unlikely to visit the appeal tribunal’s courtroom for delivery of judgments unless they have been tipped off in advance by one of the parties” [http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jan/10/employment-tribunal-christians-working-sundays?CMP=twt_gu]
    Our patchy public court reporting is partly due to this, in my view: so much mundane information is informally communicated. We would have a much fuller picture, if courts routinely made listings information more accessible and provided a little more information about the cases (eg. the topic).

  10. Many Christians even INSIST on working on Sundays: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/church-sunday/

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 Directive 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 wolves 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: