Sunday Working, Deportation and Judicial Review Reform – The Human Rights Roundup

13 January 2013 by

Taking-Back-Sunday-Lower-Stack-Skinny-T-Shirt-RedWelcome 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.

This week the government’s proposals for judicial review reform came under scrutiny, as did the effect of legal aid cuts on immigration law practice and foreign national prisoners.  It was not only the government on the defensive this week, but The Daily Telegraph has also been criticised for its coverage of a an employment case.  Reform has been on the agenda beyond the sphere of judicial review, with The Economist taking a look at the recent criminalisation of squatting and proposed changes to the probation service.

In the news

Judicial Review reform

Adam Wagner will be collating Judicial Review consultation responses, please email him your or your organisation’s response if you would like it to be included in the roundup. Don’t forget, the consultation closes on 24 January.

by Daniel Isenberg

The Public Law Project (PLP) have raised their concerns at the manner in which the government has presented its proposals for reform of judicial review.  Not only is the PLP concerned about the apparent haste in which these proposals have appeared, but specifically focuses its critical eye on proposed changes to time limits; the proposed abolition of the right to an oral permission hearing in certain cases; the proposed fee for oral renewal hearings; and the potential impact of the proposals on equality.

In a similar vein, Varda Bondy and Maurice Sunkin have challenged the very basis of the government’s claims of a need for change.  They counter the view that there has been a significant increase in the number of judicial review claims, as well as the assertion that judicial review impedes economic growth.  Moreover, their statistical analysis suggests there has not been an “abuse” of the system of judicial review, in the manner intimated by the government.

Sunday Working

With analysis on this blog by Richard Wayman, the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s upholding of a decision that a local authority could sack a care worker who refused to work on Sundays for religious reasons (see ‘In the Courts’ below).  Yet, this item made waves this week, not because of the decision itself, but the manner in which it was reported in The Daily Telegraph here.  Our own Adam Wagner critiqued the Telegraph’s view (read the comments for an interesting discussion on , as did Michael Reed on Working Theory. Solicitor Darren Newman followed suit, stressing this was a “pretty run-of-the-mill indirect discrimination case”.  Some of Mr Newman’s strongest criticism is for what he sees as unfounded claims by The Telegraph that the Tribunal “took it upon itself to judge the importance of Sundays to Christians”.

Joshua Rozenberg, takes this example to make the case for concurrent publication of a written ruling to complement the oral delivery in court, for the sake of accurate public debate, even if this means the litigating parties have to wait a month.  We await with interest the press coverage of the European Court of Human Right’s decisions on four challenges to UK law made by Christian employees due this week.

Deportation and other Immigration News

Two interesting aspects to deportation were reported on this week, the first by Melanie McFadyean in The Guardian.  Ms McFadyean highlights how in April’s round of cuts under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act, there will no longer be legal aid available for foreign national prisoners facing deportation.  In 2010, meanwhile, a third of appeals against such deportations were successful, mainly on grounds under Article 8 of the ECHR (right to family life).  With the law in this area complex, Ms McFadyean argues that many potentially successful appellants will be left without an avenue to a well-argued appeal under the cuts.

Commenting on the case of Essa in the Upper Tribunal, the UK Immigration Law Blog notes that cases are especially interesting when a potential deportee is a citizen of the EU: in these circumstances, not only with the courts adopt a proportionality test under Article 8 of the ECHR, but also an EU “dimension to proportionality”.  This extra examination relates to an assessment whether deportation would affect the likelihood of rehabilitation from offending in the host country.

Elsewhere in the immigration law news, the UK Border Agency have issued a statement that they will be writing to overseas students at the London Metropolitan University to inform them whether they will be able to continue their studies to the end of this academic year – the University had its UKBA sponsor licence revoked last year and is currently challenging the decision in the courts.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Davidson reports that law firms with a strong focus on asylum and immigration work will be heavily hit by the latest round of legal aid cuts: under the latest tendering process, less than a third of the casework bid for was made available to firms.

Reform, Reform, Reform

In September of last year squatting became a criminal offence, and The Economist reports not only the impact of the legislation on squatters, but also the likelihood that the law may expand further, based on the view that a criminal record is greater deterrent than eviction.  The same publication views that criminal justice reform may be considered the government’s most radical accomplishment by the time of the next general election; including an overhaul of the probation service.

Also in the News

A couple of interesting pieces this week in the field of information law: ObiterJ has picked up on a ‘Freedom of Information’ request made by Miguel Cubells to the Greater Manchester Police regarding an investigation into his mother’s death.  The Information Commissioner has upheld the police’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) response to Mr Cubells and it appears there may be a confidential annexe relevant to this decision, which has been requested by the First Tier Tribunal. Inforrm also provide some commentary on the ECtHR’s decision in Yildrim v Turkey, noting that it was unsurprising the court found a blanket ban on access to Google sites to be in violation of Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression).

There are some interesting recent publications by the Ministry of Justice, including its ‘Digital Strategy’ and guide for self-represented litigants, which is likely to be more necessary than ever as April’s cuts approach.

Lucy Reed on LegalCheek discusses her serendipitous path to the family law bar – a must read for those setting off down this route; and the BBC has highlighted an interesting case to follow, in which Rutland County Council is seeking an injunction against three of its councillors for alleged harassment.

In the courts

Mba v London Borough Of Merton (Religion or Belief Discrimination) [2012] UKEAT 0332/12/1312 – Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that there was no discrimination in this specific case, when an employer insisted that a religious Christian employee work on Sundays.

Bristol City Council v C & Ors [2012] EWHC 3748 (Fam) – High Court grants a reporting restriction arising out of care proceedings.

Claes v Belgium – 43418/09 – HEJUD [2013] ECHR 34 (French text) – ECtHR holds that the treatment of the mentally disabled in Belgian prisons is “inadequate”.  See also summary here.

Upcoming Events

To add events to this list, email Adam Wagner. Please only send events which (i) have their own webpage which can be linked to, and (ii) are relevant to topics covered by the blog.

UKHRB posts

1 comment;

  1. John D says:

    My one conclusion after an admittedly cursory examination of the paper on proposed changes to the process and procedure for applying for judicial review is that it is mis-targeted in that it is apparent that most of the increases in applications relate to immigration-related cases. This is no reason for reducing the time available to make an application for a judicial review, nor is it any basis for making such applications more expensive.
    Your further item above on the withdrawal of legal aid for immigration-related cases makes it apparent that the real target behind these government proposals is to diminish the opportunities for challenges to immigration decisions to be mounted.
    I do not want to be drawn into a debate on the varying aspects of immigration rules and procedures – though I suspect we will all be the poorer in terms of all our human rights if the government succeeds in reducing the ability of immigration lawyers to act on behalf of their clients – but I do strongly feel that the measures being proposed to reduce the ability of individuals – in particular – to challenge large corporate bodies through the process of applying for judicial review is something that should be strongly resisted.
    Reducing access to judicial review is anti-democratic and specifically designed to weaken the ability of ordinary individuals to challenge over-mighty bodies of all types in the private and public sectors. Do please put forward strong objections to the proposed changes to judicial review – for all our freedoms and liberties.

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 costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy 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 hague convention 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 refugee 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: