Trial by Jury, Gay Adoption, Legal Awards Season – The Human Rights Roundup

24 February 2013 by

Christian rights case rulingWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular booster shot 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.

Unsurprisingly, Theresa May’s views on the role of immigration judges sparked much debate this week – yet haven’t stopped the judges making findings that Immigration Rules are unlawful.  The consequences of the dismissal of the Pryce jury are still playing out, while the Strasbourg Court has made an important ruling on discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Keep an eye out on some new events advertised this week, and various updates in the legal blogging world.

by Daniel Isenberg

In the news

Blogs and Awards

Sad news for the world of online legal journalism with the announcement that Guardian Law is to abolish its position of editor and become ‘semi-automated’.  The pill, however, is sweetened with the news that our very own UKHRB has been nominated for the Legal Journalism Award at this year’s Halsbury Legal Awards.  Nominations are also open for the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year, for which information can be found here.

Theresa May v Immigration Judges & Other Immigration News

Following Adam’s UKHRB post last week, the key news item has been the fallout from Theresa May’s public attack on immigration judges in last week’s Mail on Sunday.  T

ObiterJ notes the “major inaccuracies” in Mrs May’s article, particularly that in fact no immigration judge actually considers Article 8 (right to respect for family life) to be an absolute and unqualified right.  The blogger also makes very clear that the Immigration Rules, although voted upon by one chamber in Parliament, do not constitute primary legislation, and accordingly will not be treated by judges as such.

The Free Movement blog raises the possibility that Parliament may, in light of this incident, modify the Human Rights Act, and questions with caution that if foreign criminals become a first exception, who might follow?  The Spectator also nods in the direction of repealing or amending the Human Rights Act, though sets Mrs May’s comments in the current political context of the Eastleigh by-election, “where immigration may play as an issue”.

The Upper Tribunal was, however, seemingly not put off by Theresa May’s views, as displayed by a two-part post on the Ogundimu case relating to the new rules pertaining to Nigeria.  The first points to the UT’s finding that the First Tier Tribunal made a “serious error of law” by finding that “Article 8 was not even engaged.”  The second goes on to explain the Tribunal’s finding that deportation was not a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of preventing crime, given the appellant’s family circumstances.  The Court of Appeal has also found the country guidance for Burma to be flawed, a finding which has essentially reopened all Burmese asylum cases.

Sexual Orientation and Reform at the ECtHR

Paul Johnson briefly summarises the decision of the ECtHR in X and Others v Austria on the ECHRSO blog, before turning his eye to deeper analysis on the ECHR blog.  The Court found that Austrian domestic law did discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to ‘second parent [step-parent] adoptions’, breaching Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR.  Johnson’s view is that the Court’s conclusion and method are consistent with an established line of case law, but he criticises the continued view of the Court that gives states a wide ‘margin of appreciation’ under Article 12 to maintain a “heteronormative” view of marriage.

In a busy week for the ECHR Blog, it also points to the Council of Europe’s new webpage that brings together all the relevant material associated with reform of the ECtHR.  For a digestible background piece, see the Council of Europe’s page on the history of the reforms.  The blog also provides a useful collation of commentary of the Court’s earlier decision in El-Masri.

The Pryce of Trial by Jury

Expect some more on this next week, but the fallout from the dismissal of the jury in the Vicki Pryce case is starting to animate the pens of legal commentators.  Mark Elliott provides some useful background to many of the relevant issues at play, including his own suggestion that perhaps juries ought to be expected to give reasons for their decisions.  Richard Moorhead, however, suggests that we are asking the wrong questions: it is not a matter of whether trial by jury is an appropriate method of dispensing justice, but rather we should focus on how judges direct said jurors. Meanwhile, Joshua Rozenberg and David Allen Green discuss the issue in a joint piece in today’s Observer.

Also in the News

Just a quick blitz through some other items making this week’s headlines, starting with a couple of pieces on children and the law.  David Burrows questions whether those who provide information on alleged abuse ought to be entitled to public interest immunity, with the Supreme Court finding that the right to a fair trial overrides the concomitant right to privacy.  Meanwhile, Family Lore outlines the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in L and B and in J, with links to case summaries.

Finally, some interesting takes on matters of public law: Brodies LLP have undertaken research into judicial review in Scotland, noting in particular the low success rate of applications and relatively steady rate of applications.  Andrew Le Sueur on the UK Constitutional Law Blog observes that the Wikipedia article on the UK constitution is broadly written by non-experts, and invites fellow experts to make contributions as a method of public education.  The UKSC blog provides a useful outline of a speech given by Lord Reed on an ‘insider’s’ view of the Supreme Court, with some fascinating insights into the mechanisms of the Court.  Finally, in light of the government’s decision not to implement aspects of the Equality Act, and to repeal others, Sir Bob Hepple QC indicates the vital role to be played by the Equality and Human Rights Commission with its remaining resources.

In the Courts

X and Others v Austria (Application no. 19010/07) Austrian domestic law preventing same-sex couples carrying out ‘second parent’ adoptions breaches Articles 14 and 8.

Durani v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 284 (Admin) 21 day immigration detention of minor unlawful due to obviously flawed local authority age assessment, rules High Court

Horncastle and Others v United Kingdom (Application no. 4184/10) Horncastle case returns to the ECtHR for questions to parties

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

2 comments


  1. Vertex Law says:

    Congratulations on the nomination.
    Articles like this are incredibly important, as the world of Law is constantly changing, and as such, it’s often difficult for the average joe to keep up. This can lead to people being hesitant in approaching Law firms. Posts like this help to bridge that gap, and help those who need financial advice to approach firms.

    Great writing.

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Congratulations to UK HR Blog on the nomination. Well deserved.

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 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 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 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 Obituary 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality 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 Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence 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 Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine 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: