New Judges, Secret Trials and Pulling Out of European Human Rights – The Human Rights Roundup

3 March 2013 by

Christian rights case rulingWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular smorgasbord 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 saw three new appointments to the UK Supreme Court, which has in turn prompted discussion of equality and diversity within the senior judiciary (unsurprisingly, all three of them are white, male and “of a certain age”), as well as Conservative warnings over withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights.

In the news

Essay Competition

The UK Supreme Court Blog has launched its 2013 essay competition – so all those interested, sharpen your pencils and head over to the UKSC Blog website where the details of the competition can be found.

Equality in the Judiciary

This Tuesday, President of the Supreme Court Lord Neuberger announced the three appointments to the Court: Lord Justice Hughes, Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Hodge. See also here for detailed bios on the three judges, and this post by Joshua Rozenberg, that also touches on on those judges that missed out. Adam Wagner has described this as an “attack of the clones” in his post on the subject, referencing the fact that the composition of the court remains unchanged in terms of gender balance, ethnicity and age bracket. And, as Adam pointed out, we aren’t likely to find out why the new members of the Supreme Court are, in this highly reductive sense, “clones”, as the selection process is so opaque. Finally, Lady Hale (the only female Supreme Court judge) delivered the Kuttan Menon memorial speech on the subject of judicial diversity – see here for the transcript.

Secret civil trials

For an excellent, up to date post, see Everything you need to know about the secret trials coming to a courtroom near you – Angela Patrick.

As the Justice and Security Bill edges ever closer to enactment, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its second report into the Bill. Seemingly, whenever anyone not currently in Government looks at the Bill, they find a wealth of problems to point out, and this time is no different. Not only has the JCHR proposed numerous amendments, the special advocates (lawyers charged with arguing cases in the current secret justice system we have in the UK) have submitted a memorandum to the JCHR, in which they state that there is “no compelling justification for the proposals in Part 2 of the Bill has been made out, notwithstanding the Government’s assertions to the contrary“. The Daily Mail has also run an article highlighting this disapproval of the Bill among lawyers. See also Adam Wagner’s post on the subject.

Repeal the HRA?

Today’s Mail on Sunday reports that the Home Secretary is to announce “soon” that the Conservative Party’s 2015 election manifesto will include a pledge to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights if the party obtains an overall majority. Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling says that the Conservatives will repeal the Human Rights Act and will not rule out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights itself.

For some good early coverage, see

Meanwhile, for a preview of what repealing the HRA might look like, the Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill was a Private Members Bill promoted by Charlie Elphicke MP and, as its name suggests, it proposes the repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a UK Bill of Rights (and Responsibilities). As Mark Elliot points out in his post (briefly) analysing this Bill, it is unlikely to go very much further but serves as a depressing reminder of the esteem in which the ECHR is held by many politicians, and should be seen as a sign that universal human rights advocates need to argue their case far more strongly. For a stirring defence of the HRA, see from 10:40 on the video of the debate.

The Tweeter’s Guide to Media Law

Contempt of court and libel law were never really prepared for such a thing as online social media – but users of social media should certainly be aware of how those laws can affect them, in the wake of prosecutions for facetious bomb threats and examples of what not to do when undertaking jury service. BBC News has published a comprehensive guide to tweeting one’s way around the legal minefields, including short summaries of past cases and any known future changes to the relevant law.

In Other News

Some interesting individual stories this week:

  • Russian punk band Pussy Riot is heading to Strasbourg to claim violations of ECHR rights by Russia in arresting and sentencing them after their notorious “gig” in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow – see this article for an analysis of their chances of success;
  • David Mead has written an interesting post in which he explores the impact of “conceptualisation” (the way in which an idea is framed altering how it is perceived, and therefore its meaning) on human rights cases.

In the Courts

Omar & Ors, R (on the applicatiom of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2013] EWCA Civ 118 Court of Appeal confirms common law can’t be used to obtain evidence from Foreign Secretary for use in a foreign court.

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

by Sam Murrant

2 comments


  1. Tim says:

    That picture of Grayling reminds me of Aleister Crowley. But Grayling is really frightening.

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 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: