What would happen if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights?

3 March 2013 by

BEYQacNCQAAi9rA.jpg-largeToday’s Mail on Sunday reports that the Home Secretary is to announce “soon” that the Conservative Party’s election manifesto for 2015 will include a pledge to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights if the party obtains an overall majority.

I thought it would be useful to answer a few basic questions about what this would might mean for the UK. Bizarrely, the article appears alongside the Prime Minister’s opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph promising that his party would not “veer right” and also “stick to the course we are on“. Talk about mixed messages. Anyway, let’s concentrate on Strasbourg. For a basic introduction to the Court and what it does, see my recent post: No, The Sun, the Human Rights Act is not the EU and David Hart QC’s A bluffer’s guide to human rights courts.

Is this new?

The short answer is yes. If the Conservative Party does announce a policy to withdraw from the Strasbourg court, that will be something new. But a qualification: I am a little hesitant about responding to the phoney war-type Sunday Mail and Telegraph articles. It has become something of a Saturday night ritual (if you like that kind of thing) for Twitter to explode in outrage over some new human rights “pledge” from a Conservative Minister which won’t even begin to effect us until 2015, and only if the Conservatives win an overall majority.

But although the Conservative Party has long argued for the repeal of the Human Rights Act (including Chris Grayling yesterday), and intimated that it may investigate the ‘nuclear’ option of withdrawing from the Strasbourg court, promising to withdraw from the Court represents a new direction.

Will leaving Strasbourg stop the courts preventing the removal of foreign criminals?

No. There are three main reasons for this.

First, the European Court of Human Rights only decides a fraction of the UK’s human rights cases per year – around ten. Only a handful of those are about foreign criminals or immigration – you can see the full list from page 16 of this Ministry of Justice document.

Indeed, the vast majority of human cases – including those involving immigration and extradition – are decided by our own courts. For proof, see the Mail on Sunday’s own ‘SCARY BLACK BOX OF SHAME’, that is the cuttings of previous headlines about courts stopping removals. None of the cases mentioned is a European Court of Human Rights case. They all relate to decisions by UK courts. The Human Rights Act 1998 gave local UK courts the power to enforce most of the European Convention on Human Rights. The idea was to ‘bring rights home’ and stop our rights law being forged exclusively in Strasbourg. That is what has happened, meaning that UK judges are largely deciding UK human rights issues.

If we withdrew from the Strasbourg court tomorrow, domestic courts would still carry on applying human rights law and taking account of (not following) decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, they are obliged to do by section 2 of the Human Rights Act. Of course, a Conservative may repeal the Human Rights Act too, but all indications are that this would be replaced by some kind of Bill of Rights which is likely to be similar to the ECHR but with a British twist. Indeed, the Mail reports that

The provisions of the European convention are already enshrined in British law in the Human Rights Act – but under Mrs May’s plan, the final right of appeal would be to the British Supreme Court, not Strasbourg.

Second, the European Convention on Human Rights is only one of a number of international conventions and EU (yes, those guys) rules which stop the UK from doing things like sending people back their home countries where they would face a real risk of torture or doing things which disproportionately affect children (even the children of foreign criminals). Withdrawing from Strasbourg would do little or nothing to untangle that web. Nor would we want to untangle it. I would be surprised if even staunch Daily Mail readers would be willing to withdraw from international conventions which outlaw torture or protect children, if given a well-informed choice.

Just as importantly, the EU is itself about to become a party to the European Convention, which means individuals may be able to bypass Strasbourg altogether and bring cases to Luxembourg (where the EU’s court, the ECJ is housed) instead – see this post for more.

The Mail on Sunday has again provided excellent evidence of this: the story below the main one, New outrage as Taliban suspect told he can stay, which begins “In a new human rights case to cause anger”, is not about a human rights case at all, but about the EU Refugee Qualification Directive – you can read the case report here. If we were to expunge all traces of the European Convention on Human Rights from our law, that Directive would still apply.

Third, if we did leave the Strasbourg court and the Supreme Court had the final say on human rights, don’t expect those judges to be charitable to the Government when it comes to interpreting basic rights, and particularly if they know that the right of individual petition to the Strasbourg court – a safety net in the current system – had been removed. Home Secretaries have felt unduly constrained by international agreements long before the Human Rights Act – see this cracking 25-year-old – judgment – but that doesn’t mean we should let Home Secretaries dictate which agreement we remain party to.

It is important to understand is that domestic courts are not bound to follow the European Court of Human Rights now, but judges take the view that if there is a principle arising from a consistent line of cases in the Strasbourg court and there is no particular conflict with UK law, they will follow it.

Our own common law has become bound up with and highly influenced by the case law of the European Court (following the case of Ullah, UK courts to do “no more” than Strasbourg “but certainly no less“). Judges don’t generally consider the Strasbourg court to be as barmy as some politicians would have us believe, and there is absolutely no indication at all that withdrawal from Strasbourg would alter this situation a great deal if at all: for more on the fusion of our common law and ECHR rights, see Dr Mark Elliott’s post as well as this on what our Supreme Court judges think would happen if the HRA were repealed.

What would happen to the UK internationally if it withdrew?

This is a bit of an unknown. It is a testament to how much of an outlier the UK would become if it withdrew from the Court’s jurisdiction that we don’t really know what the legal and political effects would be. Legally, the UK would probably have to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights – a treaty – completely since the court is so integral to the Convention system, as well as the Council of Europe, which it was instrumental in creating. States’ adherence to the ECHR has also become a central tenet of membership to other organisations such as the UN and the EU – see this article for more.

The UK would probably not become a ‘pariah’ as some claim, but that is a bit of a false argument. The test for whether the UK makes big international moves should not be whether we would become a pariah, but whether, on balance, it would be good for the UK.

Politically, the UK would be sending a clear signal to states which lose far more cases in Strasbourg, such as Russia and Turkey, that it no longer had confidence in the ECHR system. Whether you think that is a bad thing probably depends on your underlying theory of international relations and whether you think international institutions work in regulating the behaviour of states. In my view, you would have to be a very hard ‘realist‘ indeed to think that a UK withdrawal – particularly for arguably local political reasons such as in this case – would be a net positive for international human rights. I wonder what the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which promotes international human rights, would say.

Don’t play politics

There are many other dimensions to this debate which I have not covered, such as the irony of the Conservative party, whose lawyers were instrumental in drafting the ECHR in the first place and which traditionally has stood up for individual rights against the overweening state, could be the party which causes its eventual decline. Devolution also casts a long shadow over this debate. As the Bill of Rights Commission eventually figured out, the London Parliament’s options may be limited whilst issues surrounding Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales remain unresolved.

Any justification for leaving must be balanced against the very significant signal which the UK would be sending to other states, that it has lost confidence in the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, leaving Strasbourg would arguably leave individuals in the UK in a weaker position against the state if their rights are breached.

With this in mind, the key question is whether withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights will solve the problems which the Conservative party – and particularly the Mail and the Telegraph – have identified.

The answer is ‘no’. Withdrawal from Strasbourg is unlikely to make it easier to send foreign criminals back to their home states, particularly if they are facing torture or if their children are going to be unduly affected. Given that is the case, the stated justification for withdrawal falls away. What is left? That is ultimately for the electorate to decide, but an inchoate fear of European influence, an obsession with the expulsion of foreigners and the rise of UKIP, are certainly good candidates.

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

Related posts:


  1. […] to my surprise, as a Blairite civil illibertarian Eurosceptic, I don’t agree with it. Adam Wagner, who knows more about this stuff than I do, explains it […]

  2. […] response, Mark Elliott, Conor Gearty and Adam Wagner wrote that these proposals might not have the effect that many people assume they would. Some of […]

  3. I Paint Houses says:

    I don’t like the implication that human rights is somehow a leftist ideal only. In modern times, the left has done its best to try to erode free expression, our most valuable human right.

  4. Jan Cosgrove says:

    The problem with such a pronouncement lies in Article 58 of the Convention, or how to leave:

    ARTICLE 58
    1. A High Contracting Party may denounce the present Convention only after the expiry of five years from the date on which it became a party to it and after six months’ notice contained
    in a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who shall inform the other High Contracting Parties. 2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under this Convention in respect of any act which, being capable of constituting a violation of such obligations, may have been performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became effective. 3. Any High Contracting Party which shall cease to be a member of the Council of Europe shall cease to be a Party to this Convention under the same conditions.

    Oh dear!. This means that the Court will still have jurisdiction over many issues for a long time to come. Let us suppose the Tories (with UKIP?) gain a majority or coalition, and denounce the ECHR, say in 2016 ….. So any case from 1950 to that date will get to the Court and the UK will have no say in the matter. So, the long shadow of the Court and the Convention would loom over a powerless UK, and how long might that be an issue – 10 years, 20, 30 …. It would be interesting to speculate the lesser issue, of repeal of the HRA 1998 even – what would our Courts do in such a situation? or even more, in an A58 situation?

    One also turns to the Article the HRA1998 did NOT incorporate – A13, unlucky for some perhaps because it is the subsidiarity clause which requires us to set up domestic tribunals to consider breaches of ECHR rights. Why was it not incorporated along with A1-12 and 14? Probably the self-same reason we did not incorporate until 1998 – the supremacy of Parliament argument. The alternative mechanism is that if a UK judge makes a judgment but believes the law on which this has to be based breaches one of those 13 rights, s/he can issue a Declaration of Incompatibility which goes to the Minister responsible who must place it before Parliament which in its wisdom will decide what, if anything, to do about the matter. [Has one ever been issued since the HRA?] So, the easiest route would be for the UK to implement A13 which would mean even less cases going to Strasbourg. Shimple really.

  5. Mactheknife says:

    As a member of the public and defintely not a bed wetting liberal as most on here seem to be, the problem I have is that it appears the judiciary do everything possible to circumvent the government and public wishes by interpreting the HR laws with a bias towards the right to a family life trumping everything else. The case of the Iraqi criminal a couple of years ago who ran over a school girl killing her and then fleeing the scene proves it. Just because he subsequently marries a UK women gives him a get out of jail card free according to the old leftie judge.

    It’s little wonder that people get hot under the collar. But I guess it’s no big deal for you guys when you chat about it at your Hampstead dinner parties.

  6. Gavin Steele says:

    What ELSE would happen if the UK left the European Court of Human Rights? Lifting our gaze from our navel just a little, I’ll tell you what:

    – a 60-year-old system of human rights protection covering 800 million Europeans – mainly in countries where the rule of law is weak and it is desperately needed – would be fatally undermined;

    – countries such as Russia or Azerbaijan would be encouraged to ditch the Court as well, depriving millions of a “last hope of justice” and removing one of the few effective outside “checks” on how they treat their citizens;

    – British politicians’ declarations of the need to uphold “fairness and justice abroad” would be revealed to be so much empty rhetoric;

    – the UK’s long-term security would be deeply damaged since it would effectively mark an end to serious British efforts to help make Europe more stable, more well-governed and more democratic;

    – it would suggest that the tragic lessons of the Holocaust and the other horrors of the second world war – which drove Sir Winston Churchill and other post-war statesmen to create this system in the first place – are starting to be forgotten, a chilling sign for the future…

    Nice one, Theresa.

  7. SC says:

    “For proof, see the Mail on Sunday’s …..” “The Mail on Sunday has again provided excellent evidence of this”
    And then truth and knowledge simultaneously face-palmed.

  8. busybeebuzz says:

    Perhaps the reason why so many Conservative MPs are against the human rights legislation is because they are grossly unfamiliar with it. During the 2nd reading of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill on 1 Mar 2013 Conservative MP David Mowat MP unwittingly revealed that he had never heard of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
    David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): My hon. Friend is giving an eloquent defence but the logic of his position seems to be that we should not have a European convention on human rights or a Court, but rather a world convention. Is that his position?
    Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con): That is a telling intervention. The answer is that we have signed and ought to respect and uphold the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. It exists; we are signatories to it.

    I haven’t had such a good laugh at a Conservative MP since CATGATE.

  9. Waldron-fan says:

    Not sure about the vague claim about other treaties – what other treaty would really enable a UK judge to override a UK statute clarifying the right not to be tortured (fair enough EU law on refugees poses a problem, but the issue is starkest in non-refugee cases)?
    We might not want to allow the UK government totorture, or to arrange or promote torture by other governments. But how does that add up to justifying a claim that the electorate are unfit to decide whether the right should be stretched to override normal deportation to the person’s own country on the basis that they might be tried there by their own courts in a trial that might allow evidence that might have been obtained by some other government by torture of someone else (somewhere else, at some other time)?
    You don’t have to be a Conservative, or any species of right-wing little Englander, to believe that this scope point ought ultimately to be for a Parliament to decide, or that ECHR is defective in allowing ECtHR to decide where the boundary of its powers lies without any possibility of any Parliament coming back to clarify the intention. If we cannot get the Council of Europe to fix this, then is there really anything so wrong with looking at leaving and setting up our own version – in which Parliament sets down the principles behind the protection against torture, and can then come back to legislate again if judges extend the principles too far?
    The more the pro-lobby dig in to claim that only ECHR plus HRA can deliver, the more the debate polarises, with the risk of pushing frustrated voters into the arms of a Tory-UKIP coalition. What about some constructive debate among non-Mail-readers where we can admit that there is nothing currently in the ECHR-HRA mechanism to stop ECtHR/UK judges expanding rights excessively and that some elected body ought to be able to legislate to rein it in – then we can discuss whether that is feasible at a Council of Europe level, whether mechanisms can be set up to allow member Parliaments that role, or whether an individual country has to leave if it wants that role for its Parliament.

  10. I think speaking of the impact internationally, one also needs to consider that UK is a part of the EU, and there are constant attempts by the EC to ensure a harmonization of laws in the EU zone. True most of them focus on issues particularly related to trade and the free flow of goods and services, but I don’t think one can completely ignore the impact that a step like that would have on EU harmony. A majority of Europe looks to the UK as an example. And a step like this would just add to the unrest thats already being exacerbated by the Greek debt crisis and the generally slow recovery from the recession.

    Also its a good point to note, as you mentioned, that just because UK may withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECHR doesn’t change the law that UK has to enforce – The Human Rights Act already transposes the provisions of the Convention. So the Conservative argument then is what? Not that they don’t want to follow the same laws, but they only want National courts to interpret them? I again go back to my EU point – how then is this different from the functioning of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly known as the European Court of Justice) whose decisions are supposed to binding, or at least strictly guide National Courts in interpreting the Directives passed by the European Commission.

  11. X says:

    20 years on and the Late Lord Bingham is still spot on the money here:


    1. Novanglus says:

      Yes, though one has to smile at (or lament): ‘whatever their theoretical status constitutional measures of this kind are in practice regarded as enjoying a peculiar sanctity buttressed by overwhelming public support. If incorporated, the Convention would take its place at the head of this favoured list’

  12. Novanglus says:

    A slight confusion: this article says the HRA would remain in force were the UK to withdraw, and that Convention rights would thus continue to be substantially in force given that domestic courts make most Convention decisions. However, it later says that leaving the ECtHR would likely entail leaving the ECHR itself. In these circumstances, would the HRA continue to have legal effect? It would be bizarre to be in a situation where domestic courts were obliged to apply the case-law and articles of a court and convention with which the UK was no longer associated.

    In these circumstances, as the article hints, would a ‘British bill of rights’ not be the inevitable outcome? And given the reactionary agenda underlying this push, is it not likely that such a bill would specifically exclude protection for ‘foreign criminals’ and the like? There seems a danger here that the EU’s tangential rights protection and various weak international agreements are left to enforce unpopular rights.

    1. Alex says:

      The HRA was a method of implementing the provisions within the ECHR into our domestic law. Leaving the ECHR/ECtHR wouldn’t have an effect on this, as the HRA is an entirely separate legal document. Plus, the HRA has become an intrinsic part of our legal system, so removing it purely because we no longer wished to associated ourselves with the European HR jurisdiction is very unlikely.

      At least, that’s what I believe to be the case – if anyone has a definite answer please say!

      1. Novanglus says:

        Thanks for your comment, Alex – I’m not sure it’s quite that clear, though. The Act is drafted on the assumption the UK is signed up, so the position is indeed hard to discern. I’d start with the same assumption you do, but two things push the other way – firstly, s1(5)(a) allows only ratified protocols to be invoked. If Britain left the ECHR, which protocols would apply? Those in force upon leaving? A similar question applies to derogations under s14(1). At the least, these parts of the HRA would have to be amended, at which point the temptation to completely decouple it from the Convention may become, in light of other Tory soundings about its abolition, irresistible. Secondly, as I said above, is it possible for a country to be bound by national law to a charter they have rejected under international law?

        As you say, though, we need a public international lawyer to answer this properly!

        1. jon says:

          “is it possible for a country to be bound by national law to a charter they have rejected under international law?” Although the details would remain to be worked out, wouldn’t it be simply a matter of a) judicial interpretation of Parliament’s subsisting intentions, and b) judicial comity, within the parameters of (a)?

          1. Jan Cosgrove says:

            See A58 of the Convention. Yes, we would be bound on any matters up to the date of denunciation.

  13. kafur says:

    We need to cOMPLETELY remove ourselves from European Membership, and become the “Common Market” we forst signed up to.

  14. The worst thing about this entire situation is that the three main cases of justification remain Hamza, Qatada and prisoner voting rights along with a handful of misreported propaganda pieces in the media that as pointed out in this article often have very little to do with the European Court of Human Rights. These negatives remain however a handful of trifles against an ocean of good positive work that the convention and the HRA are used for within the UK, and out of those three trifles, Hamza is long gone having been sent to the states, Qatada remains because of government incompetence (the Tories granted him asylum in the first place many moons ago in order to pump him for information yet seem to forget that when it comes to showing face for the electorate, and everytime they try to get rid of him they cock it up usually blaming it on judges and courts) and the prisoner voting issue which could have been dealt with easily in a way that could meet the requirements of ECHR obligations without having become the political football that it has. Meanwhile for the sake of a few votes the government are willing to use a mere handful of negative cases to justify expunging decades of positive law and disenfranchise millions who would likely sleepwalk into the governments hands on a diet of daily hate and sun rhetoric as those pamphlets push their own agendas usually in direct conflict with the interests of the country.

    1. I take it you’ve heard of the Cadder case? A couple of hundred prosecutions had to be dropped, numerous appeals were raised and convictions quashed, because the UKSC decided it ‘had to’ follow strasbourg jurisprudence on the right of an accused to have a lawyer present when being interviewed by the police. So no, the examples you give are not the best reasons to leave the ECHR, disasters like the Cadder case -which effectively overturned centuries of Scottish jurisprudence- are. Frankly though its probably not enough, you’d also need a wave of new judges who aren’t used to following and accepting Strasbourg jurisprudence otherwise it will still be considered ‘highly persuasive’ or some such nonsense. The only reason Scots politicians and some lawyers are so Pro-ECHR now is because they effectively had to re-write their whole justice system to fit round it and don’t want it all to be for nothing. Sadly they miss the point, namely that the ECHR like EU courts will constantly move the goalposts so that what was previously ‘acceptable’ becomes unacceptable and not in a very long period of time either, whatever happened to legal certainty? Or is that principle only applied when it supports Human Rights campaigners?

  15. James says:

    By taking a pedantically narrow view on this, you rather confirm the fundamental complaint. It’s the suggestion that judges carry on regardless of the wishes expressed by Parliament that is at the crux of this.
    If after withdrawing from the Court, or the Convention, or whatever other treaties are active in the area, judges decided to ignore the expressed will of elected representatives then we would have a very broken democracy indeed.
    The basic complaint is that judges are making law and not following it, and that the widely-drawn language of human rights frameworks enables this. To imply politicians can’t do anything and that judges know best plays directly in to this.
    The EHCR and other mechanisms are to our benefit because they protect us both in the UK and abroad; raising standards for all is in our self-interest. That’s the argument that wins over the Mail.

    1. Eejit says:

      Yet don’t the themselves politicians ignore the expressed will of the electorate directly on occasion?

      How about the Iraq War? Some of the largest mass protests against it in British history, low support in opinion polls despite lies from the government and also deemed illegal by the Attorney General (originally).

      I might agree with you if our elected representatives fulfilled a much higher standard of representing the electorate than they do now.

      Personally I consider the judiciary far more prudent (and honest) than parliament. I’m perfectly fine with the high courts reigning in government excesses. Maybe it isn’t part of our unwritten constitution but it certainly ought to be.

  16. Tom (iow) says:

    Scrapping the Human Rights Act would also not have any effect on EU law rights, such as those arising from the Zambrano case. There is undoubtedly a very poor public understanding of the difference, and if the Tories raise people’s expectations too much and don’t deliver, it’s unlikely to make them very popular.

  17. jon says:

    I’d add I’m not sure whether Grayling and May are themselves the best case in themselves for the total unfettering of an already overweeningly majoritarian parliamentary system!!

  18. clslkdsd says:

    if you’re a foreigner in this country, the first thing you have to do is respect our laws. If not, go back home !!!!!
    What a shame for this country, we can’t do what we want. Who cares about criminals, are they going to be persecuted in their countries ? Who care ? they had a chance, they missed it. What can happened after with them, it’s their problem first, not ours.

    1. Martin says:

      So being a UK born citizen, I’m free to break them? Fantastic, thanks.

    2. Jeff says:

      Are we judging being foreign based on native language skills? Because you sir, sound like a complete illegal…hand in your passport, that’s right P A S S P O R T

  19. Joe says:

    Given that the Scottish legal system has always been apart from England & Wales and that the EU convention on human rights was written into the rules governing the founding of the modern Holyrood parliament just how feasible is it for any right wing zealot at Westminster to withdraw ‘the UK’ from such legislation? I’d have thought it would be hard for London government to force such a move onto Scots law, which would lead to an even more ridiculous situation.

    1. Thomcheney says:

      Perhaps it’s an indication that the Conservative leadership believe that Scotland will go independent in the referendum

  20. Joe Thorpe says:

    Its time we used one of our own islands that are dotted around the globe as a Guantanamo the best option would be a prison on Ascension Island which is in the middle of nowhere & even more inaccessible

    1. Other than the fact that this seems like something only Ming the Merciless of George Bush Jnr would envision, I am sure that the good people of Ascension would have plenty to say about their island becoming a notorious concentration camp.

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.




#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 Coercive and controlling behaviour 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


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: