Strasbourg Controversies, Deportation Amendments and Secret Court fallouts – The Human Rights Roundup

17 March 2013 by

Christian rights case ruling

Please welcome our new rounder upper, Sarina Kidd, a student on the GDL course at City University. Sarina joins Daniel Isenberg (our other rounder upper) and replaces Sam Murrant, who has moved on to pastures new after producing a fantastic run of human rights roundups. We wish him all the best and welcome Sarina on to the team – Adam Wagner

Welcome 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.

In the News

The Human Rights Act and Strasbourg

The debate continues over the suggestion that a future Conservative government would repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention.

Earlier this week Lady Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge, warned that her fellow judges would ‘regret’ a decision to repeal the HRA and that such a repeal would allow Parliament to pass laws incompatible with the ECHR.

She then addressed the suggestion by the Home Secretary that the UK should pull out of the human rights convention. Hale said such a move would mean the UK would have to also leave the European Institutions, including the Council of Europe and the EU but that it was up to the politicians to decide whether the repercussions justified getting rid ‘of certain unpopular foreigners.’

Deportation Appeals

The proposed amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill has been designed to prevent further appeals against deportation from most ‘foreign criminals’.

Adam Wagner discusses the amendment that if passed means foreign criminals will no longer be able to use Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect one’s private and family life) to prevent deportation. Therefore, only Articles 2 and 3 (the right to life and the right not to suffer torture/inhuman/degrading treatment) will be used in appeals, and deportation will occur even if Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) has been breached.

Mark Elliot suggests that ‘the most the courts would be able to do, therefore, would be to make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA’. Therefore, the main threat to the amendment will come from an application to Strasbourg where it is likely to be found to be in breach of international law. This will lead to debate over the merits of leaving the Convention entirely, and he notes that such a showdown would be a useful focal point for those who wish to do so.

ObiterJ observes that the amendment will produce some very disproportionate results, and laments how the ‘right-wing media seems to be the political order of the day’.

Meanwhile, according to the Telegraph, the infighting in the Conservative Party over human rights continues.

The Abu Qatada Effect

Indeed, there has been much comment recently on the media’s portrayal of the HRA and the ECHR. Natalie Samarasinghe, of  the United Nations Association of the UK, writing in the Guardian, condemns scare stories and how the ‘Abu Qatada effect’ has damaged public perceptions of the Act. She points out the double standards of the media, comparing the backlash to the decision of Abu Qatada to the more positive spin presented over Garry McKinnon’s extradition of the US on hacking charges.

The blog, Fleet Street Fox, weighing in on the debate of ‘universal human rights vs human rights for those who deserve it’, states, ‘if you start saying who can and can’t have them you are on a slippery slope back to the days before we had the Magna Carta’

The Secret Court Saga

The Justice and Security Bill continues to be divisive. If passed, British judges will preside over civil claims in which one party will not be privy to the evidence on which the opposing party relies.

Last week, only 7 of 57 Lib Dem MPs went against the coalition government when voting on Labour amendments. This has led to three high profile departures from the Liberal Democrat party: Dina Rose QC, Jo Shaw and now Philippe Sands QC. Sands, in an article for the Guardian stated that the Bill, ‘is wrong in principle, and will not deliver justice… [it] threatens greater corrosion of the rights of the individual in the UK, in the name of ‘national security’’.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, commented on his departure, ‘When do you start listening to your conscience if not when it is echoed by the best and cleverest members of your own family?’

Prisoner votes in Scotland

The Scottish Government’s proposed Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill has met criticism over Section 3 which would allow Holyrood not to enfranchise prisoners for the referendum in 2014.

Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention and the European Court in Hirst v the United Kingdom hold that a blanket ban on prisoners voting is incompatible with the Convention. However, the European Court has held in the past that the language excludes referendums,

Andrew Tickell questions whether ‘a referendum on self-determination is not as other referendums, and accordingly, the principles of enfranchisement articulated in Hirst ought to apply’. Further, Paul Reid notes the bizarre situation in which a person has a fundamental human right to vote in an election of the Scottish Parliament but has no say in deciding the possible independence of Scotland.

He continues that it lacks proportionality, ‘that interferes with the free expression of the opinion of the people’ and s3 may have the unfortunate effect of ‘questioning the legality of the enabling legislation and distracting from ‘the substance of the independence debate’’.

Privacy and Data Protection developments

Over at 11KBW’s Panopticon Blog, Robin Hopkins discusses how privacy and data protection are being brought up to date with technological developments.

Indeed, Directive 95/46/EC was designed in a pre-digital climate and in the UK, the Data Protection Act 1998 has ‘historically lacked teeth’.

All of this is changing, however, and the article discusses the draft Data Protection Regulation in EU, how UK data protection will be affected by the Defamation Bill, the ICO’s use of its enforcement and monetary penalty powers and legal developments with regard to Google and Facebook over a number of issues such as ‘the right to be forgotten’.

Extremism Database

In what has been lauded as a ‘landmark case’, peaceful political campaigner, John Catt, has won a legal battle to have his details removed from a police extremism database. Mr. Catt claimed a right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR and Lord Justice Moore-Bick determined that whilst the databases can be justified if serving public interest, in Mr. Catt’s case it was not justified. The BBC report that unless the police appeal against the judgment, and are successful, ‘they will have to weed from the database the details of hundreds, possibly thousands, of other campaigners or risk further legal challenges.’

Case Comments

The recent ruling in Hounga v Allen determined that under the doctrine of illegality, workers who have no legal right to work in the UK are deprived of all fundamental labour rights. Anjoli Maheswaran discusses how undocumented workers are often in vulnerable positions, and ‘such a ruling will only entrench this vulnerability’.

Also in the News

The ECHR has ruled that a political activist’s conviction for insulting the French president was a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). The activist had waved a placard that read, ‘Get lost, you sad prick’, a phrase originally uttered by the president himself. The Court held that such a conviction would have a chilling effect on ‘satirical contributions to discussion of matters of public interest’, a key freedom in a democratic society.

Elsewhere, the Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC has called for police officers to have a greater role in charging and prosecuting uncontested and low-level offences. Currently in talks with the home secretary and the justice secretary, this change would allow the CPS to direct more resources towards focusing on more serious crimes. He emphasised, however, that an independent prosecution service remains vital.

HeadofLegal has published the ‘extraordinary bail conditions’ of Abu Qatada.

For those wishing to peruse the ECHR further, the case-law factsheets of the Court have been updated and extended.

 In the Courts

Z, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 498 (Admin) (12 March 2013) Judicial Review challenge to control and restraint used when on board aircraft to facilitate removal from the UK fails. Policy did not breach Article 3/2 and there are legitimate policy reasons to not publicise certain parts of the document

Buckley & Ors, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 512 (Admin) (13 March 2013)Judicial review against increase of council tax liability for poor residents fails in High Court

Catt, R (on the application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 192 (14 March 2013) Retention on national database of information by police in relation to (1) protester not convicted of any crime and (2) warning letter re racial harassment sent to woman breached their Article 8 rights: “unnecessary, disproportionate & unjustifiable”

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. big thanks and Welcome sarina & Sam , I have been watching and following human right in the uk since 9/11 the tragedy , when Tony government started using secret law it was the end of british pride , indeed it is great lose and shame on britain , nothing but tyrany law of the jungle , for no reason one will find himself in jail , simply because umbralla of organisations justifie getting rid ‘of certain unpopular foreigners.’ the question is that are the acused guilty or not guilty , do they realy want to harm other people or not? , have they been given a chance to be interegoted ? or because secret evidence that no body have the right to know , in cases like these even my own lawyer i wouldnt trust , because she will be tempted to prolonge the case even when she know she can win the case she will keep her clients in hell with good intetions , for example what is hapening is that people who want to murder innocent people suportors of terror like many it is them who are calling the shot , they can by community also all other organisations are under them money is no option , the leading of the muslim are communities Muslim parliament and muslim council and every body on front they are nothing but tyrants who taking advantage of your law make you look stupid infront of the world to watch you shooting your foot , now you leave ECHR for what ? Im one of the victims of secret evidence I was never questioned until now 12 years later im still waiting , i was a victim of an organised crime who set me up after they told the community to say I was no good , I worked for 17 year and paid my taxes , why never before I was no terror ,

  2. Edward says:

    Thank you for the round ups. Readers of this blog may also wish to note that on 7th March, in the House of Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis put to the Minister for Justice the question whether the government ‘have any plans to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights’, to which the Minister replied quite unequivocally, ‘The Answer to the Question is no.’


  3. ObiterJ says:

    Many thanks to Sam Murrant for good ’round ups’ and welcome to Sarina who has made an impressive start with this ’roundup.’

    Of course, Parliament may pass legislation which is incompatible with the European Convention BUT it must be clear that it is doing so – Human Rights Act 1998 s.19. If we exit the convention system then, as things stand, we return to being a nation in which there are probably no true rights and in which everything is at the unfettered mercy of politicians.

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 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 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 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


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: