Immigrants Go Home, the Third Source & Judicial Review Standing Changes – The Human Rights Roundup

29 July 2013 by

Human rights roundup (IGH)Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular social media storm of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Daniel Isenberg.

With the judges winding down for their end of term break, this is not such a busy week of news; so instead a good opportunity to think over the role of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Various immigration stories keeping the commentators busy, if not making the headlines; and keep up-to-date in public law with the latest from the ALBA conference.

Reminder: there is a Rally for Legal Aid  tomorrow, Tuesday 30 July, 4:30-6:30 at the Old Bailey. Full details here.

In the News

Judicial Review standing (this section by Adam Wagner)

The Times has a slightly speculative report (£) on plans to change the “standing” rules in Judicial Review, which is the way individuals and groups can challenge public authorities for acting unlawfully. The plan, apparently, is this: “At present anyone with a “sufficient interest” can lodge a judicial review challenge. Ministers plan to tighten this test to ensure that only those with a direct link to the policy or decision can challenge.” So challenges by public interest groups will be more difficult in the absence of a lead claimant.

Nice quote from my head of chambers:

Philip Havers, QC, head of a leading judicial review chambers at One Crown Office Row, said: “The current test of sufficient interest has worked well and any attempt to restrict access to judicial review by narrowing the test will inevitably reduce the ability of ordinary citizens to hold the Government and public authorities to account.”

The Telegraph also report on the news, which arises from a Ministry of Justice leak, and their article is the usual mish mash with reliance on the representative of all things evil in law, Abu Qatada, who used judicial review so it must be bad.  Apparently the Government is to consult in the Autumn.

Incidentally, the result of the Judicial Review against the ‘bedroom tax’ is due imminently.

Employment Tribunal Fees

People bringing employment tribunal claims will have to pay fees for the first time since they were introduced in the 1960s – the fees will be £160 or £250 to lodge a claim, with a further charge of either £230 or £950 if the case goes ahead – the full rules are here.

Britain and the Convention

A relatively quiet news-week, so we return to some commentary on the well-trodden territory of our relationship with the European Convention, and the proposals for a ‘British Bill of Rights’ in its stead.  On the Oxford Human Rights Hub, Amy Williams of LSE observes that this debate is not going away.  She summarises three perspectives offered in the Bill of Rights Commission’s report: firstly, there is the option of re-branding – by which the level of rights-protection remains the same, but under a new ‘British’ banner.  Secondly, one option would be changing “standards and mechanisms”, by which there could be different categories of rights-holders, and the coupling of rights and responsibilities. Finally, the third perspective comes from Baroness Kennedy and Professor Sands: their ‘no regression’ approach digresses from the view of the majority of the Commissioners.  Williams concludes that “should a new Bill of Rights be introduced in the current climate, it would almost certainly weaken and not merely re-brand, let alone expand, rights protection in the UK”.

Also looking at the issue of the relevance of the ECHR, Jodie Kirshner on the Blog of the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) addresses the recent US Supreme Court decision of Kiobel (or coverage here).  This has left a potential “governance gap” where corporations may commit human rights violations overseas.  Kirshner contends that there is scope within Article 6 to confer jurisdiction over extraterritorial corporate human rights abuses.  Thus, the European Convention could plug any gaps that appear following this US judgment.

Immigrants Go Home

A government advertising campaign that targets racially mixed areas with mobile billboards warning illegal immigrants to “go home or face arrest” is being challenged through the courts. Nick Clegg’s office is said to have “registered its anger” at the pilot campaign.

The Third Source

The Free Movement Blog reports the Supreme Court decision in New London College, which upheld as lawful the Home Office’s sponsor-licensing process as part of the ‘points-based’ immigration scheme.  However, Colin Yeo’s article picks up on Lord Sumption’s judgment as separately interesting “from a constitutional and legal perspective”, as his Lordship does not “identify the statutory authority for the sponsor guidance scheme. Instead, he holds that there is no statutory authority as such, but apparently this does not matter”.  Mark Elliott makes a similar observation, related to the so-called ‘third source’ of government authority.  Dr Elliott concludes that “that Lord Sumption considered the power to consist, in some meta-sense, in the general scheme of the Act rather than in any specific provision contained therein.”  He notes that ‘third source authority’ is not offensive to the doctrine of ultra vires or to the rule of law; he just rues that it appears merely as a “red herring” in New London College.

Also in the sphere of immigration is Karon Monaghan QC’s comment on Advocate General Sharpston’s Opinion in X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel on Eutopia Law.  These cases related to claims for refugee status in the Netherlands by homosexual men who feared prosecution in their home states.  The reference related to the EU Qualifications Directive 2004/83/EU, and contained three questions: whether gay men might constitute a ‘social group’ for the purposes of the Directive; which homosexual activities fall within its scope; and whether the criminalisation of homosexuality constitutes persecutory treatment?  It was the third of these questions which was the most controversial, and the A-G took a “modest approach”; in making such a determination, national courts should take into account: evidence regarding whether such laws are actually applied; whether criminal sanctions are enforced; and information “concerning the practices and the mores of society in general in the country of origin”.

Colin Yeo on the Free Movement blog also uses ML (Nigeria) as a useful opportunity (via the Court of Appeal) to remind us that serious errors of fact can amount to an error of law.

ALBA Conference

A big congratulations to the Constitutional & Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA), which held another successful annual conference over this weekend.  Conference papers ranged from information rights to foreign affairs; case-law updates to Law Commission public law projects; as well as a keynote address from Judge Mahoney of the ECtHR.  Keep an eye out here for the papers to be put online.

Also in the News

  • Claire Overman on the Oxford Human Rights Hub examines the aspect of Article 2 which involves the duty of the state to investigate promptly and effectively deaths caused by state agents.  She suggests that the McCaughey judgment is critical of the inquest system, itself, calling for urgent reform – violations do not arise from “isolated actions”, but failures of the system structurally.
  • Joshua Rozenberg enters the debate on the role of the courts on the battlefield.  This is not about the recent Smith judgment, but the House of Lords’ Constitution Committee report which prefers the current system to any formal parliamentary requirements before military action is undertaken – such developments could leave these decisions susceptible to judicial review.
  • Finally – for those single men in possession of a good fortune and therefore in want of a wife (or, indeed, now a husband) – from 2016 a new £10 will be issued with the image of Jane Austen, bringing a woman back to our paper currency, as Elizabeth Fry is also due to be replaced by Winston Churchill.

In the Courts

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. When a government drives around a truck with a billboard, you know that they have run out of policy ideas.

    Also, I wonder when there will be a truck in the City with a billboard saying “Pay tax or face arrest”.

  2. Theo Hopkins says:

    I’m instictively on the side of the “illegals”, having been one myself.
    In the Summer of Love (1969) I was an illegal in San Francisco.
    I worked at “Chow Chow” a restaurant for ….. dogs.
    Pure Hell. And that was just the dogs.

    More seriously, whenever I read of a UKBA raid and some poor sod is sent home, rather than see a victory, I see a dream shattered.

    On repatriating human rights. The whole debate in the press is not about what rights there should be, but about which groups/individuals should have rights removed. What a sad way to go.

  3. Tim says:

    There’s also the Poundland case in the Supreme court.

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: