Go Home, Legal Aid and Mental Capacity – The Human Rights Roundup

12 August 2013 by

Home office Go Home or Face ArrestWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular non-silly season 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.

The end of the legal term seemingly does not mean a let-up in immigration news, with a number of Home Office, asylum and immigration-related stories making the headlines.  Also, the back-and-forth on legal aid cuts continues, as well as some interesting perspectives on the Mental Capacity Act, sexual offences trials and the FOIA veto. Some interesting judgments too, particularly on secret trials.

In the News

Immigration and asylum

Rarely does immigration disappear from the headlines (indeed, see this morning’s headlines), and this week it appears in a number of forms.  Firstly, Richard A. Edwards and Dr Noelle Quenivet on the Euro Rights Blog stress the presumption of innocence contained with Article 6.2 of the ECHR.  This is in relation to the Home Office’s recent public campaign relating to so-called “immigration offenders”.  The authors point out that whilst Article 6 does not forbid the publicising of law enforcement operations, they must “do so with the utmost discretion and with a reserve that respects the presumption of innocence”.

An interesting take on this issue is provided on the Information Rights and Wrongs Blog.  The author picks up specifically on images tweeted by the Home Office of individuals (with pixellated faces) being escorted from premises and into vans, and argues that the campaign may fall foul of data protection law.  It is argued that although features may be obscured from the viewer, obligations still remain on the Home Office as data controller, as the government department would still be able to identify those individuals in the images.  Indeed, the author particularly questions whether tweeting these images can be described as “necessary” from the point of view of the data controller…

Along similar lines, Colin Yeo on the Free Movement Blog points to Article 31 of the Refugee Convention (also incorporated in British law) as protecting asylum seekers gaining unlawful entry into a sanctuary state.  Specifically in Mateta & Others, the Court of Appeal has recently overturned convictions for the use of false identity documents by refugees.

Elsewhere in the immigration field, Kent Martin writes on the Free Movement Blog about an Australian television show called ‘Go Back to Where You Came From’, which blends the documentary and reality genres and exposes Australians to the experiences endured by refugees.  It is viewable on YouTube.  Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that a law firm and a senior partner have been referred by two judges to the SRA, relating to last-minute applications made to prevent deportation, allegedly without providing the judge with the full facts.  Finally, some potential good news for separated parents with British children – where one parent is UK-based and the other is not.  Two linked appeals in these circumstances have both succeeded, on the basis of pro-active case management from the Bench.

Legal Aid Cuts

This week’s foray into the legal aid debate opens with Lib Dem peer and Minister of State for Justice Tom McNally writing in The Guardian.  Baron McNally accuses those dissenting of the cuts of scaremongering, pointing out that even after the cuts have taken effect, “England and Wales will still have one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world”.  He adds that the changes which have been consulted upon will not affect access to a fair trial and would exclude only the wealthiest defendants, those who can afford representation, from automatic access to legal aid.  The same newspaper also reports that Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan told those rallying outside the Old Bailey that there are “only a few months to save legal aid” from the impending cuts.  The piece also includes alternative suggestions to cuts, which include American-style requirements that all lawyers provide a minimum number of hours of pro bono services.

In an important intervention, former Lord Justice of Appeal and Vice-President of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, Sir Henry Brooke has also weighed in on the debate.  He notes the rarity of retired senior judges getting involved in debates such as this, but nevertheless has done so.  He discusses particular instances where legal aid may be denied in future and where “a serious wrong would be denied an effective remedy.”

Also in the News

  • A couple of pieces on mental health from The Small Places: firstly, a discussion of the deprivation of liberty and forced feeding under the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act.  Also, a link to the BIHR’s guide to the House of Lords Committee which is has called for evidence on the Mental Capacity Act.
  • Raj Desai on the UKSC Blog provides some comment on the recent decision in New London College, seeing it as a “relief” that identifying an implied statutory basis meant that Lord Sumption did not have to resolve “controversial questions surrounding the scope and juridical foundation of a non-statutory “third source” of powers”.
  • The Law and Religion Blog has a piece on the criminalisation of forced marriage under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, as well as the history and current weaknesses of the law as it stands.
  • Felicity Gerry on Halsbury’s Law Exchange argues that “a few errors” in sexual offences trials should not be permitted to “imbalance the system”, commenting on the recent Robert Colover controversy.
  • Joshua Rozenberg gives his view on the Prince Charles letters controversy: “[the Attorney General]…could have let the law take its course and not protected the Prince of Wales from his outspokenness.”
  • Nearly Legal rounds up 3 housing law-related cases before the ECtHR.

In the Courts

  • R (Ignaoua) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2512 (Admin) – Government termination of judicial review via certification under Justice and Security Act “troubling” but lawful, clear Parliamentary intention even though no new rules in force yet. Clear Parliamentary intention that JR can be terminated at any stage, notwithstanding that there are no new rules until “October” (Adam Wagner: this is a very interesting decision – worth a read. WIll be one to watch if it goes to appeal).

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.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: