Disability detention, Immigration Issues and Court TV – The Human Rights Roundup

27 October 2013 by

Court TVWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular hurtling freight train of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can  find previous roundups herePost by Sarina Kidd, edited and links compiled by Adam Wagner.

This week, immigration, in various forms  was hotly discussed and some notable cases have been or are soon to be decided in the realm of disability rights. And not everyone is happy about the decision to televise Court of Appeal cases.

In the News

The many facets of immigration

Immigration, in a number of guises, has been a hot topic this week.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has stated that the billboard campaign telling illegal immigrants to ‘Go Home or Face Arrest’ will not be repeated. It seems that the scheme resulted in the voluntary repatriation of just one person.

The Economist discusses how although half a million people live illegally in Britain, ‘the government’s draconian new Immigration Bill will not change that much’. The Bill will mean that, among other things, landlords and doctors will have to check the immigration statuses of tenants and patients. However, as the article explains, this move will be less than effective. For example, it is already almost impossible to formally let from agents as illegal immigrants often do not have the references and income required.

Omar Shibli, of Garden Court Chamber’s ‘Free Movement’ blog, discusses the recent case, MF (Nigeria) v SSHD [2013]. The court determined that whilst ‘immigration rules governing deportation now provide a “complete code” for the Article 8 rights of foreign criminals’, the substantive law relating to Article 8 proportionality assessments has not changed, ‘and do not create a legal test of exceptionality for succeeding where the Rules are not met’. He notes that whilst this defence has survived the recent government challenge, ‘primary legislation as embodied in the “public interest” provisions of the new Immigration Bill – could be about to begin a new phase of attack.’

Colin Yeo examines the case R (on the application of SQ (Pakistan & Anor) v The Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber & Anor [2013]. The case involved an application to remain in the UK in order to receive life saving medical treatment. The Court of Appeal held that whilst the Article 3 test of exceptionality is applicable also to children, the threshold may be lower than for adults.

Disability Rights

In M.H v the UK, the applicant, who has Down’s Syndrome, was detained in January 2003 on mental health grounds for 28 days of assessment. The mother’s attempts to discharge her daughter were blocked and the local authorities then applied to have the mother discharged as her nearest relative. This meant that M.H’s detention was extended indefinitely (eventually ending in July of that year). HumanRightsEurope details how M.H complained that her right under Article 5(4) (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) had been affected. This was in two ways. Firstly, there is no provision under UK law to permit those without legal capacity to be able to have their detention reviewed quickly.

Secondly, whether incapacitated or not, patients cannot take proceedings before a court or tribunal when, following the displacement of the nearest relative, the detention had been extended indefinitely. The government was ordered to pay the applicant’s legal costs. The Guardian reports that the judges stated: ‘It is clear that special safeguards are called for in the case of detained mental patients who lack legal capacity to institute proceedings before judicial bodies. However, it is not for this court to dictate what form those special safeguards should take.’

In other news, last week the UK Supreme Court heard a case ‘that could impact upon the human rights of tens of thousands of older people and people with disabilities living in care services’. The Supreme Court was asked whether or not P, MIG and MEG are ‘deprived of their liberty’ (relating to Article 5 of the ECHR) due to the restrictions that are put in place by their carers. Lucy Series of ‘The Small Places’, when discusses the case here. 1 Crown Office Row’s Lizanne Gumbel QC, Henry Witcomb and Duncan Fairgrieve acted in the case for the Aire Centre, an intervener.

Televising Courts

There have been mixed reactions to the imminent broadcasting of Court of Appeal cases. For the Lord Chief Justice, it will increase transparency and improve public understanding of the courts. However, as Joshua Rozenberg reports, for Helena Kennedy the television is a ‘voracious beast with an appetite that is never fully fed’. Its producers want ‘the most salacious, sensational celebrity ridden cases that they could possibly get their hands on’. Rozenberg discusses the logistics behind the move, noting that despite fears, there is little chance, for example, that ‘broadcasters will ever be allowed to televise criminal trials before the verdict has been delivered’.

In other News

  • Frank Cranmer discusses the case of a couple in Cornwall who won the right not to file online VAT returns after claiming that to do so was contrary to their religious beliefs. Although the couple’s church (the Seventh Day Adventist Church) does not ban the computers, Judge Mosedale accepted that such usage was contrary to the Blackburns’ own religious beliefs.
  • Liberty discuss a Policy Exchange report that dramatically declared that the law is increasingly impeding our military’s ability to operate effectively on the battlefield.

Case Comments

  • The Strasbourg Court has delivered its first judgment on HIV based employment discrimination. Alexandra Timmer highlights how in L.B v Greece, the Court  ‘applies a social model of disability and that it uses the concept of vulnerable groups to narrow the margin of appreciation. The drawback of this judgment is that it does not give much support to HIV-positive people requiring some form of accommodation from their employer.’
  • Obiter J discusses the UKSC case of R v Gul, which is notable because of the Court’s observations about the Terrorism Act 2000. Obiter J notes that ‘it is interesting to wonder whether we are now seeing the beginning of dialogue between the Supreme Court and Parliament….the Supreme Court has opted to express concerns though it has also been careful to emphasise that it is a matter for Parliament’. See the UKHRB post here.

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

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 Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up 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: