Prisoners’ Legal Aid, Malayan Killings and the Role of the Judiciary – the Human Rights Roundup

23 March 2014 by

prisoner HRRWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular springtime blossom of human rights news and views.  The full list of links can be found here.  You can find previous roundups here.  Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Celia Rooney. 

This week, a challenge to the legal aid reforms by the Howard League for Penal Reform is rejected, while campaigners seeking an inquiry into the action of British soldiers in Malaya in 1948 face similar disappointment.  Meanwhile, some of the most senior judges in the UK give their views on the role of the judiciary today.

In the News

Legal Aid Challenge Unsuccessful

This week, the High Court rejected an application for permission to apply for judicial review of recent changes to legal aid provisions for prisoners in the case of The Howard League for Penal Reform & Anor, R (on the Application of) v the Lord Chancellor [2014] EWHC 709 (Admin) (17 March 2014).  The appeal, which was brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service, was dismissed on the basis that, although there was an adverse affect on the entitlements of prisoners, the issue was fundamentally a political one.  As such, the court would not intrude upon the decision of the Lord Chancellor.

The charities have suggested that they intend to appeal the decision highlighting that, although this is a political question, it is an issue which impacts the fundamental rights of prisoners.  They have argued that the court failed to address how unfairness arising from lack of legal representation would in practice be dealt with.  For more information, see Jon Robins post on the Legal Voice blog here.

Unlawful killing claims dropped at Al-Sweady Inquiry

Lawyers representing the families of a number of dead Iraqis have dropped their claims that their relatives were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of British troops in Iraqi in 2004. The Al-Sweady Public Inquiry was set up to investigate unlawful killings as well as other allegations relating to a battle which took place in May 2004. The Inquiry has said that notwithstanding the recent statement, it is for the Chairman to reach all conclusions and he will detail findings of fact in his report.

Seven members of 1 Crown Office Row are involved in the Inquiry, representing several hundred military witnesses: Neil Garnham QC, Neil Sheldon, Adam Wagner, Isabel McArdle, Alasdair Henderson, Matthew Flinn and Lois Williams.

No Public Inquiry into 1948 Malaya deaths

The families of 24 factory workers killed by UK soldiers in Malaya in 1948 were, this week, told that the UK government was under no duty to investigate the deaths.  The British army had been in Malaya at the time to protect civilian installations from communist attack.  The family of the victims had suggested that the UK government had a duty to investigate the deaths under Article 2 of the Convention, despite the incident taking place pre-UK ratification.  They also argued that the decision not to hold an inquiry was Wednesbury unreasonable, and that liability remained with the UK government post-independence.  The Court of Appeal, however, dismissed all of the arguments raised by the claimants.  For more information on the reasoning of the Court, see this post by Rosalind English for the UK Human Rights blog.

The Role of the Judiciary Under the Microscope

In recent weeks, a number of senior members of the judiciary have commented on the role that judges have to play in a democratic society.  Their comments come in the wake of accusations in the press that they have overstepped their boundaries in recent times.  In his Cambridge Freshfield Lecture, Lord Neuberger suggested that these allegations were particularly aimed at European judges in Luxembourg and Strasbourg.  Peter Thompson, writing for Halsbury’s Laws exchange, has compared considered the comments of Lord Neuberger in light of the situation of the US judiciary here.

In addition, Lord Dyson MR has thrown in his weight to the debate in a recent speech entitled ‘Are the judges too powerful?’  In that speech, he considered the role of both the domestic and European judiciary, concluding that judges are not too powerful and, instead, that they exercise their role with great restraint.  Commenting on this, Obiter J has suggested that the speech is more measured than some of the extra-judicial speeches that have made the headlines of late.

On a slightly different note, Dawn Oliver, writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, has recently considered the implications of treating justice as a public service, as the Lord Chancellor’s recent reforms do.  She suggests that we may not be able to view justice as such without undermining the rule of law and judicial independence.  The post can be accessed here.

In Other News

  • The Telegraph, this week, reported that Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, is considering introducing new powers that would exempt the armed forces from human rights laws which hamper their operations.
  • The first gay marriages will take place this week, on Friday 29th March.  Writing for the Guardian, Martin Downs warns us that, nonetheless, equality campaigners must avoid complacency on such matters.
  • Mafia boss, Domenico Rancadore, has this week avoided extradition to Italy, despite being detained under a European Arrest Warrant.  The BBC have reported on the case here.
  • Joshua Rozenberg has, this week, made the moral and economic case for releasing prisoners who are still detained under an IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) Sentence on the Guardian website here.
  • Roy Greenslade, writing for the Guardian, has commented on how the Daily Mail have managed to use the Press Complaints Commission’s conflict resolution procedure to avoid accountability for misrepresenting claims about European immigration.

Case Comments

Hugh Southey QC of Matrix Chambers has considered the decision of the UK Supreme Court, on the Supreme Court blog here.  In that case, the Supreme Court held that asylum seekers need only prove that there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention to avoid third country removal – there is no further requirement that such treatment be systemic.  Southey suggests that this result is unsurprising given that Convention rights are recognized by EU law.

In the Courts

Court of Appeal: unnecessary to hold Public Inquiry into 1948 “execution” by British troops of 24 Malayans

Supreme Court overturns Court of Appeal in deprivation of liberty safeguards case

Judicial Review of changes to legal aid provision for prisoners rejected by High Court – permission refused

Upcoming Events

To add 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 the topics covered by this blog.

UK Human Rights Blog 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.

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 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: