Richard III Reburial, Disappointment for Chagossians, Prisoner Book Ban – the Human Rights Roundup

2 June 2014 by

Richard IIIWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular towering edifice 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

In recent human rights news, the judicial review of a decision to re-bury Richard III in Leicester fails to find its feet before the High Court. Meanwhile, the Chagos Islanders face further disappointment in their struggle to challenge their eviction from their homeland.

In the News 

Richard III Reburial 

The Plantagenet Alliance, who represent the descendants of Richard III, have lost their judicial review which challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to bury the late king in Leicester Cathedral. The monarch’s remains were exhumed from a car park in Leicester around 500 years after his death. The group of descendants, who had hoped that Richard would be buried in York, had attempted to challenge the decision on the basis that they were not consulted before the decision was taken. David Hart QC has summarised the decision of the High court, as well as the wider context of this sage, here and suggests that the case is important reading for any public interest lawyer.

The Plight of the Chagos Islanders

The judicial review of the former natives of the Chagos Islanders was also recently dismissed. The islanders, who were forcibly removed from their homes and refused permission to return, so that the land could be used as a US military base, sought to overturn a decision of the Divisional Court that had found in favour of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The decision of the Divisional Court, and the unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal, has been summarised by Rosalind English here. David Hart QC has highlighted where the decisions of the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal diverged, in particular the different approach that each took on the admissibility of a note that had come into the public domain via wikileaks. He notes, however, that the less restrictive approach of the Court of Appeal in this regard is nonetheless of little help to the Chagossians. 

In Other News

  • 4 prisoners are to once again challenging the legality of indeterminate sentences, this time before the Supreme Court on the basis that evidence suggests that the average length of life and indeterminate sentences is increasing. The Guardian reports here.
  • The Home Office is seeking to remove a 6 year old girl with Spina Bifida. Colin Yeo, for the Free Movement blog, considers the issue here.
  • Francesca Norris, for the Keep Calm, Talk Law blog, has considered how the ban on books in prison might fare if it was challenged by way of judicial review.

In the Courts

UK

Court of Appeal: Court recommendation for deportation does not preclude claiming damages for False Imprisonment under Hardail Singh principles, but does preclude in policy breach cases even where breach bears on decision to detain

Strasbourg

Lack of night-time care funding breached disabled woman’s Article 8 rights

Extended detention and severe sentencing for participation in non-violent, anti-government protest in Russia violated Article 5(3) and Article 10, in light of Article 11 of the Convention

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1, where UK failed to balance right to property with public interest in case concerning the confiscation of wages

Case Summaries 

Writing for 11KBW’s Panopticon blog, Akhlaq Choudhary has summarised the likely impact of the CJEU’s recent ‘right to forget’ case here. He has stated that the case is likely to have a huge implications, not just for search engines like Google, but for on all web-based personal data search services.

Christopher Knight, again writing for the Panopticon blog here, has considered the implications of the judgment of Green J in this case, in terms of the light it may shed on the somewhat surprising decision of the Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commissioner  [2014] UKSC 20.

Ronan O Fathaigh and Dirk Voorhoof have examined the implications of this case, which found that a court-imposed injunction banning the distribution of leaflets against a political candidate was a violation of Article 10, on the Strasbourg Observers blog here. Hailing the decision as a victory for freedom of expression, they note that it is nonetheless surprising that the Strasbourg court did not consider any jurisprudence on the right to reputation.

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

3 comments


  1. mikepitts says:

    No he wasn’t, he was king of England!

  2. Nice digest, I’m trying to follow the Richard III story as much as possible. It fascinates me and I do really think he should be buried in York, he was a York King after all.

  3. forcedadoption says:

    I cannot see how it can ever be right for a foreign power to evict natives from their homeland .Even the red indians were not expelled from the American continent and were given reservations instead.The link to the court decisions is not working………..

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.

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 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

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: