No, The Sun, “Euro judges” do not “go against UK in 3 out of 5 cases”. More like 1 in 100.

27 August 2014 by

SUN WRONG AGAIN AGAINUpdated x 2 | At the risk of sounding like a broken record, The Sun has got it badly wrong on human rights. Again. On 24 August 2014 Craig Woodhouse reported that “Euro judges go against UK in 3 out of 5 cases(£). This is false and seriously misleading.

I explored this issue in detail back in 2012 when the Daily Mail as well as others claimed that the UK loses 3 out of 4 cases. Since that debacle, the European Court of Human Rights has produced some very clear documents on the statistics page of its website.

According to page 8 of this document, there have been 22,065 applications against UK 1959-2013. That means that 22,065 people or so have brought cases against the UK. Of those cases, there have been 297 resulting in a violation.

I am no statistician but 297 as a percentage of 22,065 is not “3 out of 5”. It is in fact 1.35%. Less than 2 in 100.

The percentage which The Sun has obviously fixated on is the number of full judgments from 1959-2013 which have been negative. There have been 499 full judgments involving the UK with 297 resulting in a violation – roughly 3 in 5.

But the absolutely key point missing from their figures is that cases which proceed to full judicial consideration represent only a very small minority of the total number of applications. That is because the cases are first carefully filtered to include only those where there is a realistic prospect of success (that isn’t the exact term of art used by the court which deals in admissibility using various criteria – see this).

In 2013, the Court decided 1,652 cases lodged against the United Kingdom. It declared inadmissible or struck out 1,633 applications. It found no violation of the Convention in a further 8 applications. It found a violation of the Convention in 11 applications (see pages 8 and 9 of this). So over 99% were unsuccessful (99.3%), which matches the overall figures since 1959. The applications made in 2013 may not have related to the same cases as were decided in 2013 (given the time it takes to decide an application) but the figures match those for 2012 and 2011.

The Sun has not got the X-Factor

I used this analogy in 2012 and it still applies here. Presenting the figures in this way is a bit like watching X-Factor from the live finals, which begin with 12 contestants, and extrapolating that since one of them wins in the end, therefore almost 10% of X-Factor applicants ultimately win the contest. In reality tens of thousands apply, so only a tiny percentage of them “win”, but most are “struck out” as being bad singers in the months before the finals.

The Sun’s slapdash approach statistics has been approved by Dominic Raab MP, who said: “It’s staggering that three out of five claims rejected by UK appeal courts win in Strasbourg.” It is irresponsible of him to support The Sun’s spurious figures.

I am currently awaiting determination of my Press Complaints Commission complaint over this recent article. I have received an extraordinary interim response to my complaint from their ombudsman, Philippa Kennedy OBE, which I will share once the complaint is concluded.

I will conclude with a quote from Lord Neuberger’s recent speech on open justice . The President certainly seems to get it when it comes to legal misreporting (hat tip to Shoaib M Khan):

But just as judges must not abuse their privileges which are accorded to them because of the importance of judicial independence, so should journalists and other communicators not abuse the privileges accorded to them because of the importance of freedom of expression. So, inaccurate and unfair reporting of a judge’s decision in order to make a good story is an abuse of the freedom of expression accorded to the press and it undermines the rule of law.

Update, 13:41 | Craig Woodhouse, the article’s author, has tweeted me to point out that the text of the article states “Terrorists, rapists, killers and paedophiles have won at the court, which overrules Britain in three out of five cases it hears.” This appears to have been an attempt to qualify the figures which The Sun clearly knew were not the full story. The Editor’s Code of Conduct states at 1(i) that the Press “must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information…”. This is badly distorted information. How is the average reader meant to know what “it hears” means? It doesn’t even make sense in terms of the court, which “hears” (in the sense of holding a hearing) only a tiny fraction of its cases – perhaps one or two per year involving the UK. And neither the headline or Dominic Raab’s quote contains any qualification. Sorry, not good enough.

Update, 26.11.14I complained to the Press Complaints Commission (now IPSO) about this article and have had my complaint rejected. IPSO’s reasoning is reproduced below. I remain of the view that this was a misleading article – I think IPSO has unfortunately got it wrong. For the record, I definitely did not accept that only “499 [cases] had proceeded to judgment”. I made clear to IPSO that most of the cases were rejected at the first instance by a judge, which is how admissibility decisions are dealt with. 

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 12.14.56
If you would like to complain to the Press Complaints Commission (whilst it still exists),  just click here. It does sometimes make a difference. You can also tweet the article’s author Craig Woodhouse.

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. Former UK Gov lawyer says:

    A brief comment as a former UK Government Lawyer, who has (though not as central part of my job) been involved in defending proceedings in Strasbourg. Many cases against the UK which are ultimately declared inadmissable will be so declared after the UK Government has been notified of and submitted a written response to the claim covering both the merits and admissability. I never saw a statistic on the number of times a response was submitted and the claim declared inadmissable, but as a general point, finding a claim to be inadmissable can (though not always) be seen as a “win” for the UK government. The ECtHR’s view on the merits may well influence its thinking with regard to admissability and vice versa.

  2. Captain Sensible says:


    I dont see what the point is of complaining to the PCC. Firstly, as some contributors have implied in their response, The Sun does have a reasonable arguement in its defence. Its about intepretation of statistics, where you go one way and they the other. There is an arguement for both sides, but the question is The Sun completely wrong in using the figures and terms in the headline? Many think not. Secondly, the ECHR is wrapped up in a wider issue, which is the wave of anti-European sentiment. Most of the people I speak to have made up their minds and everything that eminates from Europe is bad. To be honest I think they have a case in many areas, but not all.

    I’ll wager with you the PCC comes down on the side of The Sun.

  3. And in any case, even that figure were true, it merely means the UK is ignoring a convention it is signed up to- a bit like saying UK courts go against the police in 3 out of 5 cases- so should we prosecute more on the basis of statistics rather than guilt?

  4. Adam,
    One last thought (from me) – haven’t got them to hand but what stats did MoJ present to defend its case for review of JR last year? Did it use/rely on “failed” at first hurdle cases to show how few actually make it, or should make it? Have a feeling they did – but do not have time (or inclination!) to check and appreciate of course that we are talking there of Gov, not (here) of the free press, but goose and gander and sauces spring to mind

  5. Adam Wagner says:

    Thanks for all of the comments, which have been fascinating. I agree Alex (and to an extent with the other commentators) in that it is difficult to choose exactly the right denominator. Perhaps the answer is that it depends what you want to show.

    What The Sun is trying to show is that the Court is too interventionist i.e. statistically it rules against the UK so many times that it raises the strong implication that it is biased or perverse.

    But to ignore the thousands of cases which the Court filters out – not just for technical reasons but *on the merits* is highly distorting. I can’t see any way around that, although I appreciate the valiant efforts of some of the commenters to find some kind of implied complexity in the article.

    I have complained to the PCC – let’s see what they make of the justifications.

  6. Nathan says:

    I am sure that is absolute nonsense. But, hey, even if it wasn’t, shouldn’t therefore the nation and the newspaper be more alarmed at the fact that UK Judges must therefore be ‘getting it wrong’ on human rights so to speak? – you can’t have it both ways around.

  7. Captain Sensible says:

    As a non-laywer, but have some legal eduction during university, and a non-statistician, but have some statistical education during university and finally a non-Sun reader, I’m with Simon on this one. His case seems well argued in comparison to that of the author. If cases dont get a full hearing in which the UK government has to defend its position in court and are dismissed via the filtering process (for whatever reason), then I think the 22065 figure becomes redundant because they essentially failed the tests put before them. Can they then be classed as a “case” at all ?

    Clearly what the newspaper and Raab seek to emphasise is that where the case goes in front of the court to be heard and the government is required to defend, then we do lose more than we win. That is a fact according to the figures on here.

    I think using the 22,065 figure would be equally misleading in any for of comparison because there is no case to answer.

    Look at it this way if you attend an auction with 100 lots, you bid on 5 but lose out on 3 is your succes rate 40% (2/5) or is it 2% (2/100) ? If the other 95 lots didn’t meet your requirements should they be counted in the overall equation ? I say not.

    Just a view from a man on the Clapham omnibus.

    1. Alex says:

      I think the fundamental problem is there is no good denominator.

      As an analogous example take criminal investigations. There are complaints to the police, files passed to the CPS, prosecutions brought and convictions passed. Which is the right measure to judge the success rate? Each stage is problematic, non crimes may be reported, the investigation may have been flawed. But if you only measure success on prosecutions brought you unfairly up-rate the prowess of the CPS and the barristers they instruct, as they’ve already decided only to take ‘winning’ cases.

      The same is true in the European case, case that are ‘heard’ obviously need to be arguable (otherwise the filters would be failing) but not certain (otherwise a rational government would have settled).

      Therefore outside of a comparator to other matched countries I don’t think you can say anything about the 3/5 statistic as the prior decision making processes so skew the statistics.

  8. Adam,

    rather late to this – just got back from hols, but if The Sun article does indeed assert (have not seen it) as Craig Woodhouse contends that “Terrorists, rapists, killers and paedophiles have won at the court, which overrules Britain in three out of five cases it hears” this is itself apt to mislead (at best) and is not something that is or can be derived from the bare data. The figures give no indication of who is bringing the claims nor what they are about. This is something I am working on at the moment (and tweeted about on 1 Aug) and hope to present at the Liverpool seminar next month where we are both speaking. So far, my research shows that of 165 cases v UK 1/1/12-31/7/14 that reached ECtHR in period 1 Jan 2012 to 31 July 2014, only 15 concern terrorism/suspected terrorists. Do not know how many were “rapists, killers or paedophiles” but not entirely convinced that even that bigger group would constitute a majority of applicants…so to leave readers thinking either that (i) that group constitutes the totality of applicants v Uk or even (ii) that group tends to be what UK cases are concerned with is to skew the truth. As I have tweeted and blogged before (see end of this UKCLA piece what interests me, and is worrying in these fragile times for the domestic human rights project, is what cases do readers of (esp) Daily Mail get to hear about. Thinking here of the total silence on the UK “victory” in the RMT cases earlier this year.


  9. Rob G says:

    I’d add that Mr Raab’s comments invite the understanding that 3 in 5 of all cases that UK appeal courts reject are overturned by Strasbourg. Surely proceedings are only initiated there in a relatively small proportion of such cases?

  10. May I make one (hopefully) uncontentious point? Almost all of us who read this blog are lawyers of one kind or another. The average non-lawyer who sees the Sun headline will almost certainly never have heard of such concepts as “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”, still less of any kind of sifting mechanism. Surely the conclusion that that person is almost certainly going to draw from the headline is that out of every five complaints to the ECtHR, three are successful. The content of the article may clarify the matter; but the headline itself is surely an over-simplification.

    1. Simon Carne says:

      Mr Cranmer, you must be right that most Sun readers aren’t familiar with “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”. But is that the point?

      There are three types of case: (1) those where the UK Government submits an argument and wins; (2) those where it submits an argument and loses; and (3) those cases which fall away before the UK is required to submit any argument at all.

      A comparison of (1) v (2) tells us something about how often the court finds favour with the UK Government’s position. What does a comparison of (1) v (2)+(3) tell us?

      To test whether it is a useful statistic, you might consider the following question: if, tomorrow, one million people submitted a claim that was time-barred (or dismissed on the grounds of “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”), would that tell us anything useful in relation to the subject matter of this debate, ie the UK Government’s track record in front of the Strasbourg court?

      1. Alex says:

        Simon – I see your logic, but (3) does include a number of cases where the court does agree with the government’s position, it’s just that their position is clear enough not to need to hear arguments.

        Cases the court hears must have some reasonable prospect of success otherwise the filtering process wouldn’t be working. If the court started hearing less meritorious cases (increasing the government’s win rate) or only heard slam dunk cases (reducing the government’s win rate) would that tell us anything meaningful about the potential biases of the court?

  11. Adam Wagner says:

    Simon – I won’t respond to the ad hominem stuff in the first paragraph.

    Your point: “it seems abundantly clear that it is writing about the number of times that the UK Government has had to put forward a defence of its position and how often it’s case has been rejected.”

    Does it? How so? Where is it even implied in the article that this is the case?

    There are two explicit qualifications in the article which have been pointed out to me by no less than the author and the MP who is quoted. They are:

    “overrules Britain in three out of five cases it hears” (Woodhouse)


    “three out of five claims rejected by UK appeal courts win in Strasbourg” (Raab)

    I have explained above why “it hears” is misleading at best and nonsensical at worst. As to “rejected by UK appeal courts” – as I have said in my reply to Dominic Raab, that is just wrong. Only 15% (or so) of cases are rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, so many many cases will not make the sift despite having been rejected by the UK appeal courts.

    I am glad that it is so clear to you that what the article meant was the cases that the UK formally responds to, but to the average reader that wouldn’t be apparent at all. I am not sure what the relevance is anyway – the court is set up to strike out claims which it considers inadmissible on many occasions without observations from the state concerned. There is no magic to the state responding.

    The fact that we have descended into a complex argument about how to assess the court’s approach to the thousands of applications it receives in my view just proves my main point – that *none* of this complexity was apparent from the article. Rather, The Sun and Mr Raab picked out the statistic which was most advantageous to their case and ran with it. That was both misleading and distorting.

    1. Simon Carne says:

      Adam, I don’t think that will wash.

      Ad hominem
      I really don’t think my opening paragraph can be said to have played the man, not the ball. I criticised your statistic; I referred to my credentials for doing so; in light of those credentials, I alluded to the metric of independence to express how far I thought your statistic fell short; and I acknowledged that you, as a barrister, might use a different standard. Nothing hominem about that.

      The statistic
      Neither you nor I is, I am sure, a typical Sun reader, but when the headline of an article refers to cases that “go against” the UK and the opening sentence refers to how often judges “rule against Britain”, I am sure that almost every lay reader with infer that the UK has had a chance to put its case before losing. On that basis, one cannot plausibly use the figure of 22,065 to refer to the total number of cases.

  12. I think the problem will always be, Mr Raab, that you are ideologically against the version of the EctHR you have concocted in your own mind. When you hear that the Court filters out hoards of unmeritorious cases, you choose to interpret that as meaning there are simply more bonkers cases out there. What you don’t choose to say is that the Court demonstrably exercises a very careful judicial discretion. I regret to say, having listened to you give interviews on the Today programme and beyond, that as well as not understanding the statistics, you do not understand (or at least do not advertise that you understand) the judgments themselves. You have said that as soon as someone proves they have a family life – end of story. But what any A-Level law student will tell you is that it is not the end of story! Courts, both domestic and European, agonise over the right to RESPECT FOR family life, which is far from unqualified. If you think it is, then I believe you should withdraw from this anti-human rights campaign and hand over the reins to a better qualified colleague. Whilst I can almost certainly say I will – as a human rights advocate – oppose their views, it will at least feel like a grown up debate. Good on you for responding though.

  13. Simon Carne says:

    Adam, I know that barristers have their own ethical rules for presenting arguments, but as someone with extensive experience of presenting expert evidence, and with a particular expertise in numerical or statistical presentations, I feel bound to say that I would be professionally embarrassed if I were found to have put forward the statistical argument you have presented.

    Whatever shorthand the Sun may have used in order to satisfy its readers (or its sub-editors), it seems abundantly clear that it is writing about the number of times that the UK Government has had to put forward a defence of its position and how often it’s case has been rejected.

    Your criticism of the Sun’s statistic (3 out of 5) is based on the argument that the number of cases reaching “full judicial consideration” is not the full count. In other words, you are saying that the “5” of the Sun’s “3 out of 5” has been materially understated. But it is abundantly clear that looking at the number of unsuccessful applications (more than 98%), as you do, is not the right measure, either. It is very far from the right measure.

    As you acknowledge in your response to Dominic Raab, and as explained in the 92-page document you link to at the end of the sixth paragraph of your main article, there are many applications which are rejected by the court as inadmissible because they are, for example, out of time, have not exhausted domestic remedies or already been submitted elsewhere etc. None of these appear to be cases in which the UK Government has had to submit an argument about its HR practices and have that argument tested.

    What is not clear to me whether any of the 21,500 inadmissible cases you have alluded to involve the UK Government putting forward an argument and having it tested. I haven’t read the whole of the 92 pager, but it seems that, where cases are inadmissible on the grounds that they are ill-founded, there are a number – I’m not sure what proportion – in which the court has looked at the application and found that it simply doesn’t get off the ground. There is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere, no case to answer.

    There seem to be other cases found to be inadmissible, but where the court has first asked for observations from the UK Government. On the face of it, these cases may also need to be counted by the Sun, and so call into question it’s “3 out of 5” assertion. But in at least some of these cases, the court has perhaps asked merely for comments on whether the claim ought to be admitted, and not asked for a justification by the UK Government of the behaviour that the applicant has challenged. So perhaps some, or maybe even all, of the inadmissible cases can be excluded after all.

    From a statistical perspective, it would be perfectly respectable for you to run the argument that more than 98% of claims are unsuccessful. But to challenge the Sun’s argument, you need to identify the number of cases in which the UK Government has had to put forward a defence of its position and treat that as the denominator. Your use of the figure 22,065 is clearly not right. I don’t have the data to establish whether Dominic Raab’s and the Sun’s figure of 499 is right or not. Do you have the correct figures?

  14. Adam Wagner says:

    Dominic – thank you for taking the time to response.

    I think a good starting point for analysing that is the editor’s code of practice, since this is a newspaper. Article 1(1) says “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

    The question is, assuming an ordinary reader with little or no knowledge of the European Court of Human Rights is reading the article, what would they interpret your statement in the context of the article as meaning?

    Nowhere in the article does it mention the thousands of cases which fall at the first hurdle – after being considered by a judge. Or that the proportions mentioned (3 out of 5) only included the group of cases which have already been filtered.

    Nor does the article mention the reasons why those cases might be filtered out: the 2010 stats ( were that 60% were manifestly ill founded, 12% out of time, 8% fourth instance, 5% incompatibility with provisions of the Convention and 15% non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

    And don’t forget settlements, which are mentioned in that linked article but certainly not in The Sun or by you.

    This is what you were quoted as saying in the article: “It’s staggering that three out of five claims rejected by UK appeal courts win in Strasbourg”.

    The first point is that your qualification (“rejected by UK appeal courts”) is grossly misleading. Only 15% of cases don’t make it to the final stage for that reason, suggesting that 85% or so have been “rejected by UK appeal courts” but nonetheless fail in a early judicial decision at the court.

    The second point is that the article doesn’t give anywhere near enough information to present the full picture. And I am not just talking in the pernickety legalistic sense but just generally – the point the article and you are making is that the Strasbourg court is ruling against the UK in the majority of cases. But it isn’t. It is ruling for the UK in almost every case.

    Third point: only a very tiny proportion reach the final stages, and the remaining cases are not necessary frivolous or “bonkers” as you put it. I know of many, many non-bonkers and non-frivolous cases which get rejected at the admissibility stage by a judge.

    I maintain my view that the article and your quote were seriously misleading.

  15. Kevin Petty says:

    Dear Dom

    So if I understand you correctly, all the cases that didn’t reach the court were either frivolous, vexatious, or bonkers?

    So, for example, in 2013 1641 frivolous, vexatious, lunatics tried to complain to the European Court?

    How about the viewpoint that if the UK Government is losing cases in the European Courts then the UK Government should be looking at why it keeps breaking the law and the Press should be holding the Government to account rather than getting lickspittle journalists to justify their ignorance.

  16. Dom Raab says:

    Dear Adam, If you’re going to pick up people for their ‘slapdash’ approach to statistics, you need to be 100% accurate yourself, which you patently aren’t. The Table in question shows 499 total judgments, 297 of which involve substantive violations of the ECHR by the UK. The rest include all other rulings made by the Court on lack of jurisdiction and other preliminary objections including admissibility (footnote 2 to the table). So, it is perfectly reasonable to say that 3 in 5 cases that reach the Court go against the UK. I explicitly made the point that we weren’t talking about vexatious/ frivolous claims that may be sifted at an earlier stage, by referring to cases that have gone through the UK appeal courts first – one of the key admissibility criteria to get to Strasbourg. Equally, these are the stats put out by the Court in one table for easy reference, so it is hardly the manipulation you sugest. What you’re really saying is, don’t worry, there are a lot more really bonkers cases out there that don’t make an initial cut. For those concerned about judicial legislation from Strasbourg and the yawning democratic deficit – including many senior members of the UK judiciary – that is scant reassurance.
    Best regards, Dom Raab

    1. jon says:

      Dom, your argument turns on the alleged “democratic deficit” arising from, presumably, the international character of the Strasbourg court. I am rather confused as to what part exactly a constitutional bill of rights, which the Convention rights (as interpreted) can play in a democracy, if not to actually protect unpopular persons FROM the people. This is a political question over which the judiciary whose opinions you invoke, have no professional competence, indeed may hold extremely eccentric views.

      Our virtually unique historic combination of untrammelled Parliamentary sovereignty, and a divisive and majoritarian political culture as played out through FPTP, wherein a minority can elect an overwhelmingly powerful party-captured Parliament, which extraordinarily has no formal constraints on its legislative competence whatever, cries out for some sort of constitutional constraint to protect the rights of individuals. Indeed precisely this mandates the sovereign act which saw us constrain our lawmaking discretion within the areas of Convention competence – on a revocable basis.

      If you are concerned about the loss of influence of the Diceyan “true sovereign”, i.e. the people, then perhaps you should be arguing for the hunting of paedophiles with hounds for sport, given that that’s what many people desire. Alternatively, you could play a responsible role in explaining to the public exactly the content and objects and role of the Convention jurisprudence, rather than railing against it for want of a true political target.

      I consider Adam’s point about the misleading character of the Sun headline, substantively far more apposite than what I’ve heard from yourself (your statements in this instance are behind a paywall, conveniently for the defence of your argument).

  17. Gary Holford says:

    Facts are as follows (unless you can prove otherwise): To perform civil litigation and invoke human rights law we either have to be conversant with law and have the social standing not to make the judge dismiss us as ‘simple’ plebs OR the resources to pay someone who is trained in law that can be respected by the judge.
    In essence I am saying these laws give the rich loopholes and advantages to escape justice but do little for the common man like myself!

    1. jon says:

      Gary, what you rightly point out – obscurity of our law, and the ridiculously excessive expense of discovering what it says and conducting legal action, is a failing of the entire British justice system, human rights law is not an exception. Indeed as human rights is a new area, and is considered our equivalent of a Bill of Rights, and so written about with care for its accessibility, it’s a lot easier to understand than the more ancient legal fields. There is a famous saying which long predates human rights law – that our courts are open to all, just like the Ritz.

      As for social standing and being dismissed as a pleb I don’t see again why (if that is an issue) that should just concern human rights and not all areas of law. As for human rights law doing nothing for the common man like yourself, and your asking people here to disprove that, I strongly disagree, and think, with respect, you cheat yourself by outsourcing understanding about it to others, who may themselves have all sorts of different opinions based on all sorts of factors.

  18. Jon says:

    I thought you were very restrained there in your description of Dominic Raab! I speak enviously as one whom the mention of his name fills with…grrr

    Any misleading or untrue anti judge, anti Convention, concocted retributivist nonsense and he is parrotting it before the Daily Mail have even got out their version.

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.




#50cases #catgate #fighthatewithhumanrights #lawblogs 7/7 7/7 bombing 7/7 inquest 7/7 inquests 9/11 100 years of women in law 1688 bill of rights 2010 General Election 2012 in review 2012 year in review 2017 @Iamspartacus a1p1 a1p1 breach A1P1 damages Aarhus Aarhus Convention A B and C abbas hall Abid Naseer ablyazov abortion Absent Witness Abu Hamza abu qatada abuse of dominant position abuse of private information abuse of process academic freedom access to courts access to information Access to justice accountability acoustic shock acquired disorder AC v Berkshire Addison Lee Adetoro v United Kingdom adjudication administrative law admissability criteria adoption adoption orders advance decision advance directive advertisements advertising affirmative action Afghanistan age assessment agency age of criminal responsibility aggravated damages agreement Agriculture Ahava Ahmad Faraz Khan AI air noise air pollution air quality air travel Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi Alan Turing ALBA alcohol dependence algorithm algorithms Alien Tort Statute alignment problem Al Jedda allergy allocation of resources Al Qaeda Al Quaeda Al Rawi Al Skeini alternative medicine alternative therapy altruism American Declaration of Independence Amnesty International Amnesty International 2010 Report amphibians amusement parks ancillary relief Andy Coulson animal cruelty animal culls animal rights Animals animal welfare anonymising anonymity anonymous website anorexia nervosa an rights Ansari ANS v ML [2012] UKSC 30 anti-blasphemy laws anti-discriminatiom anti-semitism anti-terrorism review anti-terrorist legislation antibody antiretrovirals anxious scrutiny AONB A P Herbert appeal Appeals archeology Arctic charr Arhuus Convention Armed forces army arrest Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 UNCRC article 5 Article 5 ECHR article 5(3) Article 6 article 6 criminal Article 6(3) Article 8 Article 8 claim against council Article 8 protection of privacy Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Article 50 article 263 TFEU artificial hydration and nutrition Artificial Intelligence artificial nutrition and hydration Artile 8 asbestosis Assange Assange extradition assisted reproduction assisted suicide assisting suicide associated newspapers asylum asylum amnesty asylum claim asylum law asylum seeker asylum seeker death driver asylum seekers ATE premiums atheism Atul Gawande audio Australia australian constitution autism autonomy axel springer axel springer ag ayslum Azelle Rodney babar ahmad baby Baby P badger cull badgers Badger Trust bad judges bad tackle Baha Mousa Public Inquiry Bahta & Ors bail BAILII bailout Balen Report ban bankers bonuses Bank Mellat baptism barclay brothers barristers bats' rights battlefield BBC beaches bedroom tax beijing belief benefit cap benefits bereavement damages best interests big business bike training service bilateral trade treaty bill of right Bill of Rights Bill of rights commission Bingham Rule of Law Centre Binyam Mohamed bioethics biology biomedicine biometric data biotechnology bipolar disorder birds directive birmingham birth certificate births deaths and marriages BJ (INCAPACITATED ADULT) sub nom SALFORD CITY COUNCIL v BJ Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson blawg blawg review blight blogging blogosphere blogs blood Bloody Sunday Bloody Sunday findings BNP boaters boats Body scanners Boris Johnson bovine TB bradley manning BRCA BRCA gene BRCA mutation breach of Article 6 breach of Article 6(1) breach of confidence breast cancer brevet brexit Brian Haw bribery Bribery Act 2010 Brighton Conference Brighton Declaration British Airways British Airways v Unite British Bill of Rights British Chiropractic Association British citizenship British constitution British embassy british lawyers British soldiers Broadmoor bronze soldier brownlie browsing BSkyB BUCKLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 40060/08 - HEJUD Buddhism budget Bull v Hall burkha Burnham Market Book Festival Cadder Cafcass Canada canal cancellation cancer CAP capacity carbon capture cardio-pulmonary resuscitation Care and Support Bill care home care home; elderly people; dementia; capacity; deprivation of liberty care homes care order Care orders care proceedings car insurance carnivores Carson v UK case law Case Note Catholic Care Catholic Church catholic midwives CBI CCTV cerebral palsy CETA CFAs chagos Chagos Islanders charitable objects charity Charity Commission Charles J read judgment Simon Lewis Charlie Hebdo charter Charter of Fundamental Rights chemotherapy chief coroner child child's best interests child abduction child poverty Child Poverty Action Group child protection Children children's homes children's rights Children Act children giving evidence child welfare chimpanzees China Chindamo Chris Grayling Chris Packham Christian christianity church church of scientology CIA circumcision citizens advice bureau citizenship citizens rights civil liberties civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships civil proceedings civl partnerships CJEU CJEU rule of law class of degree client earth climate change climate change sceptic climategate climate research unit clinical need clinical negligence cloning closed material procedure Closed Material Procedures Coalition agreement Coalition Government Code Civile code of conduct cohabitees cold calling Cologne combat immunity comments comment thread commission Commission for Equality & Human Rights Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law common law rights communications Communications Act 2003 communications data Communications Data Bill 2008 Compassion in World Farming compelementary medicine compensation competition complementary medicine compulsory detention compulsory labour computer hacking computer science concentration camps conditional fee agreements conditions Confederation of British Industry confidentiality confiscation order conscience conscience clause conscientious objection consent conservation Conservative Party Conservatives constitution constitutional court of south africa constitutional disorder construction consultation consultation responses contact order contact point contempt of court contempt of court act content neutrality content providers contingency fee arrangements contract control and restraint Control orders Convention system of protection Conway cookies copying Copyright copyright infringement cornrows coronavirus coroner Coroner's inquest coroners Coroners and Justice Act 2009 corporal punishment cosmetics testing costs Costs and Procedure costs budgets council Council of Europe Counter Terrorism and Security Bill cour de cassation court Court of Justice of the European Union Court of Protection Court of Session Court Orders court procedure Courts Bill Courts Martial Covent Garden Coventry Council CPR gateway CPS CRB challenge credibiility] credibility cricket crime crimes against humanity Criminal criminal conviction Criminal Courts Charge criminal justice Criminal Justice and Courts Bill criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal prosecution criminal records criminal responsibility criminal sentencing Cross Examination Crown Prosecution Service crr crucifix cryonic preservation custody custody dispute cuts Cybersecurity D daily mail Daily Mirror Dajid Singh Shergill Dale Farm evictions damage Damages dangerous nonsense database data controller data processing data protection data retention data sharing data snooping date rape david cameron David Chaytor David James David Kelly David Miranda day care closures death death match death penalty Debbie Purdy declaration declaration of incompatibility defamation Defamation Act Defamation Bill defaming the dead defence of illegality defendant's costs order deficit defmation DEFRA delegated legislation democracy Democracy village demolition order demotion Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees Department of Health deportation deportation cases deprivation of liberty deprivation of property derogations Detainee inquiry Detention determinism devolution devolved government Dewani diagnosis Diane Pretty Dica diego garcia Digital Economy Act 2010 Digital Economy Bill Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy diplomatic immunity direct action Directive direct marketing director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Disclosure of Previous Convictions discretionary leave to remain discretion to quash Discrimination Discrimination law disease dismissal disqualification dissenting judges Divisional Court divorce DNA DNA database DNA home-testing DNA retention DNA testing doctor doctor-patient relationship doctors doctrine of double effect doctrine of state act does it matter? domestic violence domestic workers Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell donor Do Not Resuscitate Notices Doogan and Wood do trees have rights? double conviction DPP guidelines Dr Chhabra dripa driving licence driving penalty Drones Drone strikes drug dealer damages drug offence Dr Zakir Naik Dublin Convention Dublin II Dublin III regulation Dublin II Regulation Dublin Regulation Dudko duties duty of care duty to investigate duty to rescue eastenders eating horses ECHR economic and social rights economic loss economic rights ECtHR Ed Snowden Education Edward Snowden EHRC elderly election election court election results Electoral Commission report Electoral law electric cars electricity Elizabeth Warren ellie butler el masri embryo embryonic stem cells embryos emergency budget emissions trading employers Employment employment appeal tribunal employment disputes employment law employment rights Employment Tribunal fees employment tribunals employment vetting English Defence Leauge English translation enhanced criminal record checks entitlement Environment environmental challenges environmental impact assessment environmental information environmental justice Environmental law environmental law foundation environmental liability directive environmental protection environmental rights environment brexit Envrionmental Information Directive epa endangerment finding eployment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Equality and Human Rights Commission Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) - equality of arms equal marriage equal marriage consultation equal treatment erika espionage ethics EU eu and strasbourg EU Charter EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms eu commission EU competence eu costs eu courts EU criminal Law opt out eu documents eu law Europe european european arrest warrant European Charter European Charter of Fundamental Rights European Charter of Fundamental Rigths European Commission European Communities Act European Convention European Convention on Human Rights European Court European Court of European Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights reform European Court of Justice european disability forum European law European Sanctions Blog European Social Charter european union Eurozone EUSFTA eu state liability euthanasia EU transparency EU Turkey summit EU waste directive eviction evidence evidence-based medicine Evidence-based policy evidence of torture evironmental assessment evolution ex-pats exceptional case funding exceptionality excessive taxes exclusion exclusion order executions exhaustion of domestic remedies expenses expenses scandal expert evidence Expert evidence on foreign law Express extinct extinction rebellion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Eyjafjallajökull volcano Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition factitious disorder factory farming fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news false imprisonment false passport Families Need Fathers Family Family Court family courts Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person family division Family Justice Review family law family legal aid Family life farage farm farm animals farming fast-track removal fatal accidents act fathers fathers rights feature fertility treatment FGM finance Financial Conduct Authority financial dependency financial harm financial information Financial Services Authority Firat Dink First Amendment first publishers fisheries fishing claims fishing industry fishing quota fishing rights fitness to practise Flood v The Times Flood v Times foetus foia food banks forced marriage force feeding foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy forensic science format shifting Fourteenth Amendment fracking France francovich freedom freedom of assembly Freedom of Association freedom of conscience Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech freedom of the press free expression Freemen of the land free movement of goods free speech free will freezing assets French schools FTP fundamental rights Funeral pyre Future of legal blogging G (Children) G4S G20 protest Gabrielle Giffords Gaddafi regime gainsborough game birds Gamu Nhengu gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay couple gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict gazza GCHQ gdpr GE 2017 gearbox Gender gender reassignment General Dental Council General Duty General Election general election 2010 general election 2019 General Medical Council genes genetic affinity genetic discrimination genetic disorder genetic engineering genetic information Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act genetic modification genetics genetic testing Geneva Convention genome genome sequencing Geoff Hoon George Osborne German Chancellor German court Germany germ line mutation Ghailani GlaxoSmithKlein gmc Goldman Sachs golf course Google government governmental bodies GP privacy grayling consultation Great Repeal Bill green belt grenfell Gresham College grooming gross offence Guantanamo Bay Guardian News and Media Ltd guernsey G v E & Ors G v E & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 939 gwyneth paltrow gypsies H1N1 habeas corpus habitats Habitats Directive habitats protection hackgate Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk hancock Haney happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council haringey council tax benefit Harkins and Edwards hate speech Health healthcare health insurance hearing loss Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary high speed train route Hindu Hirst No. 2 Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust home homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy Homo Deus homophobia homo sapiens homosexual hooding horisontality horizontal application horizontal effect horsemeat hospitals Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefit housing benefits Howard Donald Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRA incorporation Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts human being human dignity Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome humanism human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights in private disputes human rights news human rights record Human Rights Watch human right to education Human Tissue Act human trafficking hung parliament hunting Huntington's Chorea Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Ian McEwan ICAO Igor Sutyagin illegal immigration illegality illegality defence illegitimacy image rights imaginary litigation immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity Imports incorporation HRA increase of sanction indefinite leave to remain indian advocates indian supreme court indirect discrimination Indonesia Industrial Action informed consent Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction injunction continued inland revenue Inquest inquest law Inquests inquiry insanity inshore fleet insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intellectual property intelligence intelligence services act intensive care intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international comity international conflict international court of justice international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law International Labour Organisation international law International Stem Cell Corporation international treaty obligations internet internet libel internet service providers internment internship interrogation intrusion inuit invasive species invention investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program iran sanctions Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland Irish Constitution irrationality ISC ISIL islam isolated nucleic acids isolation Israel israeli palestinian conflict italian ships Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban Jack Dorsey jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan japanese knotweed Jason Smith jean charles de menezes Jeet Singh Jefferies jehovah's witnesses Jeremy Clarkson Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt jihad Jihadi brides jihadists JIH identity jim duffy job jobseekers' allowance Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy jonathan sumption Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging judgment judgment in default Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference Judicial immunity judicial no-mans land judicial oversight judicial power judicial review Judicial Review reform Judicial Studies Board judiciary Julian Assange Julian Asssange Juncker jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Cameron Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justiciability justification just satisfaction Kant Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK kazakstan Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Khan v Advocate General for Scotland khordokovsky Kings College Kiobel Klimas koran burning laboratory animals laboratory test Labour labour law lack of reasons Lady Hale land landfill gas landowner landowners language lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain Lee Rigby legal advice privilege legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legality legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal privilege legal profession legal professional privilege legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure Lewis Malcolm Calver liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberal Democrats liberal humanism Liberty libraries closure library closures licence conditions licence to shoot licensee life insurance life orders life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania litigant in person litvinenko live exports livestock livestock trade living instrument living will LME local authorities local government locked in syndrome locus standi london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Carey Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge Lord Judge speech Lord Justice Jackson Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Mance Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sales Lord Saville Report Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta Magna Carter Mail Online mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy male circumcision malice malicious falsehood mandela M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury manifestation of belief manifestos Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui Marie Colvin marine conservation marine environmental law marine sanctuaries Mark Kennedy mark twain marriage marriage act 1949 material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton Mcfarlane McKenzie friend me/cfs research Media and Censorship media judge Medical medical confidentiality medical ethics medical evidence medical liability medical negligence medical profession medical qualifications medical records medical treatment medicine mental capacity mental capacity; press; reporting restrictions Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts mental health hospital Mental illness merits review mesothelioma metgate MGN v UK michael gove Middle Temple Midwives Milly Dowler minimally conscious minimum income minimum sentence Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts miscarriage of justice misfeasance in public office missiles misuse of private information mitochondrial disease MMR MMR vaccination modern slavery Mohamed monitoring powers monsanto montgomery mooring moral circle morality morocco mortgage fraud mortuaries motherhood motor neuron disease Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa movement for democratic change MP expenses Mr Brewer Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady Mr Justice Sharp MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Munchausen Munchausen by proxy murder murder reform music Musician's Union Muslim mustafa kamal mutation mutations myanmar MY Cannis my kingdom for a horse Myriad NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 Nadja Benaissa naked rambler Naomi Campbell narcolepsy National Health Act nationality National Origin National Pro Bono Week national security national sovereignty Natural England natural rights nature nature conservation naturism Nazi neanderthals necessary implication need for legal aid needs assessment negligence neighbour dispute Neuberger neural degeneration neurogenerative disease neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World news roundup new Supreme Court President NGO standing NHS NHS Risk Register NICE Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab niqab No Angels Noise Regulations 2005 non-justiciability nonhuman animals non voluntary euthanasia Northern Ireland Northern Irish Assembly notification requirements nuclear challenges nuisance nurse nursing nursing home obiter dicta Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt official solicitor of Rights Commission oil and gas oil spill olympics open justice oppress oppressive treatment OPQ v BJM orchestra orthodox schools Osama Bin Laden Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 ouster clause overseas aid Oxford University Palestinian Territories palliative care palliative sedation paramount consideration paramountcy principle parental responsibility order parental rights parenthood parents responsibility parking spaces parliament parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole parole board party funding passengers rights passing off passive smoking passport passport seizure pastor Terry Jones patent patents paternity Pathway Students patiets' rights Patrick Quinn murder Paul Chambers PCOs peace-keeping operations Pensions people for the ethical treatment of animals (Peta) performers' rights permanent injunction persecution persistent vegetative state personal data personal information Personal Injury personality rights Personal life perversity Pet Animals Act 1951 Peter and Hazelmary Bull Peter Gibson pet shops PF and EF v UK Philip Lawrence Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps photos photovoltaics physical and mental disabilities physical restraint physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy PJS placement order planning planning human rights planning system planning time limits plantagenet plebgate pleural plaques POCA podcast points poison Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance policing Policy Exchange report political advertising political judges political persecution politicians for hire Politics Politics/Public Order pollution polonium poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict porsche 917 portal possession order possession proceedings post mortem Posts power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy preliminary reference prerogative powers press Press Association press briefing press freedom Priest priests primary legislation Prince Andrew Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers prison rules Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door private disputes Private life private nuisance private use procedural unfairness Procedure proceeds of crime Professional Discipline professional indemnity Professional life Property property rights proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill protective costs Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals psychology psychotherapy Public/Private public access publication public authorities public authority public bodies Public Bodies Bill public figure public funding public inquiries public inquiry public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity public interest litigation publicity public law unfairness Public Order public powers public procurement Public Sector Equality Duty Public Services Ombudsman Putin putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 472 R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 Race race relations Rachel Corrie racial discrimination Racial equality radio radiotherapy Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate randomised controlled trial rape rape case raptors Ratcliffe 6 Ratcliffe on Soar Ratcliffe power station rating rationality rcs RCW v A Local Authority reasonableness reasons reasons challenges recent case law and news Recent posts reception conditions recognition of judgments recreational rights Redfearn v UK referendum reform refugee applications refugee crisis refugee status refusal of treatment Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages registration regulatory rehabilitation of offenders Reith Lectures Re J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204 relgious freedom Religion religion in the courts religious beliefs religious discrimination religious freedom religious prosecution remedies renewables subsidies rent repeal reporting restrictions representation reproductive rights reproductive technologies reproductive wrongs rescue rescuer's claim resettlement of offenders resource allocation respect for family life responsibility in tort restrictions on exports restrictions on liberty results 2010 resuscitation retrospective application of the Human Rights Act retrospective legislation retrospective penalty retrospectivity rev paul nicholson reynolds Reynolds defence Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1233 richard III Richard O'Dwyer right of appeal rightsifno RightsInfo rights of children Right to a fair hearing right to a fair trial right to a home right to a remedy right to artistic expression right to a student loan right to autonomy right to autonomy and privacy right to die right to dies right to die with dignity right to dignity right to education right to expression right to family life right to food right to free enjoyment of possessions right to information right to liberty right to life right to peaceful enjoyment of property Right to Privacy right to private and family life right to refuse treatment right to respect for private life right to silence right to strike right to swim right to truth right to vote Rihanna Rio Ferdinand riots ripa rise of fascism risk risk assessment rival supermarkets Roma Roman Catholic Roman Catholic Church roman catholic schools Romania Rooney's Gold roundup roundup ready Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust royal dutch petroleum royal name Royal Oper House Royal Prerogative rule of law Rupert Jackson Rusal Russia russia and human rights Russian Federal Security Service Rutherford Ryanair s sadie frost Safari same-sex same sex parents same sex partnerships same sex relationship sanctions set aside sanctity of life Sandiford Sapiens Sarah Ferguson sark satire saudi arabia Savage (Respondent) v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Saville Report schedule 7 schizophrenia school building school surveillance schrems science scientific atheism scientific research scientology Scoppola Scotland Scotland Act Scotland Act 1998 Scotland Bill Scottish Government Scottish Human Rights Commission scottish landlord and tenant Scottish Parliament SCOTUS sea fishing seals Seal v UK search engines search powers secondary legislation secondary smoking secrecy Secretary of State Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP secret courts secret criminal trial secret evidence secret justice Secret trials sectarianism secularism security security cameras security services security vetting Sedar Mohammed segregation Select Committee on AI self-defence self-incrimination seminar sentencing September 11 serco serious harm sermon Seroxat service outside jurisdiction set-off Sewel Convention sex abuse sex ban sex ban low IQ sex offender Sex offenders sex register sexual abuse Sexual Offences sexual orientation sexual orientation regulations SFO investigation sfo unlawfulness shaker aamer Shamima Begum sham marriage shared residence order Sharon Shoesmith shetland shipping shipwreck Shirley Chaplin shooting shoulder shrug should trees have rights SIAC sihkism Simon Singh sir alan ward Sir Nicholas Wall Sir Peter six months rule slander slaughterhouses slavery smacking small claims court small solar Smith Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 smog smoking ban Snyder v Phelps social and economic rights social benefits social housing socialite social media social security law social welfare social workers Solicitorsfromhell website solitary confinement soma somali pirates sources South Africa south african constitution sovereignty Sovereignty clause soviet union soybean Spanish properties spare room subsidy special advocate special advocates species specific performance spending cuts spielmann squatters Standing standing rules starvation state immunity statelessness statute statutory power Statutory purpose stay of execution stem cell research stem cells stem cell therapy Stephen Gough stephen sedley stepping hill hospital Sterilisation steve macqueen Steven Neary stobart-law stop and search stop powers Stormont Assembly storms Strasborug Strasbourg Strasbourg Court strasbourg damages pirates strasbourg law Strasbourg terminology strategic environmental assessment strike strike out Strikes student loans sturgeon subsidies Sugar v BBC suicide suicide act 1961 super injunction super injunctions supermax prisons superstition Supreme Court Supreme Court Live Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court Scotland surgery surrogacy surrogacy arrangement surveillance swine flu Syria systemic violence Take That tallinn tariff Taser Tax tax avoidance tax discrimination tchenguiz technology Telegraph telephone preference service television justice tenancy tent city termination termination of pregnancy terror asset freezing Terrorism terrorism act terrorism act 2000 terrorism legislation terrorism prosecution terrorist finance terrorist threat terry pratchett Tesla testamentary dispositions The Bike Project the Catholic church The Corner House theism The Law in These Parts therapy Theresa May the right to privacy The Stig The Sun third countries third party appeals three way case time limits time limits in human rights Tobacco tobacco cartels Top Gear tort Torture torture inquiry totally without merit TPIM TPP tracking trade trade secrets trades unions trade union congress Trade Unions transexual transsexual transsexuals travel travellers travel restrictions treason treatment treaty treaty accession trial by jury trolling TTIP TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors Tugendhat tumour Turkey tweeting in court Twitter twitter in court Twitter Joke Trial UK UK citizenship uk constitution UK election UK Human Rights Blog UK Human Rights Roundup UKIP UK Jewish Film Festival ukraine UK Supreme Court UK Uncut ultra orthodox jews ultra vires UN unable to vote unacceptable behaviour policy unaccompanied minors unborn child UN Convention on the Rights of the Child unelected judges unemployment unfair consultation unfair dismissal unfairness at hearing Unison Unite United Against Fascism Group United Kingdom United Nations United States United States v Windsor universal declaration of human rights universal jurisdiction Universal Periodic Review University University Fees university of east anglia University of Southampton unjust and oppressive unlawful arrest unlawful detention unpaid work schemes UN Resolution unsolicited calls UPR US aviation US Constitution use as of right US Supreme Court vaccination Valkyries variants veganism vehicle breakdown vetting and barring vicarious liability victim victim status Victoria Climbie victorian charter Vienna airport vigilantism villagisation vinton cerf violence violist visa scheme vivisection voluntary euthanasia Volunteers voter compensation voters compensation voting voting compensation vulnerable Wagner Wakefield Wales War war correspondents ward of court War Horse water utilities Watts Wayne Rooney Websites welfare of child welfare of children welfare of the child welfare state welsh bill western sahara whaling What would happen if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights whimbrel whisky Whistleblowing WHO who is JIH whole gene sequencing whole life orders whorship Wikileaked cable Wikileaks wiklleaks Wild Law wildlife Wildlife and Countryside Act will William Hague William Marbury wills wind farms wind turbine Winterbourne View witchcraft withdrawal of treatment wolves women's rights Woolas worboys Workers working time directive wrongful birth wrongful conception wrongful life WTO wuhan X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA - 19010/07 - HEJUD [2013] ECHR 148 X Factor XX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 742 X Y and Z v UK Yemshaw Yildirim v Turkey Your freedom website YouTube yukos Yuval Noah Hariri Zakir Naik Zanu-PF Zero Hours Contracts ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Zimbabwe Zimbabwe farm invasions ZN (Afghanistan) (FC) and others ZZ [2015] CSIH 29 [2015] CSOH 168 £750


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: