Munchausen, MMR and mendacious “warrior mothers”

15 October 2014 by

andrew-wakefieldA Local Authority and M (By his litigation friend via the Official Solicitor) v E and A (Respondents) [2014] EWCOP 33 (11 August 2014) – read judgment

It’s been an interesting week for the extreme fringes of maternal care. The papers report a trial where a mother is being prosecuted for administering toxic levels of medication to her daughter for “conditions that never existed” (as the court heard). Let’s see how that pans out.

And now the Court of Protection has published a ruling by Baker J that a a supporter of the discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield embarked on an odyssey of intrusive remedies and responses to her son’s disorder, fabricating claims of damage from immunisation, earning her membership of what science journalist Brian Deer calls the class of “Wakefield mothers.”

On the face of it, the detailed and lengthy judgment concerns the applicant son’s reaction to the MMR vaccination when it was administered in infancy, and whether it was the cause of his autism and a novel bowel disease, the latter being Wakefield’s brainchild.  But at the heart of the case lies the phenomenon that we all used to know as Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy.

Baker J was at pains to emphasise that this was not a case about the link between MMR and autism, nor was it an inquiry into whether there is a form of colitis associated with autism.  Autistic enterocolitis, or “leaky gut syndrome”,  is not a recognised condition in orthodox medicine. As Brian Deer puts it,

This is a novel condition, not accepted by medical opinion, masterfully discovered by Wakefield for the (long-since-failed) lawsuit, that cost the taxpayer £26.2 million in payments to lawyers and doctors, of which he got more than £435,000.  For ten years, the boy suffered a “severe gut disorder”, “E” said, although nowhere could the court find any record of such a problem, and the Royal Free only noted constipation.

But this case was not an attack on the authenticity of leaky gut syndrome, any more than it was  an inquiry into the efficacy of diets, supplements and alternative treatments and therapies, either generally or specifically for people with autism.

The issue to be determined in these proceedings was whether the mother had acted in M’s best interests. The reason why E was in the frame was that in 2011  a district judge had allowed her to be M’s ” legal “deputy”, which means, under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, she had total control of his affairs. Provided she acted in his best interests.

The judge concluded that she had not.  In reaching this conclusion, Baker J does not mince his words:

In 35 years of family law and in the Court of Protection, dealing with many hundreds of families, I have rarely, if ever, come across someone who is so difficult to work with, who presents so many challenges to hard working professionals and who takes up so much of their valuable time and resources.

I therefore make the findings sought by the local authority: that E [the mother] controls all aspects of M [her son]’s life and does not allow him to develop his independence, restricts access to M and information about M and is unable to work with professionals. In closing submissions, Mr Bagchi [witness for the Official Solicitor] submitted that this degree of control was unnecessary, unreasonable and constituted a suppressing effect on M’s life. I agree.

Background facts

The applicant, M, is a 24-year-old man, born in July 1989, and who had lived with his parents for eighteen years. He had his first vaccinations at six weeks and at eight months, with no records of any adverse reactions.  The first relevant concern was in May 1990, when he was aged 10 months.  In an account taken many years later , his parents gave “increasingly vivid” accounts of an extreme reaction to the injection experienced by M.

In 1992 his developmental delays had been diagnosed under the general heading of “autistic learning difficulties”. As Baker J mentions later on in his judgment, there is no such formal diagnosis in the international classification systems, although it is a term often used informally to describe the regression that can occur at about aged 16 to 20 months. M’s parents subsequently subjected him to a regime of alternative and complementary treatments, in particular homeopathy, cranial osteopathy, reflexology, naturopathy and light and sound therapy.

In February 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield and others published a paper in The Lancet which suggested a link between the MMR injection and autism and a condition they named “autistic enterocolitis”. The subsequent history is well known – his studies were found to be erroneous, he resigned from the Royal Free Hospital and was finally  struck off the Medical Register for professional misconduct. As Baker J observed,

The preponderance of medical opinion is that there is no evidence of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and that the actions of Dr Wakefield were, at best, misconceived and, at worst, fraudulent. It is said that, as a result of his activities, many parents have decided against permitting the vaccination of their children, with significant adverse consequences for public health.

Nevertheless there remains a degree of support for his theories, in particular by a group of parents who are convinced that the autistic traits identified in their children are attributable to the MMR vaccine. A group action taken by these parents was cancelled when the Legal Services withdrew funding.

From his late teens there had been several court proceedings concerning the family, culminating in this case, brought by the local authority in the Court of Protection, seeking orders as to M’s future residence and care. His mother, E, had been appointed his welfare deputy under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act. The local authority asserted that M was not an appropriate deputy, having subjected her son to a regime of “excessive control” over every aspect of M’s life. More seriously, the local authority alleged that E had fabricated accounts of M’s health problems and subjected him to unnecessary assessments and treatments, as well as imposing on him an unnecessarily restrictive diet, with a range of unnecessary supplements.

Background to these proceedings 

From 2008 M attended a series of special institutions for people with autism. In each one of them, the staff expressed concern about the level of control over M exercised by his mother. She provided a strict dietary programme for M to be followed by the staff, regular health bulletins on his return to the unit after weekends at home and a list of all the treatments and supplements to be given to him. By this point, according to a list prepared by E and A, the range of biomedical interventions being supplied to M included “a probiotic, six vitamin supplements, four mineral supplements, five trace elements, fatty acids, amino acids, enzymes and a range of homeopathic remedies.”

In February 2011 the local authority filed an application in the Court of Protection proceedings seeking, inter alia, orders setting aside the appointment of E as M’s deputy, authorising M’s continuing at “Y” House, prohibiting E and A from removing M from Y House without the local authority’s consent.  These applications were subsequently withdrawn and M returned home.

In July 2013 the local authority started these proceedings in the Court of Protection seeking orders (1) permitting the authority to remove M from his parents’ home and either return him to the institution where he had been cared for or place him in independent or supported living; (2) that he should not take supplements or medication unless prescribed by a doctor or considered necessary by his carers; (3) that professionals and care staff were not required to follow E’s instructions regarding M’s care and (4) removing E as his deputy.

By the time the application came on for a hearing the local authority had applied for the immediate removal of M from the care of E and A and this was supported by the Official Solicitor. At the conclusion of that hearing on 6th March 2014 Baker J authorised M’s removal the following day, into an emergency placement at an establishment –  “N House” – some sixty miles from the family home and in a different county.

In the course of the hearing it became clear that E, and perhaps also A, saw themselves as the victims of a network of three conspiracies.

  1. They asserted that there had been a systematic conspiracy by the medical profession to conceal the truth about the effects of the MMR vaccine and its links with autism.
  2. They argued that the employees of this local authority have fabricated a case against them with the aim of removing M from their care for financial reasons.
  3. They contended the Official Solicitor, far from representing M properly in these proceedings, has used them as an opportunity to pursue an agenda of undermining the prospects of future litigation about the MMR vaccination

Baker J summarised the principles behind the establishment of lack of capacity  to be followed by the Court of Protection under in s.1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. He also set out the statutory, case law and ECHR requirements for the test of “best interests” of the person who lacks capacity.  He then considered the opinion of the psychologist, Dr Beck, instructed as an expert witness in these proceedings with regard to E’s approach to the proceedings. Dr Beck described E’s account at times as “self-aggrandising and dismissive of the contribution of others.”

She found that the mother seemed to regard herself as superior and adopting a patronising attitude. The same tendencies were apparent in her oral evidence and at other times in the hearing, particularly towards the staff at the various homes where M has lived. Dr Beck thought that E’s manner reflected the fragility of her intra-psychic structures. In Dr Beck’s opinion, E relies heavily on M’s needs and complaining about them not being met to provide structure and meaning to her life. It is Dr Beck’s view that E:

“needs M to be a victim so that she can save him and meet her own needs for attention, to be important and to be cared for.”

Dr Beck also expressed the view that E had factitious disorder imposed on others – the current designation of Munchausen syndrome.

The Court’s findings

Baker J noted his satisfaction with all the expert witnesses called by the Official Solicitor. But he voiced his concerns about the qualifications and the approach of some of E’s witnesses, particularly the practitioner responsible for diagnosing M’s “Lyme disease” symptoms and prescribing a diet for him without consultation.  Most significantly, none of E’s witnesses had received any training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and it was “clear from their evidence that none of them had given proper consideration to the question whether M had capacity to consent to their assessments or the treatment they were prescribing”:

This case has highlighted the urgent need for all health professionals, including those practising in alternative and complimentary medicine, to familiarise themselves with the Act so that they can apply its principles and procedures when they treat a person who lacks capacity, as most of them will at some point.

As to E’s claims about M’s response to the MMR vaccine, the judge set out the only three possible explanations for what had happened.

  1.  E did give the account to all the GPs involved in M’s treatment, but each of them has negligently failed to record it.
  2. She gave an account but all the practitioners had chosen not to include it in their records. That is what E maintained had happened, alleging that the whole of the medical profession was deliberately concealing the truth about the MMR vaccine.
  3. E had fabricated, or at least grossly exaggerated, her account.

Mass negligence, in Baker J’s view, could obviously be discounted.  It was also “completely fanciful” that the whole of the medical establishment had decided to act deceitfully in the way alleged by E. He therefore could only conclude that the account given by E as to M’s reaction to the MMR had been fabricated.

The judge therefore found that E’s behaviour amounted to factitious disorder imposed on others.

It was suggested by E in the course of the hearing, relying on material available on the internet, that the diagnosis was made without justification, as a means of attacking mothers of children with autism with a view to removing them from their care. I have no reason to believe that there is any basis for this assertion, but it certainly does not apply in this case. I am sure that the diagnosis of factitious disorder in this case is valid.

Whilst his return home would have been theoretically desirable, such was the influence of the mother on M’s sister and father, they would be “unable to protect M from the risks that would arise were he to return home”. The judge’s interim order was that M should in the medium-term institution pending a long-term move into supported living. As for E’s role as his deputy under the 2005, he had this to say:

E has grossly abused her position as deputy, and there is no question of her being reinstated. She is the last person who should be entrusted with that responsibility, and her application to be restored as deputy is refused.

The question whether a deputy should be appointed was adjourned to the next hearing.

Comment

As we can see from this litigation, there is no shortage of snake oil vendors who will rush to the help of certain vulnerable people, particularly parents struggling with the arduous task of managing autistic offspring. As Baker J notes drily, “whether what they are offering is truly helpful is debatable.”

This extensive and expensive series of proceedings also demonstrates the tendency of certain people to regard litigation as an opportunity to conduct an independent inquiry into some controversy or issue which is independent of the case before it.  In this case, M’s parents actually requested that the court took steps to recommend an independent inquiry into the use in this country of the Urabe strain of the MMR vaccine. Baker J suspected that part of their aim in this litigation was to bring about such an inquiry.

I do not propose to make any such recommendation, not least because, as I have found, M’s case has nothing to do with the MMR vaccine, save in the false accounts given by E. Suffice it to say that nothing has emerged in the course of this case to undermine the prevailing view quoted above that the overall evidence clearly indicates no association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

There had been no evidence, before the court or anywhere else, that M’s autism had been caused by the MMR vaccination. This fabrication was compounded by many other false accounts given by E about her son’s health.  He had never had meningitis, autistic enterocolitis, leaky gut syndrome, sensitivity to gluten or casein, disorder of the blood brain barrier, heavy metal poisoning, “autonomic dysautonomia”, rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease.

This behaviour amounts to factitious disorder imposed on another. In addition, E has a combination of personality disorders – a narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and elements of an emotional unstable personality disorder.

 Related reading:

7 comments


  1. Janet Yates says:

    In view of advances in the field of neurodevelopment and interactions with the immune system, this judgement could be seen as anti-scientific (see aricles linked below). The lag between research and clinic is well known but in this day and age it is surely reasonable to be a bit more scientific about things. I know that expert advice was given, but perhaps a broader spectrum of advice was needed. There seems to have been a need to discredit this family’s experience in order to avoid even tangentially giving weight to their beliefs.
    Another factor here is the lack of awareness of broader familial phenotype – another interpretation of the mother’s style is that she is showing precisely mild social traits of autism. I think the psychologist is perhaps not a specialist in autism spectrum disorders and how they present in the milder forms and more especially in females and that this was an oversight by whoever hired them.

    The judgement will leave the young man without access to the accumulated knowledge of the people most familiar with him and its informative effect on advocacy that could truly represent his needs. It is common for people with autism spectrum disorders to experience increased/changing symptoms during late adolescence, including regression and this can lead to parents being at a loss at a point where there is woefully inadequate support available. This can lead to inappropriate institutionalisation and misdiagnoses. Support is mostly geared to childhood and specifically compulsory education. There is a paucity of effective cooperation and indeed specialism with regards to this increasingly common condition and its prognosis across the lifespan, with the result that parents are often obliged to try and fill in the gaps themselves.
    An alternative approach would be to use the high motivation of these parents for knowledge about their offsprings’ condition to some advantage in informing services.
    I think this is a problematic ruling.
    “Immune challenge during early and late neonatal periods can induce robust alterations in physiological and behavioral functions, resulting in greater risk for the development of neuropsychiatric disorders, such as anxiety and depression, later in life.”

    http://www.nnjournal.net/article.asp?issn=2347-8659;year=2014;volume=1;issue=1;spage=35;epage=39;aulast=Majidi-Zolbanin

    “Epidemiological evidence has established links between immune activation during the prenatal or early postnatal period and increased risk of developing a range of neurodevelopment disorders in later life. Animal models have been used to great effect to explore the ramifications of immune activation during gestation and neonatal life.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22730147

  2. Steve Hawkins says:

    Nails going into an awful lot of coffins here. Whether or not it is the real case, in this instance, that mother ‘E’ was guilty of Munchausen’s (And why, in any case, must such a mentally ill person be pilloried as a criminal?), the judge’s unwavering acceptance of the opinions of psychologists as expert and reliable truths; and his complete dismissal of the possibility of establishment forces ganging up against individuals, who do not share their opinions, must be very worrying indeed for anyone suffering from any poorly understood diseases, in the future. Even the Human Rights Blog appears to have no sympathy for them. [I do not, personally believe Wakefield, or any real link between MMR and autism, but this judge’s approach, with unstinting support for the orthodox, establishment view on all things medical, just because it *is* the orthodox, establishment view, is, frankly, frightening.]

    The judge without hesitation accepts the opinion of a psychologist as fact, when he says she says:

    ” She found that the mother seemed to regard herself as superior and adopting a patronising attitude. The same tendencies were apparent in her oral evidence and at other times in the hearing, particularly towards the staff at the various homes where M has lived. Dr Beck thought that E’s manner reflected the fragility of her intra-psychic structures. In Dr Beck’s opinion, E relies heavily on M’s needs and complaining about them not being met to provide structure and meaning to her life. It is Dr Beck’s view that E:

    “needs M to be a victim so that she can save him and meet her own needs for attention, to be important and to be cared for.”

    Dr Beck also expressed the view that E had factitious disorder imposed on others – the current designation of Munchausen syndrome.”

    In my experience, nearly all doctors and psychiatric staff, behave with the self-same superior and patronising attitude, that is being attributed or projected onto ‘E’, here.

    1. lilady RN says:

      I suggest you read the entire 92 page opinion. Have you ever experienced an apical abscess, which is excruciatingly painful? The young man’s mother ignored his pain for one year, while she pursued totally bogus diagnoses and treatments for her developmentally disabled child. E told stories about her disabled child’s condition, including the fable that M was in a persistent vegetative state for six months, following vaccinations. She’s a liar, who rather than becoming his advocate, used her guardianship to maintain control.

      She showed all the markers for having narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders and the Court of Protection finally did the right thing by removing guardianship.

      1. Steve Hawkins says:

        As I noted, I was not writing in support of ‘E’, but on behalf of all those who really are condemned, purely on the opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists, whose profession enjoys a uniquely privileged position of supreme authority without any requirement to provide physical evidence. The judge has given his unreserved support to the opinions of these people and their right to condemn by opinion.

        Even more worryingly, he has simultaneously, dismissed the evidence of those who gave alternative views to those of the entrenched, psychiatric establishment, and, by extension, tarred all those who are trying to rid society of these entrenched and evidence-free views, with the same uninformed brush.

        Anyone unfortunate enough to be suffering from any of a number of chronic diseases, that, in the UK with its environment of perpetual cuts to health services, have been handed over to the psych’ profession, as a cheap alternative to proper diagnostic investigation, must be, rightly, dismayed as their chances of ever being successfully investigated and treated have been made even more remote by this judge’s ill-informed words.

        Furthermore: in making condemnatory remarks about a person who it has just been decided is mentally ill, the judge has, himself, contributed to the stigma of criminality which all those unfortunate enough to ever be branded with the ownership marks of the profession, must bear for the whole of their lives. When even a judge–whether through a prejudice of which he is aware or not–implies that mental illness is a crime, this whole section of the community is traduced.

  3. lilady RN says:

    Excellent presentation of the issues involved with a controlling parent whose behaviors toward her child is a travesty, that is all too common with adherents of autism quackery.

    As the parent of a beloved child born with multiply disabilities, who died peacefully in his sleep ten years ago and as the current substitute guardian of a young man similarly disabled, I am pleased that the Protection Court removed the legal guardianship from this parent and her enabling husband.

  4. Sullivanthepoop says:

    This was probably the best break down of the case I have read yet. Even better than Brian Deer’s article. Thank You!

  5. John Dowdle says:

    What an utterly appaling case – and what an utterly appalling person ‘E’ is.
    What is not clear is the mental capacity of ‘M’. If he is 24 years of age then he is a legal adult and can act for himself – or can he? This is not completely clear.
    There was an item on the PM Radio 4 programme yesterday about a woman who had consumed alcohol while pregnant, which led to her foetus subsequently developing foetal alcohol syndrome after birth.
    The mother – who admitted she had acted wrongly during the pregnancy – opined that many children apparently born with congenital problems could well also be the victims of foetal alcohol syndrome and not ADHD sufferers or afflicted by any other type of condition such as that claimed to be caused by the MMR vaccine.
    It is impossible to know now but I cannot help wondering if E’s excessive control techniques are masking enormous feelings of guilt, possibly brought on by the fact that she knows she abused her foetus during pregnancy and she now compensates with this kind of excessive controlling behaviour, in order to divert her and everyone else’s attention away from her own culpability in creating her son’s present-day condition?

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


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 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 birds directive 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 buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order 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 fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Germany Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection happy new year Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII hereditary disorder 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 Office Home Office v Tariq Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome 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 news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberty library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence limestone pavements lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical negligence medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis military Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London Offensive Speech oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century 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) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation Radmacher Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act 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: