One more day to nominate the human rights cases absolutely everyone should know about

26 February 2015 by

PrintNominations close tomorrow (Friday) at 5pm for the human rights cases which absolutely everyone should know about.

Full guidelines below – please feel free to nominate as many as 50 or as few as 1 case. The more people who contribute, the better the final list will be. I have already had some brilliant entries.

Here are the criteria: 

  • Each case must either be a domestic case (that is, one decided by a UK court) or a European Court of Human Rights case that involves the UK or has had a significant impact on the UK. The case can be 2 days or 30 years old.
  • The focus must be on cases which have had a profound impact on people in the UK – the cases which you would mention first if you were explaining the importance of human rights to someone who knows nothing about the concept.
  • Don’t worry if you don’t have legal expertise or are just starting out as a law student. I want to capture as broad a range of nominations as possible, and that includes from lawyers and academics with different specialisms, e.g. housing law, mental health, prison law etc.
  • I would also be happy to accept nominations from groups of people or organisations.

Here is how to submit your nominations:

  • You can submit as few as one or as many as 50 nominated cases. Please try to nominate at least 10 if you can.
  • Name the case and its date (ideally using its full citation and a link to BAILII, e.g. Smith v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 1234 (Admin) – you can find the citations at the top of the case report on BAILII)
  • Each nominated case should be accompanied by a short rationale (no more than 50 words per case). Try the keep it simple – as if you were explaining the case to someone who doesn’t know anything about human rights.
  • List the nominated cases in order of importance (with number 1 being the most important).
  • Start the email with a one-line biography (e.g. “I am a law student at Birmingham University”)

I really appreciate the help. I will publish the results on this blog and of course on the new HRIP site, which is shaping up very nicely – launch is going to be this Spring. Follow @rights_info on Twitter to keep posted.

 

2 comments


  1. Trudy says:

    “A review of of Britain’s compliance to the European Social Charter found the country’s level of jobseeker’s allowance, pensions and incapacity benefit falls below 40 per cent of the median income of European states.
    To comply, Jobseeker’s Allowance would have to be hiked by £71, from £67 to £138 a week.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/456948/Europe-claims-Britain-must-DOUBLE-benefits
    So already in breach of the above agreement, the UK government also charge the benefit claimants 10% of Council Tax, and in some cases where there is under occupancy in social housing a further charge of 14% or 25% depending on the amount of unused bedrooms.
    So the UK government are not paying enough to live on by approx. 50% and have set their own level of what a benefit claimant needs to live on, but then reduces that amount by the reduced level of Council Tax, brings the claimant into poverty, then reduce the amount the government say claimants need to live on by the reduction of 14% or 25% the UK government are plunging claimants into desperation, resulting in eviction, homelessness and destitution.
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/25/homelessness-crisis-england-perfect-storm It is no surprise then that the homeless figure has increased by 26% in the last four years.
    So to summarize the UK government is paying benefit claimants anything from £73, £84 to £96 less per week than the EU Social Charter commitment they have signed. (please note figures can only be approx.. as Council Tax and rents differ greatly around the country, so the chances are these figures could be massively higher than presented if we looked at major cities alone.)
    Is it any wonder people in the UK are struggling to meet their bills, to feed their kids?

  2. sdbast says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: