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.

Leave a Reply

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 Editors: Darragh Coffey
Jasper Gold
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough KC
David Hart KC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy
Jonathan Metzer

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


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Fair Trials Family Fertility FGM Finance football foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction injunctions Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die right to family life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine UK Supreme Court unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Fair Trials Family Fertility FGM Finance football foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction injunctions Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die right to family life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine UK Supreme Court unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe

Discover more from UK Human Rights Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading