Grayling’s legacy, naked rambling and the benefits cap: It’s the Round-up!

30 March 2015 by

Naked RamblerLaura Profumo brings us up to speed with the latest human rights happenings.

In the News

“It seems hard to believe that Grayling will remain Lord Chancellor for long”. Joshua Rozenberg delivered a biting analysis of the minister’s future legacy in the Law Gazette last week. As the General Election looms, “perhaps Cameron has finally begun to realise how much anger and despair there is at the steady erosion in access to justice for which Grayling is held responsible”. If the Conservatives lead the next government, the Lord Chancellor will struggle to secure his place, Rozenberg warns.

Not only has Grayling’s draft British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities been shelved until after the election, but his court fees hike of up to 600% has left many “natural conservatives” smarting. Mathias Cheung similarly criticises such “enhanced” court fees, as the latest blade in his ‘arsenal of justice-axing statutory instruments’. The Law Society has already begun its push for judicial review: if the Lord Chancellor doesn’t “return to a genuine respect for the Magna Carta”, he must “prepare for imminent defeat in court”.

Last week’s publishing of the “devastating” report on civil legal aid certainly hasn’t helped matters, writes Rozenberg. The exceptional cases funding scheme under the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012) – Grayling’s supposed safety-net provision – has led to “possible miscarriages of justice”, with only 151 applications granted out of 2,090 made in an 18-month period. Grayling’s guidance on the scheme has on two occasions been ruled unlawful. Whilst the report shows Grayling achieved his £2bn savings, the question “but at what cost?” might prove his political quietus.

In Other News….

  • Barrister Jon Holbrook calls for race-discrimination laws to be abolished in the workplace, writing in Spiked.  In support of comments made by Nigel Farage, Holbrook argues current anti-discrimination laws “promote equality of outcome”, which is inimical to a “meritocratic workplace”.
  • The ECtHR has refused Stephen Gough – the notorious “naked rambler” – permission for a new hearing, following the Court’s finding last October that his repeated imprisonment for social nudity did not violate his ECHR rights under Articles 8 or 10.
  • Tom Hickman and Maurice Sunkin debunk the MOJ myth that 1% of judicial claims succeeded in 2014. The statistic only shows how “few cases lodged actually make it to a final hearing”, ignoring the high rate of favourable pre-trial settlements, and the “effective” permission threshold.
  • Criminal lawyers are preparing for further strikes, following the Court of Appeal’s rejection of a judicial review of further legal aid reforms last week (25th March). The latest defeat gives the green light to government plans to cut legal aid contracts for law firms, with some 1,000 firms likely to be lost. LCCSA president, Jonathan Black, has signalled it as a “devastating carve-up of solicitor representation’’.
  • The Human Rights Act isn’t just about good intentions – it’s producing “real-world benefits”, writes Natalie Threlfall. In light of the “climate of confusion” about the Act, The British Institute for Human Rights has launched their new campaign, “March for Human Rights”, which can be joined here.

In the Courts:

  • Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Another [2012] UKSC 76

The Supreme Court heard the much-anticipated final appeal of Coventry v Lawrence last month. The case, concerning an underlying nuisance claim, first reached the Supreme Court last year, where it considered the compatibility of the costs recovery system (implemented under the Access to Justice Act 1999) with Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). In a surprising volte-face, Lord Neuberger observed the “malign influence” of the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) regime, and its “very disturbing” tail of costs. The hearing was adjourned until the 9th-12th January 2015, where it was heard with 8 intervening parties. Though the judgment is not expected until July, any finding of incompatibility will be considerable, with the government facing prolific compensation claims from “victims of the provisions”.

  • R (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16

Legislation imposing a cap on welfare benefits for claimants in non-working households did not violate their ECHR rights, the Supreme Court held last week. The court considered whether such a cap – predominantly affecting single female parents, a group which includes many victims of domestic violence – was indirectly discriminatory. Whilst noting that the 2012 Regulations did have a differential impact on men and women, they were found to be both lawful and justified in seeking to curb public expenditure and incentivise those out of work to find employment. Lady Hale’s dissenting judgment finds particular support here.


  • Young Legal Aid Lawyers: 10-Year Anniversary

YLAL will be celebrating their 10th anniversary with a special symposium on 23rd April 2015. The keynote speech will be delivered by Baroness Patricia Scotland QC, followed by a panel debate on access to justice after the election, with speakers including Andy Slaughter MP. Register for the event here.

  • ‘Human Rights Beneath the Headlines’

As part of their ‘March for Human Rights’ campaign, the British Institute of Human Rights will be hosting a series of evening events, in which commonly reported human rights stories will be discussed and scrutinised against the facts. The next event will be held on 29th April 2015. Audience members are encouraged to email their questions about particular reports or cases in advance of the event. More details can be found here.

If you would like your event to be mentioned on the Blog, email Jim Duffy at



  1. Anne says:

    Grayling’s draft British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities should be put in the bin, for if the people vote for it they would not be told by voting for the new, it Would/MAY over-ride and destroy the people’s long standing Bill of Rights and Magna Carta and once that is done the Government themselves could then get rid of the new.

    Gone are the days, so long ago now,
    When trust in our Government held fast.
    When true to their Oath and to their King,
    Just a memory, from that long distant past.
    Weak now are those in that place of trust,
    Eagerly treacherous Treaties do sign,
    For those that forbid the people a say,
    Shout by hook or crook, ALL is mine.

    But trust is such a gentle word,
    It is fragile, needs loving tender care,
    For once it is lost, it is forever out of reach,
    To place again in their hands, no one dare
    The belief in reliability, truth or strength
    Is now misplaced for a while,
    No confidence left for those in power.
    For those deeds that are done are most vile.

    Each five years in a ‘position of trust’,
    An honour bestowed to cherish,
    These most precious Islands of ours
    That so many in the saving, did perish.
    Never again will the people believe
    Any word by an MP, friend or foe,
    The people will only trust in themselves,
    For it is they that hold the future you know.

  2. John Ford says:

    Labour have stated that they will not reverse the coalition’s legal aid cuts. I’m no longer surprised. However they should be challenged for this. After all it was Labour who really started to dismantle legal aid after personal injury went in 1996-7. I don’t believe any politicians will be able to curb the relentless campaign by civil servants to destroy access to justice and remove threats to the executive – irrespective of the Government that is in power.

  3. Benefit Cap. Full time jobs? Where? The traditional 39/40 hours a week has long gone, when week after week clients turn up at our little Citizens Advice Bureau. Part time work, flexi hours, zero hours contract that yes is the reality. Then in real term wages have gone down, so much more too coming out of the pay packet, its frightening, studying payroll this year gave me palpitations I can assure you. Most people need 2 jobs, plus there is the incredible cost of child care, where we have seen people paying as much as £8oo for it out of their salary. £320 is the lowest I found so far Debts, debts and more debts….That’s what we see daily at the CAB. People try so hard to make ends meet. Then there are the one in working poverty, worst than others, who go hungry, eventually out of despair turn to CAB for a food bank referral. Embarrassed, upset, then we have Workfare to destabilize work and pay conditions further. We have those with health conditions find fit for work when they are not and will require a Disability officer, clueless over rated and ill trained who will tell them what to do with their Life, Of course chances of finding decent employment bleak, and at what pay? And I now think of what a Union man told me this week-end, if its true, that if/people go shop lifting for food in Supermarket, the police if called must drop the case quietly, so as not to embarrassed the Government just before an Election. Domestic violence on the increased, bankruptcies running high, crimes against disables increasing,well I do expect shop lifting, Food bank want preferably people to receive TWO food bank parcels a year, but you are not hungry twice a year are you?
    What would a Judge know anyway of the real life out there? Zilch of course, and you can’t blame her, money, loads of it, job security,and why and how would she criticize the Gov? From Christine Dumonceau

  4. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  5. 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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: