The Round-up: Black Spiders and Superhero Jurisdictions

7 April 2015 by

Ms Apata with her partner, Happiness Agboro. Photo credit: The Independent

Hannah Lynes brings us the latest edition of the Human Rights Round-up

In the news

A challenge brought against a Home Office decision to deport LGBT activist Aderonke Apata was this week rejected by the High Court. Ms Apata fears a return to Nigeria would mean “imprisonment and death because of her sexuality”, reports the Independent.

 

Ms Apata claimed to be engaged to a long-term partner and the paper reports that she was “so desperate to convince the Government she was gay that she submitted a private DVD and photographs of her sex life as evidence.”

However, although Judge John Bowers QC accepted that Ms Apata had participated in same-sex relationships, he agreed with the Home Office that she had done so in order to fabricate a claim for asylum [para. 32 of the judgment]. Commenting on the case for the justice gap blog, barrister Jennifer Blair contends that applicants for asylum based on sexuality are “being held to an unrealistically high standard of proof”. It is “hard to see what more evidence a person in [Ms Apata’s] position could provide”.

The Home Office had less success in its attempt to restrain Mrs Justice Laing from exercising what it described as a “superhero” jurisdiction in Xue v Secretary of State, where a finding of unlawful detention was made. Barrister Colin Yeo writes that the case “adds to the growing collection of judgments in which the Home Office has been found to have caused serious harm to migrants with mental health issues.” It follows a  highly critical report published recently by a cross-party parliamentary inquiry which describes the current detention system as “expensive, ineffective and unjust”.

Other news:

  • The Supreme Court has ruled in Pham v Home Secretary that a government decision to deprive the applicant of UK citizenship did not render him stateless, despite a subsequent refusal of the Vietnamese government to confirm his status as a national of Vietnam. Simon Cox considers the decision on the Open Societies Foundation website, as does 1COR’s Hannah Noyce for the UKHRB here.
  • The University of Southampton has cancelled a conference discussing the right of Israel to exist, leading organisers to accuse the institution of bowing to political pressure at the expense of free speech. The Guardian reports here.
  • BBC: The decision of the Supreme Court in Evans paves the way for  publication of the so-called “black spider” memos of Prince Charles.
  • The Guardian: Mr Justice Nicol has refused a request by the media to report certain sections of the trial of Erol Incedal, which was held largely behind closed doors. Mr Incedal was found not guilty of preparing an act of terrorism.

In the courts

R. (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21

In a much heralded decision, the Supreme Court held by a majority that the Attorney General had not been entitled to issue a certificate under s.53 of the Freedom of Information Act preventing disclosure of correspondence between the Prince of Wales and government departments. The certificate had been issued to override a decision of the Upper Tribunal ordering release of the communications.

In a piece for the UKHRB, Matthew Flinn considers the leading judgment given by Lord Neuberger (with whom Lords Kerr and Reed agreed). Lord Neuberger reasons that section 53 does not permit a member of the executive to overturn a decision of the Upper Tribunal merely because he or she disagrees with it. This would cut across fundamental constitutional principles, namely that a decision of a court is binding between the parties, and that decisions and actions of the executive are reviewable by the courts, not vice versa. If Parliament had intended to give the Attorney General such a power, it would have had to do so expressly.

Events

  • Leaving the war zone? Lawyers’ role in the transition to post conflict Colombia

Foreign affairs journalist, Ed Vulliamy, will be chairing a discussion of first-hand experiences and expert legal opinion to launch the Colombia Caravana report. Speaking at the event on 29 April will be UKHRB General Editor Adam Wagner as well as Patricia Ayodeji, Sue Willman and Professor Sara Chandler. Further details can be found here.

If you would like your event to be mentioned on the Blog, please email Jim Duffy at jim.duffy@1cor.com

 

1 comment;


  1. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

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 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

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: