We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
Update: On 19 June the parents lodged a substantive application with the Strasbourg Court.
In my last post on this case, I explained that the Supreme Court had granted a short stay to 5pm Friday 9th June to enable the parents to ask the Strasbourg Court to intervene. So far, the courts have ruled in favour of Great Ormond Street’s application to withdraw artificial ventilation from Charlie.
Shortly after my post, on Friday 9 June, the ECtHR ordered an emergency hearing. To that end, it requested the UK to keep Charlie alive until the end of 13 June.
It has just been the 6th anniversary of an important human rights case, that of Mark and Steven Neary. Steven, who is autistic, was detained in local authority care for over a year before his dad used the Human Rights Act to get him home.
RightsInfo has made a powerful short film to mark the anniversary and tell this important human rights story.
In these uncertain political times, it is more important than ever to tell the positive stories of human rights to counter the tabloid press and grow support for human rights laws. So please do share!
It has been widely reported that Theresa May will stay on as Prime Minister following the election on June 8th. The Conservative PM will seek to form a government with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP).
A recent Round-Up by Poppy Rimington-Pounder highlighted some welcome changes in the parties’ approaches to human rights in the pre-election manifestos. With the recent shift in political climate it seems that changes may be on the horizon.
What does the election result mean for human rights?
Earlier this week, Rosalind English posted on the Court of Appeal’s decision here. The case was heard by the Supreme Court during the afternoon of 8 June, but the SC agreed with the courts below that the Hospital was entitled to withdraw artificial ventilation.
Lady Hale gave a short explanation of her reasons: see here and my summary below.
Yates and Anor v Great Ormond Street for Children [2017] EWCA Civ 410, 23 May 2017 – read judgment
On Thursday 8 June the Supreme Court will be asked to grant permission to appeal in this case of a seriously ill 9 month old child whose parents wish to take him to the USA for experimental treatment that may slow his deterioration.
The human issues are all over the press – this post will concentrate on the legal arguments in the Courts below, including the very recently published judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Perhaps the most interesting question in this case is not the statutory or human rights background, but the issue of jurisdiction. The court has as part of its inherent jurisdiction to rule on the child’s fate on the basis of his best interests. The appellants were arguing that this was not the test; that the question at the core of the consideration was that of “serious harm”. The parents argue that
the hospital’s application to prevent the delivery of a therapy which it did not, itself, intend to provide, was outside its powers as a public authority, and the court had no jurisdiction to uphold the hospital’s position.
The issues relating to imprisonment of individuals with mental health problems in the UK has attracted considerable attention, as the number of self-inflicted deaths has risen to the highest number since records began in 1978. With a rate of one prison suicide every three days, the director of the Howard League described the current rate as having reached “epidemic proportions”. The steady rise of deaths in custody has prompted a seriesofinquiries in recent years, and has drawn scrutiny from UN bodies and Special Procedures, and more recently, UN Member States as part of a periodic review of its human rights performance. However, despite this, little progress has been made.
In view of this reality, the Joint Committee on Human Rights launched an inquiry into mental health and deaths in prison in 2016 in order to determine whether a human rights based approach can help to prevent deaths in prison of individuals with mental health conditions i.e. one that satisfies acceptable standards as laid down by national and international human rights law, and recognises the particular position of vulnerability in which detainees are placed. The inquiry specifically looked at why previous recommendations had not been implemented. To this end, the Committee received both oral and written evidence from authors of the various domestic inquiry reports and individuals whose lives have been directly affected by the issue, including relatives of individuals who had committed suicide in prisons.
However, the inquiry was unexpectedly cut short as a result of the decision to call a snap election.
The news this week, though inevitably dominated by election coverage, has a lot going on for lawyers. We’ve sifted through it so you don’t have to, followed by our summary of the Advocate General Bot’s Opinion on free movement for dual citizens. Continue reading →
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.
Yates v United Kingdom – here
Recent comments