Monthly News Archives: October 2017


Public Law Podcast Seminar on Radicalisation Part 3: Detention

27 October 2017 by

Detention and the common European Asylum System  –  Alasdair Henderson and Suzanne Lambert

The highlights of the Public Law Seminar given by members of 1 Crown Office Row are now available for podcast download here or from iTunes under Law Pod UK, Episodes 13, 14 and 15. For ease of reference the following three posts set out the introductions to each of the presentations and the case citations.

For non-Apple devices the podcasts are available via the Audioboom app.

Click on the heading for PDF copies of each of the presentations.

Issues:

  • Detention in UK pending transfer to another Member State;
  • Detention in another Member State pending transfer to the UK;
  • Risk of detention in another state as grounds for resisting transfer.

Continue reading →

Public Law Podcast Seminar on Radicalisation Part 2: Inquests and Article 2 ECHR

27 October 2017 by

 Inquests and Article 2 ECHR – Caroline Cross and Suzanne Lambert

The highlights of the Public Law Seminar given by members of 1 Crown Office Row are now available for podcast download here or from iTunes under Law Pod UK, Episodes 13, 14 and 15. For non-Apple devices the podcasts are available via the Audioboom app.

For ease of reference the following three posts set out the introductions to each of the presentations and the case citations. Click on the heading for PDF copies of each of the presentations.

Introduction

Article 2 ECHR has had a profound impact upon coronial law, no more so than in relation to deaths in custody/detention and mental health deaths.

This talk will cover the following topics: mental health inquests; terrorism inquests (and inquiries); and detention inquests. Through these lenses, we will examine a number of developments in coronial law over the past 18 months and draw out relevant themes.

We discuss a number of cases in relation to mental health and detention inquests.

Case references in podcast

P v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2014] UKSC 19

R (on the application of Ferreira) and HM Senior Coroner for Inner London South, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the Intensive Care Society and the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Secretary of State for Health and Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 31

Austin v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 359

Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington [2016] EWHC 1892 (Admin)

R (Tainton) v HM Senior Coroner for Preston and West Lancashire [2016] EWHC 1396 (Admin)

R (Hamilton-Jackson) v Assistant Coroner for Mid Kent and Medway [2016] EWHC 1796 (Admin)

R (Scarff and Ors) v Governor HMP Woodhill and Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1194 (Admin)

 

 

 

Public Law Podcast Seminar on Radicalisation Part 1: Civil Law and Closed Hearings

26 October 2017 by

1) Issues with Radicalisation cases and the civil law – Martin Downs

The first episode from the Public Law Seminar given by members of 1 Crown Office Row is now available for podcast download here or from iTunes under Law Pod UK. Look for Episode 13: Tackling radicalisation through the civil courts.

For non-Apple devices the podcasts are available via the Audioboom app.

For ease of reference the following three posts set out the introductions to each of the presentations and the case citations. Click on the heading for PDF copies of each of the presentations.

Introduction

The Civil Courts have now been involved in cases of radicalisation brought before them by local authorities for very nearly three years (we are approaching the third anniversary of the first case). What was then innovative is now reasonably well-established (see President’s Guidance on Radicalization Cases in the Family Courts (8 October 2015) and the judgment of Hayden J in London Borough of Tower Hamlets v B [2016] EWHC 1707.
 Concern was stirred originally by the spectre of significant numbers of people travelling to Syria to demonstrate their support for ISIS or the Al Nusra Front. This problem is not novel as 80 years ago Britain and Ireland were similarly fixated with the problem of volunteers departing for Spain to fight on both sides in the Civil War. A portrayal of the indoctrination of school age children to fight in that war even seeped into popular culture courtesy of Muriel Spark’s novel, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. The current situation is complicated by the relative ease of international travel, the tactics and targets used by extremists and the fact that the UK has already experienced domestic terrorism inspired by international examples.
 The number of UK nationals travelling to Syria may have fallen but reports in 2016 of significant numbers of youths travelling from Kerala to Syria show that the problem has not fallen away and is truly international.

Continue reading →

The future of human rights?

23 October 2017 by

WagnerI am speaking at two events in the next couple of weeks, both of which will take a look at a question I have been thinking about quite a bit recently: “where next for human rights?”. Hope to see you there!
Saving Human Rights
How communications has become a key front in the battle for human rights in the UK and worldwide
Presented by: Oxford Lawyers Without Borders and Oxford University Amnesty International

This Thursday 26th October, Pembroke College, Oxford, 5pm-6:15pm
Further details here (Facebook), registration necessary (you can also register through Eventbrite)
Is it Time For Social Rights?
I am honoured to be giving the keynote at for the wonderful Advocacy Project at their AGM
Thursday 2 November, 2pm – 4pm, Regent Hall, 275 Oxford Street, London
Register here

Lucy Eastwood – “A law on the move: Are Local Authorities vicariously liable for abuse committed by foster parents against children in their care?”

23 October 2017 by

Supreme Court

“The law of vicarious liability is on the move” proclaimed Lord Phillips in the last judgment he delivered as President of the Supreme Court: Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, (“the Christian Brothers case”). In a judgment recently handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Armes (Appellant) v Nottinghamshire County Council (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 60, His Lordship has been proved correct.

Continue reading →

New podcast: Damages claim over IVF baby

22 October 2017 by

ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438read judgment

The claim for over £1 million taken by a father against an IVF clinic for failing to notice that his signature on the consent form had been forged has been widely reported in the press. In the latest Law Pod UK podcast Rosalind English discusses the case with David Prest. Whilst the McFarlane principle defeated the financial claim, Jay J had some stern words to say about the actions of the mother and the procedures of the clinic.

Episode 12 of Law Pod UK is available for free download from iTunes.

Supreme Court: state immunity rules incompatible with Article 6

20 October 2017 by

Benkharbouche & Anor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office  [2017] UKSC 62, 18 October 2017  – read judgment

If you work for an embassy in London and are not a UK national, you cannot sue your employing state when you get unfairly dismissed. But if you enter a commercial contract with the same embassy, you can sue them.

This is the conundrum which faced the Supreme Court, who decided that the former result, although laid down by statute, was incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR.

The SC’s sole judgment was by Lord Sumption, with whom the other justices agreed. It is a tour de force of international (rather than human rights) law, because therein lay the key issue.

Continue reading →

High Court rejects motor neurone sufferer’s application to overturn prohibition on assisted suicide

11 October 2017 by

Conway, R (On the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 2447 (Admin) – read judgment

This case concerns the issue of provision of assistance to a person with a serious wasting disease who wishes to commit suicide, so as to be able to exercise control over the time of his death as the disease reaches its final stages. See our previous post on it here and here. It follows a line of cases which have addressed that or similar issues, in particular R (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] 1 AC 800 (“Pretty“), R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 54; [2010] 1 AC 345 (“Purdy“) and R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38; [2015] AC 657(“Nicklinson“). Permission to bring this judicial review was granted by the Court of Appeal (McFarlane and Beatson LJJ, see [2017] EWCA Civ 275), having earlier been refused by the Divisional Court (Burnett LJ, Charles and Jay JJ) at [2017] EWHC 640 (Admin

Section 1 of the Suicide Act 1961 abrogated the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide. In this hearing Mr Conway sought a claim for a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998  in respect of the prohibition in the criminal law against provision of assistance for a person to commit suicide. That prohibition is contained in section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961.
Continue reading →

Are surrogacy costs a legitimate claim?

1 October 2017 by

XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust 2017 EWHC 2318 (QB) (18 September 2017)  [HQ15C04535]

Podcast about this case now downloadable

Commercial surrogacy arrangements are considered to be against public policy in the UK and therefore illegal. Surrogacy in the UK is only legal where there is no intention to make a profit – though reasonable expenses are recoverable. Where legal surrogacy is
carried out the surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child. In this case the claimant had suffered injury due to the hospital’s failure to diagnose her cervical cancer in time. She had to undergo chemotherapy and radiation treatment which, amongst other things, damaged her uterus so she was unable to bear and carry a child. Before the treatment she had her eggs frozen.

The hospital admitted negligence. As part of her damages claim she sought the expenses she would incur for a commercial surrogacy arrangement in California. She wished to go to the US since the position of a woman seeking surrogacy in the UK is made more difficult by the fact that commercial arrangements are illegal. This means that in the UK the surrogate chooses the biological mother, rather than the other way around. The lack of certainty over parental status was also cited as a reason why an arrangement in the US would be preferable.
Continue reading →

PKU boy to be treated with Kuvan after High Court ruling

1 October 2017 by

You may remember the podcast discussion between me, Rosalind English, and David Hart QC earlier in the summer about the NHS decision not to fund the drug Kuvan for the amelioration of symptoms of a boy suffering from  phenylketonuria (PKU) and severe autism. The podcast concerned a High Court ruling that the health service should review its decision not to fund the drug Kuvan.

As I mentioned in the original report, the judge did warn the boy’s family against being too optimistic, saying

however much one might hope that on the next occasion the panel will decide that the net additional expenditure of treating S with Kuvan would be justified … they could still lawfully decide to refuse funding.

However, the judge’s caution has not been borne out by events. On Friday 29th September it was reported that NHS England has agreed to provide the drug to treat his PKU, which if left unchecked can lead to complications including brain damage.

Listen to Episode 9 of Law Pod UK, available for download on iTunes

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

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.

%d bloggers like this: