Housing Association can discriminate on religious grounds. Plus fracking and indefinite detention: The Round Up

11 February 2019 by

Conor Monighan brings us the latest updates in human rights law


Credit: the Guardian

In the News:

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has concluded that indefinite detention in immigrations centres must cease. The Committee published a critical report into the issue, which found indefinite detention has a highly detrimental impact upon detainees’ mental health.

The Committee argued that individuals should be held for no more than 28 days. It said this would provide an incentive to the Home Office to speed up case management, thereby reducing costs. Harriet Harman MP, the JCHR’s Chairwoman, noted in an article that the Home Office has paid £20 million over five years to compensate for wrongful detentions.

The Committee also called for an independent body to decide whether or not an individual should be detained. Ms. Harman pointed out that police must involve a court if they wish to detain someone for more than 36 hours, whereas the Home Office is able to detain people at will. The UK is the only country in Europe which does not put a time limit on detentions.

In Other News….

  • The High Court has ended the injunction which prevented the Telegraph from publishing allegations that Sir Phillip Green had sexually and racially abused employees. The court found the injunction was now ‘pointless’ and the Telegraph has published full details of the story. It has also released an audio recording in which Sir Green apparently threatens to bankrupt the Telegraph if they publish. Sir Phillip Green denies the allegations. The case has raised concerns about the use of Non Disclosure Agreements and it seems likely the Government will take action as part of its Domestic Abuse Bill. The BBC reports here.
  • The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published guidance on free speech in universities. The guidance states universities could break the law if they refuse to allow groups from putting across their views. The ECHR highlighted that s.36 of the Education Act 1986 requires universities to take ‘reasonably practicable’ steps to ensure freedom of speech. More from Out-Law here.

In the Courts:

  • Burgon MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor: Mr Richard Burgon MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, won his libel claim against News Group. The Sun published an article in 2017 suggesting that Mr Burgon had joined “a heavy metal band that delights in Nazi symbols”. The High Court approached the article from the perspective of a lay-person. It found the article’s single meaning was: “Mr Burgon joined a band which as he knew took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols”. The court held that serious harm had inevitably been caused by this allegation. The defence of truth was not available, because the band did not take ‘great pleasure in using Nazi symbols’. Rather, the image published by the band was a tribute to, or imitation of, a Black Sabbath album cover. The court also ruled there was no defence of honest opinion, nor was the publication in the public interest. The Sun have stated they will be appealing.
  • Barlow (On Behalf of Harthill Against Fracking) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government: The Claimant is the Chairman of an action group which opposes proposals for a fracking site. He sought a four-week adjournment to a planning inquiry so that he, and the action group, had more time to consider a report outlining plans for traffic management around the site (“the report”). The High Court ruled the report was not substantial or significant new evidence. Although the report may have appeared lengthy, it was evident that only nine pages of text were relevant and its impact was minor. The Claimant had access to the report two weeks prior to the start of the inquiry, had been able to voice his objections, and the Inspector gave parties the opportunity to ask questions of the person who had written the report. The High Court therefore concluded that the Claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to respond and there was no procedural unfairness.
  • Z & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Hackney London Borough Council & Anor: The High Court ruled that a housing association (“AIHA”) can primarily allocate its social housing to Orthodox Jews. It was common ground that this policy amounts to direct discrimination. However, the discrimination is lawful because AIHA are providing a service specifically aimed at a disadvantaged group. The court found the disadvantages faced by Orthodox Jews are both real and substantial, including “very high levels of poverty and deprivation” and anti-Sematic behaviour. In addition, the High Court held that AIHA’s policy of housing allocation was proportionate. The policy did not involve a blanket ban on non-Orthodox Jews receiving housing and was understandable given the disadvantages they face.
  • Kannan v London Borough of Newham: The Appellant had a number of medical conditions which amounted to a disability. Despite this, Newham Council housed him in a property which lacks a shower and is accessed by 14 steps. The Court of Appeal adopted a benevolent approach to the Council’s decision. However, even after doing so it found an inadequate review of the Appellant’s needs had been conducted. The medical assessment had been misunderstood and downgraded for no apparent reason. The Council had not focused properly on the Appellant’s disability, as required by the public sector equality duty. Merely reciting relevant parts of case law in a decision was not a substitute for actually following it. Appeal allowed.

On the UKHRB

On LawPod

  • Informed Consent – how much direction do patients actually want?’, with Rosalind English and John Whitting QC.
  • The first episode is posted this afternoon of the four part series of 1 Crown Office Row’s seminar ‘Erasure, Remediation and Rights of Appeal in Disciplinary Proceedings’. Robert Kellar and Jeremy Hyam QC discuss appeals by the general medical council.

Recent Publications

  • EU Policies Against Human Smuggling and their Impact on Civil Society: Critically examines the anti-smuggling policies introduced by the EU since 2015, during the so-called ‘European refugee humanitarian crisis’, and their effects. Use the discount code “CV7” to get 20% off when you order here.
  • What is Wrong with Human Trafficking? Critical Perspectives on the Law: Bringing together cross-legal perspectives from diverse disciplines, this volume discusses and critiques the legal regulation of human trafficking in national and transnational contexts. Use the discount code “CV7” to get 20% off when you order here.
  • Citizenship, Nation-building and Identity in the EU: The Contribution of Erasmus Student Mobility  (1st Edition), Cherry James: With Brexit looming, a major issue facing UK Higher Education is whether the UK will be able to stay in the Erasmus Programme. This book sits at the intersection of three main interrelated themes: EU citizenship, the current state of the university in Europe, and student mobility.


  • What does Brexit tell us about the evolution of EU citizenship?, 13th February at City, University of London. More here.
  • Lord Carnwath: Climate Change and the Law, 13th February at City, University of London. More here.
  • Women’s Legal Landmarks – in conversation, 13th February at IALS. More here.
  • The Guantanamo Military Commissions: an Insider’s Perspective, 19th February at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. More here.

If you would like your event to be mentioned on the Blog, please email the Blog’s Commissioning Editor at jonathan.metzer@1cor.com

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 Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up 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: