The Round-Up: Christchurch, Islamophobia, Home Office Failures and Modern Slavery

25 March 2019 by

A white supremacist murdered 50 worshippers and injured 50 more in two consecutive terrorist attacks at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand during Friday Prayer on 15 March 2019.  The victims’ ages ranged from 3 to 77. Immediately prior to the attacks, the perpetrator emailed a 73-page manifesto to more than 30 recipients, including several media outlets and the office of Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. It expressed anti-immigrant hate speech, white supremacist rhetoric, and an unequivocal statement that the motive behind the attacks was to accelerate anti-Muslim and anti-migrant sentiment across majority white nations. 

Prime Minister Arden has been praised for her decisive leadership, admirable compassion, and emphasis on the solidarity between her country and the victims (many migrants, some refugees), their families, and the wider Muslim community.  She announced the ban of all military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles in New Zealand, and ordered a  royal commission to examine whether police and intelligence services could have done more to prevent shootings. She refused to use the terrorist’s name, and implored her countrymen and women to “speak the names of those who were lost rather than the name of the man who took them.” The country’s Chief Censor made the possession and distribution of the gunman’s manifesto unlawful in New Zealand. The mosque’s imam thanked New Zealanders for their support, adding, “We are broken-hearted, but we are not broken.”

In the days since the attack, UK counter-terrorism chief Neil Basu has said that far-right terrorists are being radicalised by mainstream newspaper coverage. Basu condemned outlets such as the Sun, the Mirror and the Mail Online for uploading the gunman’s manifesto and his violent footage of the attack. On Wednesday, windows were smashed at five mosques in Birmingham. On Friday, an independent monitoring group reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes reported across Britain increased by 593% in the week after the massacre.

In a Guardian interview with Simon Hattenstone, Miqdaadi Versi, head of media monitoring at the Muslim Council of Britain, further criticised the British press. He noted in particular papers which printed photographs of the shooter as a blond child, describing him as an ‘angelic boy’, and a BBC News presenter’s suggestion that anti-Muslim violence had intensified because the mainstream Muslim community had not done enough to condemn Islamist extremism. Meanwhile, more than a dozen Conservative counsellors suspended for posting Islamophobic or racist content online have had their membership quietly reinstated. 

In Other News

  • A new report published by the Home Affairs Committee has criticised the Home Office for overseeing “serious failings” at almost every stage of the immigration detention process. Failures by the department led to people being wrongfully detained, held in immigration when they are vulnerable or unnecessarily detained for too long. The report calls for a time limit on detention, as well as for “urgent reform” to ensure the process is transparent and humane.
  • In related news, a senior Home Office official has also repeatedly apologised for shortcomings during an inquest into the killing of Tarek Chowdhury, a “gentle and polite” man from Bangladesh who died in immigration detention in December 2016. Evidence from internal Home Office files showed Chowdhury was detained because his file was not processed in time to place him in a non-detained category. 
  • Additionally, a Home Office decision to refuse a Christian convert asylum on the basis of Bible passages that “prove Christianity is not peaceful” has been widely criticised and called a reckless “distortion of logic” by human rights campaigners. The Home Office has said that the letter was not in accordance with its policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, and that it is working to improve the training provided to decision-makers.
  • The family of Shamima Begum has initiated an appeal with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission against the home secretary Sajid Javid’s decision to strip the teenager of her citizenship. Tasnime Akunjee, the solicitor who has represented Begum’s family since 2015, has said the decision is disproportionate since “it renders Shamima Begum stateless, it puts her life at risk, exposes her to inhumane and degrading treatment, and breaches her right to family life.”
  • Hestia, a charity that helps victims of modern slavery, has lodged a super-complaint against police forces after its investigation found just seven per cent of reported cases of modern slavery were being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) by police. The Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove backed the super-complaint, stating that the criminal justice system is “alienating victims” and “undermining our ability to prosecute offenders.”
  • The Local Government Association has called on the government to provide specific funding to councils to support victims of modern slavery, citing the latest National Crime Agency statistics which show the number of council referrals of suspected victims to the National Referral Mechanism has risen tenfold in five years. The NCA’s recently published annual report shows that the number of cases involving UK children has doubled between 2017 and 2018. 

In the Courts 

  • Hameed & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: The Secretary of State successfully appealed in a case relating to the Asylum and Immigration (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 and the circumstances in which the respondent Pakistani husband and wife were detained at Yarl’s Wood IRC pending disposal of their appeals under the Detained Fast Track process. The Court of Appeal held that the judgement of Judge Anthony Thornton QC in the respondent’s judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court contained substantive errors in reasoning and approach, resulting in conclusions which could not be sustained. The judge thought the 2005 Rules were systematically unfair and unlawful, and that it therefore followed that the tribunal decisions and detention were from the outset unlawful. This was inconsistent with the subsequent decisions of Ouseley J and of the Court of Appeal in TN (Vietnam) [2018]. The Court of Appeal concluded that the respondents’ judicial review claims should be remitted for a fresh hearing in the Administrative Court.
  • Jamaicans for Justice (Appellant) v Police Service Commission and another (Respondents)(Jamaica): The Privy Council considered whether the Jamaican Police Service Commission (PSC) had a duty to ensure that allegations of extra-judicial killings against an officer should be fully and independently investigated before accepting a recommendation that he be promoted. In giving the advice of the board, Lady Hale began by noting the formidable threat of criminal violence facing Jamaican police officers and the members of the public they have a duty to protect. This threat was weighed against the criticism of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the case of Michael Gayle v Jamaica [2005], that such killings occur ‘disproportionately’ and with ‘impunity’. In light of the fact that allowing officers to take the law into their own hands risked violations of the right to life, to due process of the law and to equality before the law, the Board concluded that the proper discharge of the PSC’s duty required an independent investigation, and advised Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed.

On the UKHRB 

  • Rosalind English interviews South African high court judge Mr Justice Steenkamp on the difficulties surrounding strike action in a country with a booming population, struggling economy, high unemployment rates, under-resourced police and recurring issues with violence. 
  • Rosalind English provides an update on the latest developments around physician assisted dying, including the Royal College of Physician’s recent decision to drop its long-standing opposition and adopt a ‘neutral’ stance.
  • Samuel March has written an article about R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019], in which the High Court granted Medical Justice an interim injunction which will prevent the Home Office from removing or deporting people from the UK without notice. 
  • Rose Slowe has given her view on the prospect of a ‘no-deal Brexit’; namely, that it would violate the supreme law at both the domestic and supranational level. 

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: