This week’s round up – Williamson fired over Huawei and the courts return after Easter

7 May 2019 by

1576.jpg

Former Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson. Credit: The Guardian.

Despite the return of the courts on Monday, it was another relatively light week in terms of decisions in the fields of public law and human rights. However, the High Court decided a number of interesting clinical negligence cases, whilst the Court of Appeal gave judgement in the case of TM (Kenya), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 784.

TM (Kenya) concerned a 40 year old Kenyan woman who faced deportation after her applications for leave to remain and asylum were rejected by the Home Office. She had been detained at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in advance of proceedings to remove her from the country, during which time she had been uncooperative with staff. In light of her behaviour and in advance of her removal to Kenya, she was removed from free association with other detainees. Such detention was authorised by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Manager at Yarl’s Wood, who was also the appointed “contract monitor” at the centre for the purposes of section 49 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

She sought judicial review of the decision to deprive her of free association. The initial application was refused. She appealed to the Court of Appeal where she advanced three grounds, including that her detention was not properly authorised.

The court found no conflict in the dual positions held by the manager at Yarl’s Wood. The Home Secretary had legitimately authorised her detention under the principles described in Carltona Limited v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560. In addition, there was no obligation to develop a formal policy concerning removal from free association, as Rule 40 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 was sufficiently clear to meet the needs of transparency.

In the news, last week saw Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Defence, dismissed by the Prime Minister after a leak enquiry conducted by Mark Sedwill, Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and National Security Adviser. Williamson was suspected of being the source of information which found its way into the Daily Telegraph concerning National Security Council discussions into the role of Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s proposed 5G mobile network. Scotland Yard confirmed later that the information disclosed was not subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, and thus no criminal inquiry would be forthcoming. Williamson maintains he is not the source. In the subsequent reshuffle saw former prisons minster Rory Stewart was promoted to the Department for International Development, meaning he will no longer be subject to his promise to resign if violence rates in prisons do not decline.

In addition, judgement was given in the High Court in the following cases;

  • The court heard a case brought by a 26 year old woman in relation to a brachial plexus injury sustained following shoulder dystocia which complicated her birth in November 1992 – Taylor v Chesterfield Royal Hospital Nhs Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1043 (QB). The court was required to consider the standard of care delivered relative to that of established practice at the time. No claim had been bought by her parents, but the claimant researched her condition in adulthood and subsequently advanced her own claim after she developed a growing awareness of her condition. In summarising his approach to evidence supplied long after the events in question, John Kimbell QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) referred to the principles outlined in Kimathi v. Foreign and Commonwealth Service [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Ultimately, the case was dismissed as the care delivered was deemed to meet the standards expected in 1992.
  • Roberts v The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen And Families Association & Anor [2019] EWHC 1104 (QB) – This case concerned a child born at German hospital providing services to UK Armed Forces (with whom his father served at the time). Negligence causing hypoxic brain injury was alleged against a midwife, with the Association and Ministry of Defence vicariously liable for her acts or omissions. Both defendants issued a Part 20 claim against the hospital, seeking contribution pursuant to the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 in the event they were found liable. The hospital contended that the 1978 Act was subject to choice of law rules, which would have applied German law to a claim for contribution. In such circumstances any such claim would be time barred. On a trial of this preliminary issue, the court upheld the decision in Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No.9) The Times 10 October 1994, concluding that the 1978 Act has overriding effect and applies automatically to all proceedings brought in England and Wales, without reference to choice of law rules.

Lastly, the UKHRB and Law Pod UK have payed close attention to anonymity orders in personal injury cases. The field has become particularly topical following the case of Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 552 (QB). See Angus McCullough QC’s posts here and here and Emma Louise Fenelon discussing the recent cases with  Rajkiran Barhey  in episode 77 of Law Pod UK.

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 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 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 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 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: