In the News: no-deal rumblings and abortion buffer zones

27 August 2019 by

Protesters outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing have been told they must stay 100m from the building

In the News

Rumours of a coming parliamentary coup to avoid a no-deal outcome rumble on, prompting the usual range of responses. 

Speaking at the G7 summit in Biarritz on Sunday, Boris Johnson stated that Britain can ‘easily cope’ with a no-deal Brexit. The Prime Minister ascribed sole responsibility for whether or not Britain crashed out of the European Union on 31 October to ‘our EU friends and partners’, while Brussels officials asserted that it was ‘squarely and firmly’ up to Britain to find a solution to the Irish border issue. His comments come after a week in which Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron indicated their unwillingness to countenance reopening the withdrawal agreement, while Donald Trump promised a ‘very big trade deal’ between the United Kingdom and the United States once the country had freed itself from the ‘anchor’ of the EU. 

Writing in the Times, Cambridge historian Robert Tombs argues that those who consider parliamentary resistance a legitimate expression of its sovereignty would ‘do untold damage to the institution they claim to defend’ by preventing the government from ‘[carrying] out a policy approved by the electorate’. In the Guardian, Heather Stewart and Rowena Mason covered the opposing view, outlining the key points in the six-page document prepared for Jeremy Corbyn by the shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabarti. The advice includes an assertion that Boris Johnson would be committing the ‘gravest abuse of power and attack on UK constitutional principle in living memory’ if he shuts down parliament to help force through a no-deal Brexit. 

Earlier this week, the archbishop of Canterbury sparked criticism by Brexiteers, including former Conservative party leader Iain Duncan Smith, for reportedly meeting MPs with a view to chairing citizens’ assemblies to stop a no-deal departure from the EU. Today, Jeremy Corbyn met with the leaders of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the Independent Group for Change and issued a joint statement agreeing to work together to avoid ‘a disastrous no-deal exit’.

In Other News

  • Mark Thomson, the director general of HM Passport Office (HMPO) and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI), two of the Home Office sections at the centre of the Windrush scandal, has told staff he will be stepping down this year. A Home Office spokesperson said that the decision was made ‘for personal reasons’ and would be ‘phased to ensure minimal disruption’ to both HMPO and UKVI. 
  • The Guardian reports a trafficked Vietnamese woman has received a £50,000 payout from the Home Office. After arriving at Heathrow airport while experiencing a miscarriage and unable to stand, the woman was placed in detention for three days . The Home Office admitted to ‘clearly significant failings’, accepting that the 33-year-old was detained unlawfully and the detention constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. Additionally, they stated that a thorough investigation has been conducted to prevent future failings. 
  • Housing charity Shelter Scotland is seeking to crowdfund legal action over what it says is Glasgow City Council’s unlawful failure to offer homeless people temporary accommodation. A spokesman for the council stated in response that court action is an ‘unhelpful distraction’ and the money raised for court action could be better spent to directly ‘tackle the pressing issue of homelessness’. 

In the Courts

Dulgheriu & Anor v The London Borough of Ealing [2019] EWCA Civ 1490 (21 August 2019): Anti-abortion activists lost a Court of Appeal challenge against a Ealing Council’s decision to ban protesters from gathering in protest outside the Marie Stopes UK West London Centre. The activists argued that the public spaces protection order (“PSPO”) imposed by the council was incompatible with articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Additionally, they argued that a PSPO was designed to protect local residents from the anti-social behaviour of ‘those in the locality’, which did not include occasional visitors to the centre. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed these arguments. Although the appellants’ rights were engaged by the PSPO, the judge had correctly carried out the proportionality and balancing exercise. Objections to the wording of the PSPO was considered overstated and ‘contrived’. 

The authority was the first to create a ‘buffer zone’ in April 2018 following reports of daily ‘intimidation, harassment and distress’ for women using the facility.  Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, acknowledged that ‘the right to peaceful protest must be respected’ but nevertheless called the decision ‘welcome’. In a similar vein, Jeremy Corbyn celebrated the ‘good news’ in a tweet which asserted that ‘a woman’s right to choose, free from intimidation or harassment, must be protected’. Julian Bell, the leader of the council, expressed his delight at the decision. Along with women’s charities, Bell called on the home secretary to legislate to introduce ‘safe zones’ across the country to protect clinic users and local people. Similar calls were rejected by the then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid in September 2018. 

  • Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1504 (22 August 2019): The Court of Appeal granted an application to reopen a final determination under CPR rule 52.30, which provides that a court may do as where it is necessary to do so to avoid real injustice, the circumstances are exceptional, and there is no alternative effective remedy. Lord Justice Hickinbottom held that an earlier refusal of permission to appeal for leave to remain had been made without reference to important later submissions, filed properly and in good time, and that the decision was therefore critically undermined. 
  • Harun Gurbuz v Turkey – 68556/10 [2019] ECHR 597 (30 July 2019); Urek and Urek v Turkey – 74845/12 [2019] ECHR 598 (30 July 2019): The European Court of Human Rights heard two applications against the Republic of Turkey under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Turkish nationals. In both cases, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6, rejected the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage, and awarded them costs. 

1 comment;

  1. Sentinel says:

    I don’t recall ‘No deal’ being “approved by the electorate” – per Robert Tombs.

Comments are closed.

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 costs costs budgets Court of Protection 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 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: