The Weekly Roundup: The Women’s Manifesto, Assisted Suicide, Life Sentences, and Citizenship Appeals

25 November 2019 by

In the news

With an election on the horizon, a coalition of 29 women and human rights organisation has published a manifesto for women and girls. Their stated goals are to “end violence against women and girls”; “secure women’s equal representation in politics”; “promote equality in the workplace and in the home”; “invest in public services”; and “lift women and children out of poverty”.  To achieve these goals, they propose measures including a new ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ bill to lay before Parliament; funding for high-quality sex and relationships education; improvements to the criminal justice system regarding allegations of rape and sexual assault; equal pay; increased maternity pay and maternity allowances; an end to pregnancy discrimination; and a strengthening of the law on sexual harassment at work, creating a duty on employers to prevent harassment from occurring. The manifesto is available here.

The backlash against internet intermediaries and ‘surveillance capitalism’ continues this week. Amnesty International have released a report entitled ‘Surveillance Giants’, which analyses in detail the human rights threats posed by Facebook, Google, and other technology corporations. The report is available here. Meanwhile, in the courts, Singh LJ granted Ed Bridges permission to appeal the facial recognition judicial review which he lost in September, noting that Mr Bridges’ appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

Parents in Oxford have won the right for a secular alternative to traditional religious worship in schools, in a legal battle funded by Humanists UK against the Oxford Diocesan Schools Trust, the Guardian reports. The parents say that other schools will follow suit, while the Oxford trust insists this was a pragmatic decision to avoid excessive costs. The Department of Education has emphasised that this was only a settlement between the parents and the school, and has no implications for the law more widely.  

Finally, in the midst of the various parties’ passionate electoral pledges about the NHS, a report was leaked this week detailing catastrophic failings at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust. The findings have been described as ‘the largest known maternity scandal in the UK, by far’, stretching over 40 years. It appears that the trust was guilty of countless avoidable deaths, as well as long-term failures in respect of informed consent for mothers, a lack of transparency and communication with bereaved families, and a lack of kindness and respect to parents and families. The report was obtained by the Independent, and is discussed in detail here.

In the courts

This week saw two important human rights decisions. These concerned assisted suicide and the life sentence regime for foreign prisoners:

  • Newby, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: Philippe Newby, a longtime sufferer from motor neurone disease, wants to end his life. He applied for a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 HRA 1998 in respect of the law on assisted suicide in s.2(1) Suicide Act 1961. He argued that it was incompatible with Articles 2 and 8 ECHR; a blanket ban was disproportionate. In rejecting the application, the court reiterated the position reached in Nicklinson, Conway, and T that it is ‘institutionally inappropriate’ for the court to rule on a matter such this. In light of the ECtHR’s approval of UK law in Pretty v UK (2002) and Nicklinson v UK (2015), it is for Parliament to change the law on assisted suicide. As Irwin LJ and May J explained, “there is no consensus to be gleaned from evidence…the private views of judges on such moral and political questions are irrelevant, and spring from no identifiable legal principle.” Considering Parliament’s rejection of any change to the law, in the form of the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill 2015, the court was bound to refuse Mr Newby’s application.
  • Akbar, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: this case related to the sentencing and parole regime for life sentence prisoners subject to deportation orders in respect of which they are ‘appeal rights exhausted’ (ARE). For ordinary life sentence prisoners, the SSJ has the power to move them from higher to lower security condition prisons, until they eventually reach ‘open conditions’. However, this power was abolished by the SSJ in respect of ARE prisoners in 2014, in the form of the new rule 7(1A) of the Prison Rules 1999. The claimant, an ARE prisoner, challenged this change to the law on the grounds that (i) it violated Article 14 ECHR, being discriminatory in respect of Articles 5 and 8, and (ii) it was irrational. The court rejected his claim on both grounds. Rule 7(1A) had a legitimate aim, was rationally connected to that aim, and could not be achieved by a less intrusive measure. A different rule would deprioritise domestic prisoners, and lead to an increased risk of ARE prisoners absconding. As such, the rule was rational, and did not violate Article 14.  

There were also appeals relating to deportation of foreign criminals and deprivation of citizenship:

  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v KF (Nigeria): a deportation order in respect of KF, a Nigerian citizen convicted of burglary and robbery, had been overturned by the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal on the basis of s.117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act and Rule 399 of the Immigration Rules. KF had children based in the UK, and the lower courts considered this amounted to a ‘genuine and subsisting relationship’ in respect of which it would be unduly harsh to deport KF to Nigeria. The High Court overruled the lower courts. In so doing, the court echoed the very recent case of SSHD v PG (Jamaica), stressing that the harshness required under s.117C(5) must be beyond what would necessarily be involved for the children of a foreign criminal – i.e. mere deprivation of shared parental support would not be enough. However strict it might seem, the will of Parliament must be respected, per Hickinbottom LJ in PG.
  • CI (Nigeria) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CI is a Nigerian national, who was seriously abused by his mother, and taken into care at 15. He had committed a series of thefts and robberies, and was diagnosed with a serious ‘depressive disorder’ with ‘some post-traumatic traits’. The Upper Tribunal had upheld the Secretary of State’s deportation order. The High Court overruled this decision. In so doing, the court considered the criteria for ‘Exception 1’ under s.117C(4) of the NIAA 2002. Although CI probably had not on balance been lawfully resident for ‘most of his life’, the court noted that he had been ‘socially and culturally integrated’, on the basis that his social and cultural identity was formed almost entirely in the UK, and he had maintained some academic success and romantic and family relationships; and that there were ‘very significant obstacles to reintegration’ in Nigeria, as he would be too psychiatrically unwell to access mental health care in Nigeria. Accordingly, the UT could reasonably have decided that there were very compelling circumstances such as to outweigh the public interest in deporting CI, under s.117C(6). The case was therefore remitted to the UT for a re-hearing.
  • The Secretary of State for the Home Department v E3 & Anor: The Secretary of State (SS) appealed a decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to overrule her orders depriving two individuals of citizenship under s.40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Both individuals were Bangladeshi citizens who had turned to Islamic extremism. The court was asked to consider whether the SS had been precluded from making the orders, on the basis that she was making the two stateless (under s.40(4)). The crucial piece of evidence for the SS was a ‘note verbale’ received from the Bangladeshi Ministry of Defence regarding the practice of Bangladeshi law, which appeared to indicate the two might not become stateless. In overruling SIAC’s decision, the court noted that SIAC had had a confused and inconsistent approach to the burden of proof, confusing the legal and evidential burdens. It was for the Secretary of State to prove that she was ‘satisfied’ that the individuals would not become stateless, and the burden then shifted to those individuals to prove otherwise. Further, SIAC had ‘mischaracterised’ the note verbale as ‘extra-official’, and it should have been given greater weight. The case was remitted to a differently constituted SIAC to be re-decided.  

In the ECtHR

  • Razvozzhayev v Russia and Ukraine and Ukraine and Udaltsov v Russia : this case related to protests in Moscow in 2012, led by the supporters of opposition leaders Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny, and actions taken against the applicants in the aftermath, including house arrest, abduction from asylum in Ukraine, and transfer to a penal colony in Krasnoyarsk. The court found an array of violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, and Article 1 Protocol 1 in respect of these actions by Russia and Ukraine.
  • Nejdet Atalay v Turkey: a Turkish citizen was involved in a demonstration at a funeral for four members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), a terrorist organisation. As a result, he was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment under the Turkish criminal code. The court held that this was a violation of his rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, and was neither proportionate nor necessary in a democratic society.
  • Yurtdas and Soylemez v Turkey: two Turkish citizens were given a suspended sentence of two years imprisonment for chanting pro-Kurdish slogans. The court held that this was a violation of their rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, and was neither proportionate nor necessary in a democratic society.
  • Obote v Russia: a small group of people held a flash mob in front of a government office in Moscow, sticking blank sheets of paper to their mouth with sticky tape. When asked to disperse, the applicant asked the police why; he was then escorted to the police station, and subsequently convicted of an administrative offence under the Russian Public Events Act. The court held that this was disproportionate, given the quasi-criminal nature of the sanction, when the group had done nothing capable of causing disorder or disruption to ordinary life. There had therefore been a violation of the right to peaceful assembly under Article 11.
  • TK and SR v Russia: this case considered in detail the human rights implications of extraditing ethnic Uzbeks to Kyrgyzstan for violent crimes. After a review of the reports and research available on the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan, the court concluded that Uzbeks no longer constitute a vulnerable group such as to face risks of persecution solely based on ethnic origin in Kyrgyzstan. There was therefore no violation of the right against inhumane or degrading treatment under Article 3 in extraditing the applicants.
  • Znakovas v Lithuania: a police officer used an electroshock weapon against a domestic violence suspect who was unarmed and handcuffed; there was no subsequent investigation into his conduct. The court held that this constituted a violation of the right against inhumane or degrading treatment under Article 3 in both its substantive and procedural limbs.
  • KO and VM v Norway: the applicants were parents with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit disorder and psychiatric ill-health and drug abuse respectively. A number of anonymous notifications of concern were sent to child welfare services, resulting in an intervention which led to restrictions on contact between parents and daughter to a maximum of four visits a year. The court found that this was a violation of the right to family life under Article 8, because such infrequent contact amounted to child welfare services implicitly giving up the aim of reunification at a very early stage, without full justification of why this was considered appropriate.

On the UKHRB

  • Daniel McKaveney reviews an important case which has overturned the Lord Advocate’s absolute immunity from suit for malicious prosecution
  • Rosalind English discusses the legal problems created by emerging artificial intelligence technologies.
  • In the latest episode of Law Pod UK Rosalind English takes a tour of the Middle Temple exhibition of 100 years of women in the law with the exhibition’s curator Rosalind Wright

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


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 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 birds directive 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 circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation deficit DEFRA Democracy village Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics 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 european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justification just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination 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: