Weekly Round up : March Madness

2 March 2020 by

Microscopic view of Coronavirus, a pathogen that attacks the respiratory tract. Analysis and test, experimentation. Sars. 3d render

In the news 

National concern about coronavirus rose further this week, as the tally of UK cases rose to 36. The government has said that it will publish an emergency ‘battle plan’ for tackling the virus, based on existing contingency plans for responding to a pandemic flu outbreak. This will include ministers responsible for coronavirus in each department, as well as a public information campaign run from the Cabinet Office; if the virus spreads further, it could also include banning big events, closing schools, and advising against use of public transport. When questioned yesterday on whether cities will be isolated, as in China, Health Secretary Matt Hancock was emphatic that no tactics are “off the table” in the government’s coronavirus strategy.  

The Johnson government is facing major setbacks elsewhere this week.  

The Home Office was a source of controversy, with the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as Permanent Undersecretary. Sir Philip raised allegations of “bullying, swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands” against Priti Patel, as well as accusing the Home Secretary of waging a “vicious, orchestrated” briefing campaign against him. Coming hard on the heels of the resignation of Sajid Javid, this could be a harbinger of a wider public breakdown of trust. Sir Philip says that he will be pursuing the government for constructive dismissal, so more details may come to light in proceedings in the employment tribunal. The Prime Minister has said publicly that the Home Secretary has his full support. 

The DWP was in the news too, over a serious failure of record-keeping. Following a freedom of information request, it was revealed that the Department has deleted all pre-2015 reviews into the suicides of individuals following adverse benefits decisions. The deletion decision had been justified on the basis of GDPR; the ICO has explained that the Department should have relied on a public interest exemption. 

Attorney-General Suella Braverman has agreed to provide corporate witnesses in the Grenfell Inquiry with immunity from prosecution for their evidence. It has been emphasised that this would not preclude a future criminal prosecution, but many have expressed concern at the decision. Counsel for the victims of the disaster, Michael Mansfield QC, stated that he considered it “abhorrent”. The Attorney-General has already faced criticism for her misinformed hostility to the judiciary, and her handling of this issue may contribute further to adverse public opinion. 

Finally, the government’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow took a hit as the Court of Appeal held that the government’s policy had not had regard to the UK’s obligations under the Paris Convention, and must therefore be reconsidered. The judgement is available here; it is discussed in more detail by David Hart QC on the blog here

As the debate over facial recognition technology continues, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick has called on the government to introduce an “enabling legislative framework” to provide the guidelines for the use of emerging technologies. This comes in the wake of the first usage of live facial recognition on the streets of the London, following Ed Bridges’ failed judicial review against the use of technology. The Commissioner considers criticisms of the technology to be inaccurate and ill-informed; her approach is pragmatic – “Give us the law, and we’ll work within it”. 

Elsewhere in the world of technology, Microsoft, IBM, and the Roman Catholic Church have announced a collaboration to work on the ethics of artificial intelligence. The ‘Rome Call for Ethics’ has laid out six key principles of ‘algor-ethical’ design – transparency, inclusion, responsibility, impartiality, reliability, and security/privacy. The parties urge ethical commitments from stakeholders, to ensure that technology be used to protect people, especially the ‘weak and underprivileged’, and also to improve education. Notably, the Rome Call envisions a ‘duty of explanation’: AI-based algorithms must be required to provide information explaining how they reached the decisions they did.  

In the courts                                      

This week saw a major new immigration precedent in the Supreme Court, on the relationship of decisions to deport and decisions to detain – R (oao DN (Rwanda)) v SSHD:

The applicant, a Rwandan national of Hutu ethnicity, had been granted refugee status in 2000 under the 1951 Refugee Convention. He was subsequently served with a deportation order in 2007 following certain criminal offences, pending a final decision on his refugee status. The Home Secretary decided that he should be deported pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention, as there were “reasonable grounds for regarding [him] as a danger to the security of the country”. This was based on the fact that he had committed a ‘particularly serious crime’, as defined under a 2004 order made by the Minister under s.72(4) NIAA 2002; this order was found in 2009 to be ultra vires. The applicant was ultimately detained for 242 days pending deportation; he then sought judicial review. 

The High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the claim, on the basis of the 2012 case of Draga v SSHD, where the Court of Appeal had held that a flaw in the decision to make a deportation order did not affect the lawfulness of the decision to detain. In the Supreme Court, Lord Kerr rejected this principle, holding that Draga v SSHD was wrongly decided; the applicant was entitled to claim damages for false imprisonment. The force of the decision is pithily summarised by Lord Kerr at [25]: “The giving of notice of the decision to make a deportation order, the making of the deportation order, and the detention on foot of it are essential steps in the same transaction. The detention depends for its legality on the lawfulness of the deportation itself. Absent a lawful basis for the making of a deportation order, it is not possible to breathe legal life into the decision to detain.”

There were also two noteworthy cases on the protection of children: P (Abduction: Child’s Objections), R v: three children had been wrongfully removed from Germany to England by their mother; the court had granted a return order under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980, despite the fact that the eldest child, aged 13, objected to the return. This raised questions as to (i) whether the child should have been added to proceedings, and (ii) whether the child’s objection was sufficient to require the judge not to grant the return order. The Court of Appeal held that (i) the judge was right not to add the child to proceedings, as nothing sufficient to change the outcome would be gained; and (ii) the child’s objection did not justify refusing the order, in light of the further delay that would be caused, and concerns raised in a psychologist’s report on the child’s mental state.

I (Children: Child Assessment Order): this case related to the children of an ISIS promoter, who had been convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000. In particular, it raised the question of the court’s power, in these circumstances, to grant a child assessment order to a local authority under s.43 Children Act 1989, by which the local authority may assess possible harm to children, and measures that must accordingly be taken; the judge had refused to grant such an order, noting that the children’s behaviour was exemplary, and that the mother and older children all objected to the assessment order. The Court of Appeal overruled this decision, concluding that the judge could not reasonably have reached this decision on the facts before him. It was noted in particular that the family had not worked at all with the local authority, so the risk to the children of radicalisation was effectively unknown. 

On the UKHRB 

  • Rosalind English reviews the issue of doctor/patient confidentiality in relation to genetic disease.
  • David Hart QC explains the Court of Appeal’s decision on proposals to expand Heathrow airport.

1 comment;

  1. Andrew says:

    Is it not funny how self-styled civil libertarians oppose the right not to incriminate yourself when it works in favour of those whom they want to see in the dock?

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.




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 DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment 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 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


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: