Round Up 13.04.20 – The work of the courts continues despite the impact of Covid-19…

13 April 2020 by

5144
The bandstand on Clapham Common, fenced off while people use the area for daily exercise. Photograph: Guy Bell/REX/Shutterstock. Credit: The Guardian.

Needless to say, the impact of Covid-19 dominated all aspects of life over the past seven days. Given that the week saw the Prime Minister admitted to intensive care with the virus before ultimately being discharged home, this is unlikely to be much of a revelation. The UK Human Rights Blog has published many articles looking in detail at some of the legal challenges posed by Covid-19 and the Government’s response to the pandemic. Of note this week:

  • Dominic Ruck Keene looks at potential legal challenges to Government policy in respect of coronavirus – here;
  • Robert Craig considers whether the Coronavirus Regulations might be ultra vires – here;
  • Rosalind English reviews a paper published by the Society of Conservative Lawyers on the consequences of coronavirus for the traditional principle of rule of law – here; 
  • The Royal College of Nurses issued guidance to its members advising them that they could “as a last resort” refuse to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 if they are not given adequate personal protective equipment; and
  • Police came under increased scrutiny with regards to the exercise of their powers to enforce social distancing measures. The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire had to clarify statements that suggested officers may resort to checking the trolleys of grocery shoppers to determine if items purchased were “essential” or not.

The courts however continue to function as best they’re able. Those with an interest in law, and indeed those without but who have exhausted Netflix, can watch live streamed hearings in the Supreme Court taking place by video link. Judgments in the lower courts are currently being emailed to the parties and released to the British and Irish Legal Information Institute for public consideration. It can’t be long before Legal Cheek publishes the first report of an advocate desperately apologising to a judge for turning their back on them when they realised their spouse had drifted semi-naked into their submissions en route to the shower.

Perhaps because writing judgments lends itself relatively well to social distancing (in contrast to say, holding a jury trial), the courts this week continued to hand down judgments with regularity before the Easter weekend:

  • Runa v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 514 (08 April 2020). The case provided a further opportunity for the courts to explore the tricky area of law in which an individual conceives a child whilst they remain in the country illegally, and the impact of deportation proceedings on the remaining family unit when the children and partner are British citizens. The court held that when performing such an analysis, the question is whether or not it is reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK, not whether there are “insurmountable obstacles” to the maintenance of family life outside the UK.
  • The Secretary of State for the Home Department v FTH, R. (On the Application of) (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 494 (06 April 2020). The court allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the finding of the immigration tribunal that there had been a breach of Article 8 ECHR, and that therefore compensation was due, in respect of an Eritrean child whose application to join his brother in the UK following French authorities closure of the Calais “jungle” camp was delayed. The case concerned the Dublin III regulations, under which if a child seeking asylum is unaccompanied and has a sibling or other close relative in another EU Member State then, if it is in the child’s best interests, that other state is responsible for considering and determining his application for asylum.
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v MB (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 882 (QB) (09 April 2020). The High Court ruled in favour of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, who sought an order seeking possession of an inpatient bed on one of their hospital wards. The respondent patient had alleged that the package of care proposed to support her upon discharge provided by Camden council was insufficient. The hospital wished to discharge patients where at all possible in anticipation of increased demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge ordered that the patient vacate the ward by midday the following day.
  • NKX v Barts Health NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 828 (QB) (08 April 2020). A claim was successfully brought against Barts Health NHS Trust for breach of duty in respect of midwives’ duty to inform a mother in delivery of the different methods of observing a fetal heart rate available in different delivery settings and the risks and benefits thus conferred. The judgment relied upon the decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire and underscores the obligation on medical staff to inform patients fully of all the risks and benefits of proposed treatments rather than making assumptions about the right course of action themselves.

Lastly, in some (welcome) non-coronavirus material this week, Euan Lynch reports on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Serco lock change case, whilst on Law Pod UK Roslaind English discusses recent developments in the law of vicarious liability with Robert Kellar QC and Isabel McArdle.

1 comment;


  1. Andrew says:

    Another question which is sure to arise. In cases involving allegations of domestic abuse it is common to use screening so that the defendant (often prejudicially and improperly called the perpetrator) cannot see the complainant (similarly called the victim) while she (usually she) gives evidence. The lawyers and of course the Bench can see her.

    If the hearing is online that is impossible; the defendant can see the same screen as the other participants. If the complainant is unhappy about it, that’s just too bad. If anyone disagrees I would like to know why!

    Incidentally: wouldn’t it be funny if the inappropriate distraction in the background came from the judge’s home!

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


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: