The Weekly Round-Up: unlawful care home policies, new legislation and voter ID

2 May 2022 by

Image from:

In the news:

Last week saw an influx of legislation approved before Parliament’s Thursday end-of-session deadline. Some include:

An independent review by Jonathan Hall QC has concluded that terrorists in prison ‘enjoy high status’ within a culture of fear and violence across English and Welsh jails. The review details examples of ‘Islamic gang-like activity’, exacerbated by the 27% cut in staff between 2010 and 2017. A separate report by Hall also discovered that the Government does not keep a record, ‘officially or unofficially’, of the number of prosecuted terrorists returning to the UK from Syria.

In other news:

  • Victims of sexual offences are subject to the longest waiting period on record, with an average of 9 months for cases to go through Crown Courts. Data also demonstrates that the speed of cases depends on their location, with cases in Leicester taking the longest to complete (on average 15 months).
  • The housing charity ‘Shelter’ has published research that reveals that in the last three years more than 200,000 private renters in England have been served eviction notices without doing anything wrong. This means that every seven minutes a tenant is landed with a ‘no-fault eviction notice’.

In the courts:

  • On Wednesday in Coughlan, R (on the application of) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2022] UKSC 11, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal that the 2018 voter-ID pilot schemes (now law following the Elections Act 2022) were ultra vires pursuant to section 10(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 2000. The appellant’s case was that this section, which permits schemes relating to ‘how voting takes place’, is confined to the technical modalities of voting and does not allow eligibility to vote to be interfered with. This was rejected by the court, who held that ‘how’ in this instance is broad and indicates the steps by which electors make votes. Crucial to this was that if the appellant’s interpretation was followed, pilot schemes would almost always be at risk of adversely affecting rights to vote (see [54]). See Jake Richards’ commentary on this case at the Court of Appeal here.
  • Also on Wednesday in Gardner & Harris v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors [2022] EWHC 976 (Admin), the High Court declared that the March and April 2020 Covid policies to discharge hospital patients into care homes without testing or isolation was unlawful. The claim of judicial review at common law succeeded because the Department were notified of the dangers of the guidance, yet still took weeks to make amendments. This was found to be irrational as it failed to consider the risk of asymptomatic transmission and did not assess the balance of risks (see [293]). The claim in the alternative (judicial review) succeeded in place of the primary grounds (Article 2 and 8 ECHR), which were dismissed.
  • On Friday in All the Citizens & Anor v Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport & Ors [2022] EWHC 960 (Admin), the High Court dismissed two separate claims relating to the use of private communication systems (such as WhatsApp and email) for government business. The claimants’ case was that using these systems means public records that should be retained are unavailable, which is unlawful for 2 reasons: (i) incompatible with section 3(1) of the Public Records Act 1958; (ii) unjustifiable breach of policy. Regarding (i), the court found that the Act does not expressly or impliedly prohibit automatic deletion. Regarding (ii), government policies are not enforceable as a matter of public law, primarily because they do not inherently concern the exercise of public powers (see [109 – 115]).

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.




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.


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: