The Weekly Round-up: strike action, modern slavery, and electronic tagging

17 October 2022 by

Source: AP

In the news

The Home Office has reclassified modern slavery as an “illegal immigration and asylum issue”. While it used to appear on the official list of ministerial responsibilities for the safeguarding minister, it is now listed at the bottom of the “illegal immigration and asylum” brief of immigration minister Tom Pursglove. According to official statistics, more than a quarter of all people identified as potential modern slavery victims are British, and 97% of all modern slavery referrals concluded in the first half of 2022 were confirmed as genuine by the authorities.

On 10 October, criminal barristers voted to end their strike over pay. 57% voted in a ballot to accept the package offered by Justice Secretary Brandon Lewis: an immediate 15% rise in fees for government-funded defence work, which will also apply to 60,000 cases in the backlog, and additional payments for a range of court preparation work. Crown courts have begun hearing cases as normal again, but it is not clear how quickly the backlog will be reduced.

In other news

  • A primary school has become among the first to take advantage of the Government’s change to The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 earlier this year, which allows them to hire agency workers to replace striking staff. In September, UNISON issued proceedings in the High Court to challenge the government’s decision. Ten trade unions, coordinated by the Trades Union Congress, are taking separate legal action against the decision.
  • The Independent Review of the Culture of the Royal College of Nursing into the Royal College of Nursing, led by Bruce Carr KC, has exposed bullying, misogyny and a sexual culture where women are at risk of “alcohol and power-related exploitation”. The report states that the RCN’s senior leadership has been “riddled with division, dysfunction and distrust” and condemns the male-dominated governing body, known as council, as “not fit for purpose”. Pat Cullen, general secretary and chief executive of the trade union and professional body, has apologised and warned that “no individual is beyond reproach” and that people implicated in the report could “face internal and regulatory consequences”.
  • An asylum seeker electronically tagged by the government after being selected for removal to Rwanda is launching a legal challenge. He said that after being tortured and trafficked in Sudan and Libya he has been treated “like an animal” in the UK. His legal representatives are applying for a judicial review of the Home Office’s “electronic monitoring expansion pilot”, which applies tags normally used for foreign offenders to asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats.
  • The Metropolitan Police has been forced to apologise and pay £6,000 to the family of a mixed-race boy who was unlawfully searched and handcuffed. The boy was 13 at the time of the incident in September 2018. He was grabbed, pushed and handcuffed by two white male officers. He and his friend were only released after 10 minutes. The officers’ claim that neither boy had been “detained or searched” was later disproven.

In the courts
In Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] EWCA Civ 1312, the Court of Appeal considered the legal test to be applied by the Court of Protection when considering an injunction. The Court concluded that the Court of Protection does have power to grant injunctions under s.16(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, both in the case where a deputy has been appointed and in the case where the Court has made an order taking a decision for a person. Such an injunction can only be granted when it is just and convenient to do so. This requirement is satisfied where there is an interest which merits protection and a legal or equitable principle which justifies exercising the power to order the defendant to do or not do something (in line with the majority judgment in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24). In Re G, those requirements were satisfied because G’s interest was an interest that merits protection, and the Court held that the principle that the Court may make ancillary orders to prevent its orders being frustrated is ample justification for the grant of injunctive relief if the facts merit it. The Court found that this is likely to be the case wherever an injunction is granted to prevent the Court’s decision under s.16(2)(a) from being frustrated or undermined.

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 Editors: Darragh Coffey
Jasper Gold
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough KC
David Hart KC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy
Jonathan Metzer

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 Allison Bailey 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 Coroners costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal 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 football foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health high court 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 legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater 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 public law rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo Right to assembly 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 sexual orientation 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 UK Supreme Court unduly harsh USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Allison Bailey 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 Coroners costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal 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 football foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health high court 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 legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater 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 public law rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo Right to assembly 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 sexual orientation 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 UK Supreme Court unduly harsh USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: