Monthly News Archives: February 2024

The Weekly Round-up: Shamima Begum loses appeal, ICJ considers situation in the West Bank, Ukraine Family Scheme closes

26 February 2024 by Emilia Cieslak

In international news 

This week the International Court of Justice held public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. This is in response to a vote by the United Nations General Assembly to request an advisory opinion on (in the words of the UN General Assembly):

• What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
• How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in [the] paragraph…above affect the legal status of the occupation and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status?

In the UK

As the Russia-Ukraine war reached its second anniversary, the Home Office has published a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules closing the Ukraine Family Scheme. This scheme allowed UK residents to sponsor Ukrainian family members to come to the UK. Ukrainians currently in the UK will be able to apply for the Ukraine Extension Scheme, which will provide them with an additional 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK on the expiry of their visa. The Ukraine Extension Scheme will close on 16 May 2024. This means that the only remaining “bespoke” visa for Ukrainians outside the UK will be the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. The statement of changes has reduced the length of the Homes for Ukraine Scheme visa from three years to 18 months. It has also restricted who is eligible to be a sponsor. Previously, to be a sponsor you had to hold at least six months’ permission to stay in the UK from the date of the visa application, now you have to be a British or Irish citizen or have indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

In the courts

Shamima Begum has lost her appeal against the removal of her British citizenship. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that in depriving Ms Begum of British citizenship, the Home Secretary was in breach of article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) by failing to consider that she was a potential victim of trafficking, to protect her from trafficking, to discharge legal obligations owed to potential victims of trafficking. The Home Secretary did not fail to take into account the risk of trafficking as a relevant consideration, and did not fail to consider Ms Begum’s de facto statelessness after the deprivation of her British nationality. The Court of Appeal also rejected arguments based on procedural fairness and breach of public sector equality duty.

The Weekly Round-Up: Navalny dies, a Right to Encryption, Rwanda Safety Bill questioned by Human Rights Committee

19 February 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In the News

Russia’s state prison service released a public statement on Friday reporting that opposition leader and vocal Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny has died in prison. Russian authorities are reportedly refusing to release the body, raising questions about the manner of his death. Navalny was sentenced in 2023 to 19 years imprisonment on a plethora of extremism charges, which he was serving in the Polar Wolf penal colony in the Arctic Circle. Lord Cameron, Foreign Secretary, said to broadcasters at the Munich Security Conference that ‘we should hold Putin accountable for this. And no one should be in any doubt about the dreadful nature of Putin’s regime in Russia after what has just happened’, while UK Security Minister Tom Tugendhat, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), has directly accused Vladimir Putin of murdering Navalny in order to silence him. Multiple judgments have been previously issued by the European Court of Human Rights finding that Navalny’s rights to fair trial, liberty and security, and freedoms of expression and association had been violated by Russian authorities.

Strasbourg Court dismisses challenges to bans on ritual slaughter without stunning for Halal and Kosher meat

14 February 2024 by Rosalind English

Belgian Muslims and others v Belgium (Application no.s 166760/22 and 10 others)

This is a rare case involving the welfare of non-human animals balanced against the rights in the Convention. In the Court’s own words, “this is the first time that the Court has had to rule on the question of whether the protection of animal welfare can be linked to one of the aims referred to in paragraph 2 of the Article 9 of the Convention.” Thank you to Joshua Rozenberg for alerting me to this important ruling.

In his Concurring Opinion Judge Yüksel gives a useful brief description of what was at stake here.

“The case concerns decrees promulgated under Belgian domestic law which require, in the interests of animal welfare, stunning prior to the slaughter of animals. The applicants, who are of Muslim or Jewish faith, claim that the prior stunning in question would prevent them from carrying out ritual slaughter in accordance with the precepts of their religion, which would constitute an interference and therefore a violation of their right to respect for their religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention

… At the heart of the case are therefore two questions: i) whether considerations linked to animal welfare can constitute a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention and ii) whether the contested measure did not actually go beyond what is necessary in a democratic society.” [para 3 of the Opinion]

The full judgment is available only in French. A summary of the salient points follows.

The proposed laws under attack

The slaughter of food animals without prior stunning has been banned in a number of countries signatory to the Convention, in the interests of animal welfare. However, both Jewish and Islamic rituals require maximum bleeding of the animal for the resultant carcass to satisfy the requirements of religious laws. Moreover, both rituals require the animal to be healthy and in good condition at the time of slaughter, and to die as a result of blood loss. But scientific research has shown that the fear that stunning would have a negative impact on bleeding is unfounded. “Electronarcosis” (see image above) is a reversible (non-lethal) stunning method that is possible for some smaller species of food animals (pigs, sheep and goats). This means that if the throat is cut immediately after this stunning method, the animal has indeed died solely of blood loss.

Home Office plans new protest offences and anti-Zionism is a protected belief

12 February 2024 by Kate Litman

In UK News

The Home Office has announced its intention to create new offences relating to actions taken by attendees at protests. The plans include making it an offence to possess flares or pyrotechnics at a protest, to wear a face covering at a protest, and to climb on war memorials. The changes will be added as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The Home Office has emphasised that the new rules are not a blanket ban on face coverings, and only apply where the protester’s intention is to conceal their identity. Police officers already have the power to order a person to remove any item which the officer reasonably believe is being worn wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. The changes will mean that a protestor who flouts such an order could be subject to a £1,000 fine or a one-month custodial sentence. The Home Office also added their intention to amend the law to prevent protestors from “using the excuse of protest to avoid prosecution” for offences such as criminal damage.

In international news

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the evacuation of civilians from the city of Rafah in southern Gaza ahead of an anticipated offensive operation. Rafah had a pre-war population of approximately 280,000 people and is now believed to be sheltering an additional 1.4 million Palestinians, making it home to over half the population of Gaza. The plans have attracted widespread international criticism. US President Joe Biden said that Israel should not conduct a military operation in Rafah without a “credible and executable” plan to protect civilians. Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin went further, stating that a military operation would “entail grave violations of international humanitarian law” and that the evacuation order “risks mass forced displacement”. Netanyahu has said that the offensive is necessary to achieve Israel’s strategic goal of eliminating Hamas and that the IDF will pursue a “combined plan for evacuating the population and destroying the [Hamas] battalions”. 

In the Courts

On 5^th February the Employment Tribunal handed down judgment in David Miller v University of Bristol. The Claimant had been dismissed from his position at the University following comments he made which included his view that Zionism is a “racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing” which “has no place in any society”. The Tribunal held that the Claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs constitute a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal concluded that the University’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was a disproportionate interference with his Article 9 and 10 rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and that his dismissal was unfair and wrongful. The Tribunal emphasised that the Claimant’s views were worthy of respect in a democratic society because he was not fundamentally opposed to the idea of Jewish self-determination, but rather to “the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population”, and because he did not support violence as a means of opposing Zionism [237]. The Tribunal reduced the Claimant’s compensatory award for unfair dismissal by 50% because his behaviour in commenting on individuals students and student societies was deemed culpable and blameworthy and had contributed to his dismissal [472].

Freedom of expression and offensive political Emails: an important assertion of a fundamental right

8 February 2024 by Guest Contributor

In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeal has quashed the conviction of the appellant for an offence contrary to Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 based on an email written to local councillors in a political dispute. In R v Casserly [2024] EWCA Crim 25, The Court gave guidance on – and placed emphasis on the importance of – directing juries on the right to free speech under Article 10 ECHR. The appeal considered the interaction between s 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Article 10.

Either not Neither: further consideration of non-binary identity by the High Court

5 February 2024 by Paula Kelly

The Divisional Court (Lady Justice Laing and Mrs Justice Heather Williams) confirmed in R (Castellucii) v The Gender Recognition Panel and the Minister for Women and Equalities [2024] EWHC 54 (Admin) that the Gender Recognition Panel has no power under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate that records an applicant’s gender as ‘non-binary’. It also held that this did not breach any of the Claimant’s rights under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Claimant is referred to as ‘them’ and ‘their’ in the judgment and the Court also refers to ‘male’ and ‘female’ as gender rather than sex for the purposes of the GRA. Both are adopted in this note.

The Weekly Round-up: Suspension of funding to the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees; changes to the Immigration Rules

5 February 2024 by Emilia Cieslak

In the UK:

The government has confirmed the dates on which various significant changes to the Immigration Rules will come into effect:

• On 14 March, the Immigration Rules will increase the minimum income for Family visas from £18,600 to £29,000. This will come into force from 11 April. The threshold will be increased in stages to £34,500 and finally to £38,700 by early 2025.
• On 19 February, the Immigration Rules will be changed to remove the right for care workers and senior care workers to bring dependants (partners and children). This change will come into force on 11 March 2024.
• On 14 March, the Immigration Rules will be changed to increase the earnings thresholds for those arriving on the Skilled Worker route, with the minimum threshold raising from £26,200 to £38,700. This change will come into force on 4 April 2024.
• On 14 March, the Immigration Rules will be changed to remove the 20% going rate discount for occupations on the Shortage Occupation List, and temporarily add further occupations to the new Immigration Salary List, which will replace the current Shortage Occupation List.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has sent a letter regarding the living conditions aboard the Bibby Stockholm to Michael Tomlinson KC MP, the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. The Bibby Stockholm is a barge used to accommodate asylum seekers awaiting decisions regarding their asylum claims. 

The letter comes after the Committee members’ visit to the barge. It mentions, among other issues, that the inhabitants share cabins designed for one person with up to six people. The inhabitants reported limited access to GPs, mental health services, religious services for Muslims, and the local communities in Portland and the surrounding areas. 

In international news:

The Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres has appealed to countries which have suspended funding the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) to reconsider their decisions. Countries including the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and others suspended funding after allegations emerged that 12 employees of the agency participated in the 07 October attack on Israeli civilians. The news agency Reuters carried a news report on allegations of involvement in 07/10 attack. 

Law Pod UK New Episode: Secondary Victims

2 February 2024 by Rosalind English

Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust (SC) 11 January 2024

For decades, close family members have been able to claim for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the death or serious injury of their loved ones, whether it be on the scene of the accident, hospital or mortuary. The jury has been out on the recoverability of these claims when the “qualifying accident” has been the result of admitted clinical negligence. The Supreme Court has just ruled this out as a basis for compensation. In Episode 193 of Law Pod UK, Rosalind English discusses this judgment and its implications for damages following clinical negligence claims with Judith Rogerson of 1 Crown Office Row.

Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.