Monthly News Archives: September 2024

Nursing home held not to be a public authority for the purposes of an Article 2 claim

24 September 2024 by Dominic Ruck Keene

The Weekly Round-Up: Explosions in Lebanon, Paterson loses in ECtHR, Huw Edwards sentenced

23 September 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In the News

At least 39 people were killed and over 3000 injured last week following a series of attacks in Lebanon and Syria in which electronic pagers and radios were remotely programmed to explode. The devices targeted appear to be those belonging to Hezbollah-affiliated individuals. The military group has claimed Israel was behind the attacks which UN experts have termed “terrifying” violations of international law. Amnesty International has called for the establishment of an immediate international investigation – arguing that the attacks “should be investigated as war crimes” should Israel be determined to be responsible. However, Israeli President Isaac Herzog has stated that the nation “rejects out of hand any connection” to the explosions. The attacks are deepening concerns about the risk of full-scale regional war breaking out in the Middle East, resulting in the calling of an emergency Security Council meeting on Thursday. Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the US Department of State, suggests that it is “too early to say” how this week’s events will impact Gaza ceasefire talks.

Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been given a six-month suspended sentence following his pleading guilty in July to the making of 41 indecent images of children. The ‘making’ of images can include the opening of attachments or downloading from the internet. Following the sentence, Claire Brinton, Specialist Prosecutor at the CPS, stated: ‘This prosecution sends a clear message that the CPS, working alongside the police, will work to bring to justice those who seek to exploit children, wherever that abuse takes place.” However, the sentence has been widely criticised as overly lenient, including by Reform UK Deputy Leader Richard Tice who has written to the Attorney General willing him to appeal the sentence. Various reports have featured lawyers explaining that such a sentence is not unusual given the offence and Edwards’ lack of priors, emphasising that “Mr Edwards fared no better and no worse in this sentencing exercise than he would have done were he not a well-known news presenter”. Opinions are surfacing that the public outrage in response to what is a regular sentence exposes deeper issues within the criminal justice system.

Proposed amendments to the Iraqi Personal Status Law, rowing back several aspects of women’s rights, passed a second parliamentary reading on Monday. The law will soon be put to a final vote. The amendments seek to lower the legal age of marriage for girls to nine years, remove important rights of women in divorce and inheritance settings, and grant religious authorities further command over family matters. Human Rights Watch have noted that “Article 14 of the Iraqi constitution, as well as international human rights law, guarantee all Iraqis the right to legal equality. This amendment would not just undermine this right; it would erase it”. Iraqi women are leading the charge against the amendments, including Noor al-Jilaihawi – an Iraqi MP who has revealed that the parliament’s president refused to acknowledge a request by 124 MPs (over a third of parliament) to remove the reading from Monday’s agenda. On Sunday, the Supreme Judicial Council of Iraq came out in support of the proposed amendments and stressed their view that the amendments would not infringe upon women’s rights.

In the Courts

Last week, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the Northern Ireland Troubles reconciliation law breaches human rights. The controversial first instance judgment in Dillon and others v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland disapplied large portions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 for contravening the Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, a post-Brexit measure ensuring that the UK does not erode the human rights protected within the Good Friday Agreement. While the Act had intended to facilitate the end of legal proceedings relating to the Troubles, it has been met with consistent opposition from victims. The Court of Appeal held the Act to be unlawful on various grounds, including that it seeks to create an immunity for criminal activity related to the Troubles and that it fails to sufficiently safeguard victims. The new Labour Government have suggested they intend to repeal several key features of the Act.

Former Tory MP Owen Paterson has lost his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court declined to grant the declaration sought that the parliamentary investigation into Paterson’s conduct whilst MP was unfair and procedurally flawed. The former MP resigned in 2021 following an investigation and final report which recommended his suspension for an ‘egregious’ breach of lobbying rules. The Court found that the inquiry had been “fair, rigorous and thorough” and emphasised it was not for courts to interfere with the “business of Parliament” – such as how standards are enforced. The Court were further unable to attribute Paterson’s claimed £120k per annum financial losses to the investigation since “as he himself resigned from the House of Commons before the house could consider whether or not to apply the recommended sanction [of suspension], neither the loss of his seat nor the loss of income from his position as an MP were a necessary consequence of the investigation”.

The European Court of Human Rights also handed down judgment last week in Pindo Mulla v Spain, holding that the administration of blood transfusions to a Jehovah’s Witness against her will “breached her right to autonomy”. There had consequently been a violation of her Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Although it was found that the situation had arisen out of improper documenting of Ms Pindo Mulla’s wishes not to receive blood, the Court emphasised that in all cases, “a patient’s autonomy was to be reconciled with their right to life”. As to the documentation, it was underlined that “where a State [has] decided to put in place a system of advance medical directives relied on by patients, it [is] important that the system functions effectively”. Speaking to AFP, Pindo Mulla said she was “very happy that justice has been done” and seemed hopeful that the ruling would “allow the rights of other people to be respected in the future.”

Law Pod UK latest: Raising Racism at Inquests

18 September 2024 by Emma-Louise Fenelon

In Episode 201 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Emma Snell of JUSTICE and Christian Weaver, a barrister at Garden North Chambers about Achieving Racial Justice at Inquests: A Practitioner’s Guide (2024), a guide recently published by JUSTICE and INQUEST.

His Honor Judge Mark Lucraft KC, Chief Coroner of England & Wales from 2016-2020 endorsed the guide saying the following:

“This important guide equips practitioners and coroners to recognise, raise and investigate issues of race or racism when they arise, sensitively and without reticence. It is an invaluable resource, not only for promoting racial justice, but for improving fact finding, increasing racial awareness, and providing better representation to families.”

Emma Snell is a Senior Legal Fellow at JUSTICE.

Christian Weaver is a barrister at Garden Court North Chambers and the author of The Law in 60 seconds: A Pocket Guide to Your Rights, and of the upcoming Your Right to Protest: Understand It, Use It. For those interested in other publications from INQUEST, see here

The Weekly Round-up: Cumbria coal mine quashed, Finucane public inquiry announced, fire and rehire practices in the Supreme Court

16 September 2024 by Emilia Cieslak

In UK news

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, has announced a public inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane. Mr Finucane was a solicitor working in Belfast who had represented high profile IRA prisoners. He was killed by loyalist paramilitaries from the Ulster Defence Association in 1989 and a previous review by Rt Hon Sir Desmond de Silva QC found “frankly shocking levels of collusion” between the paramilitaries and state agents. In 2019, a Supreme Court judgment found that the British government failed to discharge its obligations to investigate state-caused deaths under article 2 ECHR through the da Silva Review which, among other things, did not have the power to call witnesses. Geraldine Finucane, Mr Finucane’s widow, commented in a statement: “An independent, statutory public inquiry is and was the only way to bring the whole truth behind the murder of Pat Finucane into the light of day”. The Secretary of State has said: “This government takes our human rights obligations, and our responsibilities towards victims and survivors of the Troubles, extremely seriously”.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has just published the newest edition of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide. The guide covers all the stages of judicial review proceedings, and is available here, for the perusal of practising and aspiring lawyers (as well as interested others).

In international news

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organisation has criticised the inadequate international response to the conflict in Sudan. Since April 2023, over 20,000 have been killed and over 10 million people are displaced, while 25.6 million people (around half of Sudan’s population) are facing high levels of food insecurity. Ghebreyesus has called for an immediate ceasefire with a lasting political solution as well as a scale up in the delivery of humanitarian aid. Human Rights Watch have published a report about the flow of foreign arms which are sustaining the fighting. Human Rights Watch have traced the weapons to China, Russia, Iran, Serbia and the United Arab Emirates, and argue that weapons such as armed drones, rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles have been used in attacks against civilians. Human Rights Watch is calling for an arms embargo for the entirety of Sudan, and a sanction regime to punish those violating the existing arms embargo on Darfur.

Mélanie Joly, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister has announced the suspension of 30 licences for arms sales to Israel, in addition to blocking a contract with the US government to send ammunition produced in Quebec to the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). The UK has also suspended 30 out of 350 arms export licences to Israel, stating that “there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. NGO Global Action Legal Network, partnering with Palestinian NGO Al-Haq, is in the process of challenging continued UK weapons exports to Israel.

In the courts

The High Court has quashed the grant of planning permission for a new coal mine at Whitehaven, Cumbria. The Secretary of State had previously admitted an error of law as the downstream emissions caused by the inevitable burning of the extracted coal were not factored into the Environmental Impact Assessment, thus the appeal was litigated by the mine owner West Cumbria Mining. The High Court did not accept the argument that coal mined in Cumbria would substitute coal extracted elsewhere to meet market demand, or the argument that the mine would have a “net zero” impact because West Cumbria Mining pledged to purchase carbon credits. 

A contractual dispute between Tesco, the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, and a small group of Tesco’s employees has shone a new light on controversial “fire and rehire” practices. In 2007, Tesco closed down some of its distribution centres and opened new ones in new locations. To persuade staff to relocate they offered enhanced pay referred to as “retained pay”. Employees were told that the retained pay was  permanent. In January 2021, Tesco decided to “phase out” the retained pay in exchange for a lump sum, and told employees that if they did not did not accept this change their contracts of employment would be terminated and they would be rehired on new contracts with the retained pay removed. The Supreme Court held that there was an implied term, required for business efficacy, that Tesco could not terminate the employees’ contracts to rehire them without the retained pay. The mutual intention of the parties was that the retained pay would serve as an inducement for experienced workers to relocate and this would be undermined if Tesco had the right to unilaterally remove the retained pay at any time for its business purposes.

UK Government loses latest round in long-running Diego Garcia litigation

10 September 2024 by Edward Waldegrave

In The Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory v. The King (on the application of VT and Others), the UK Government has lost the latest round in long-running litigation concerning a group of individuals accommodated in basic facilities on the remote British Indian Ocean Territory (the “BIOT”).

Background

The BIOT is an archipelago consisting of over 50 islands located roughly half way between East Africa and Indonesia. It is a British Overseas Territory and is formally administered from London by a Commissioner, who performs both legislative and executive functions.

Diego Garcia is the largest island in the archipelago. It has no settled population but accommodates a substantial US/UK military facility. The facility employs a transient population of about 4,000.

In 2021 a group of individuals of Tamil ethnicity left India by boat, apparently with the goal of reaching Canada. On 3 October 2021 their vessel encountered difficulties in the Indian Ocean and was escorted by the Royal Navy to Diego Garcia. Following their arrival in the BIOT, the individuals made claims for asylum. These claims remain un-determined, and some 61 individuals (including children) have now been living on Diego Garcia for nearly three years. There they have been housed in what have been described as “hellish” conditions. The majority live in tents in Thunder Cove (referred to as the “Camp”). Initially they were confined to the Camp itself, but as a result of an order made on 21 December 2023 they gained access to a nearby beach. They also have limited access to buildings outside the Camp for the purposes of consultations with lawyers, medical treatment and, for children, education. A few individuals who with medical complaints which could not be addressed on Diego Garcia have been flown to Rwanda for treatment.

In May 2024 eleven individuals were granted “bail” on terms which allowed them (in summary) to leave the Camp and walk along highway DG1, and to access beaches from the road. These arrangements appear to have been uncontroversial. When they were put in place, it was envisaged that the limited freedoms granted to the eleven individuals would be extended to the other migrants on Diego Garcia. In any event, it was also expected that the position of all of the individuals would be finally resolved at a hearing scheduled for July 2024. This substantive hearing has, however, been indefinitely adjourned.

The July 2024 Bail Application

In July 2024 a number of the individuals applied for extended bail. Specifically, they sought access to a “nature trail”, and also sought changes to the terms on which their bail could be exercised.

In response to this application (the “July Application”) the Commissioner sought the views of the US authorities responsible for the operation of the military facilities on Diego Garcia. The US authorities provided their views on the July Application a few hours before it was due to be heard (on 23 July 2024). The US position was stark: it opposed any extension of bail on the basis that the proposals posed “operational, security, health and safety risks [to the military facilities on Diego Garcia]… which cannot be mitigated or would be unduly burdensome to mitigate”.

The Commissioner applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the July Application to give him more time to consider the response of the US. This was rejected.

Very shortly after the hearing on 23 July, the Commissioner received letters from (i) the Director General for Africa and the Americas at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; and (ii) the Minister of State for Europe, North America and the UK Overseas Territories. Both emphasised the respect which should be accorded to the US’ concerns. These letters were provided to the Court.

On 26 July Judge Obi of the Supreme Court of the BIOT granted the July Application, subject to some relatively minor caveats. In particular, she extended bail to all the relevant individuals and permitted access to the Nature Trail.

The Commissioner appealed, and the Court of Appeal of the BIOT heard the appeal on 9 August. It handed down its decision, dismissing the appeal, on 20 August.

The Commissioner’s Grounds of Appeal

The Commissioner appealed against the Judge’s order on four grounds:

• It was procedurally unfair for the Judge to have proceeded with the hearing of the July Application on 23 July (i.e. not to have granted the Commissioner’s application for an adjournment to allow more time to consider the US response).
• The Judge exercised her discretion unreasonably because she failed properly to consider the impact of extending bail on US/UK relations.
• The Judge exercised her discretion unreasonably because she failed to attribute due weight to the assessment by the US authorities of the security implications of extending bail.
• The Judge exercised her discretion unreasonably because the July Order necessarily impacted upon decisions by the Commissioner concerning the allocation of resources.

The Court of Appeal’s Determination

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal on all grounds.

Ground 1: Procedural Unfairness

The Court rejected the Commissioner’s contention that it was procedurally unfair for the Judge to refuse to adjourn the hearing of the July Application for two reasons.

First, the Court agreed with the Respondents that there was nothing “new” in the US’ response to the July Application. In summary it took the view that the US’ position had long been clear, and had amounted to “consistent and unvarying opposition” to any bail arrangements. Its response to the July Application was wholly consistent with this. Accordingly the Judge had been entitled to take the view that it was not necessary for the hearing to be adjourned for the Commissioner to have a fair opportunity to present his case.

Secondly, the Court noted that the Judge permitted oral submissions to be made on the two letters which the Commissioner received just after the hearing of the July Application. That further oral hearing constituted an obvious opportunity for the Commissioner to make any additional submissions on the US’ response to the July Application. The fact that he had not sought to make any such submissions undermined the contention that it had been unfair for the Judge not to adjourn the first hearing.

Ground 2: US/UK Relations

The Commissioner’s next ground of appeal relied on a contention that the Judge had failed to attach due significance to the impact that extending bail would have on US/UK relations.

The Commissioner’s case on this ground seems to have been somewhat confused. It appears to have been uncontroversial that “questions relating to international relations… are not generally justiciable”. However, it was also common ground that international relations considerations could not necessarily “dictate the outcome of the court’s enquiry”. The Commissioner’s argument before the Court of Appeal on this ground (at least in part) was that, because the grant of bail “had the potential to have a profound impact on international relations between the UK and [the US]”, the Judge should have exercised extreme caution before granting the July Application. As the Court of Appeal recognised, however, this was inconsistent with the Commissioner’s acceptance that the impact on the UK’s international relationships was just one factor to be considered in the overall balancing exercise. On that basis, the only question was whether the Judge had in fact properly evaluated the security concerns raised by the US. The Court of Appeal concluded that she had, and that there was no warrant for interfering in the evaluative conclusion which she had reached.

Ground 3: US Security Assessment

The Commissioner next argued that the Judge had failed, in summary, to accord sufficient respect to the US’ assessment that the grant of the July Application would interfere with security considerations.

Again, the Court dismissed this Ground. It accepted that it was for the relevant US authorities, rather than the Judge, to take a view on whether the grant of the July Application would have adverse security implications. However, this is not what the Judge had done. She had not questioned the US view of the relevant security implications but had, quite properly, taken that into account as a factor to be weighed alongside other relevant considerations. Her overall evaluation was that the July Application should (broadly) be granted. There was no warrant for interfering with that evaluation. In deciding that the Judge had accorded due respect to the US assessment of the security implications, the Court of Appeal seems to have relied in part on the fact that the Judge rejected aspects of the July Application (such as permitting the individuals to access a social club on Diego Garcia) because of the burdens those aspects would give rise to for the Commissioner.

Ground 4: Resource Allocation

Finally, the Commissioner argued that the Judge had strayed into another non-justiciable area because granting the July Application necessarily had implications for the allocation of resources by the Commissioner (in that there would be costs for the Commissioner associated with the extended bail arrangements).

Again, the Court found little difficulty in rejecting this Ground. It concluded that the Judge had not purported “to tell the Commissioner how to spend the funds available to the BIOT”. Rather she had explicitly recognised that this was a matter for the Commissioner. As was pointed out in argument, decisions as to bail conditions regularly have cost implications for the authorities; it would be surprising indeed if judges making such decisions were unlawfully straying into non-justiciable resource allocation territory.

Comment

It has been suggested (in particular by Joshua Rozenberg: see https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/uk-loses-diego-garcia-appeal) that the Commissioner must have recognised that he was likely to lose the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and that the appeal was only pursued in an attempt to show others (such as the US Government) that the UK was exhausting all its options in seeking to prevent bail being extended. On this view, the Court of Appeal’s decision was, from a legal perspective, “obvious”.

It is true that aspects of the Commissioner’s case before the Court of Appeal seem to have been very weak. In particular, it is difficult to see how the Commissioner could reasonably have hoped to succeed on Grounds 1 or 4.

However, the Court of Appeal’s decision does give rise to some points of genuine legal interest. In discussing Ground 2, the Court of Appeal accepted that the conduct of the UK’s foreign relations is non-justiciable in itself, but that the Crown’s foreign policy priorities can be weighed in the balance against other factors in determining a bail application. Presumably the same is true in other contexts. Similarly, in relation to Ground 3, the Court accepted that it is for the executive (in this case, in effect, the US Government) to form a view as to the state’s security interests, but that its view can be weighed among other factors in an appropriate case. This distinction is one which surely merits further academic, legal and political scrutiny. Put briefly, it is difficult to see how judges can on the one hand be expected to “keep out” of foreign policy and national security questions if the executive’s views on such matters are susceptible to being balanced against other factors (such as, in this case, the interests of individuals in being able to move more freely than has hitherto been the case). The Court’s approach to this issue seems to have been largely a result of the Commissioner’s acceptance that foreign policy and national security considerations did not constitute “trump cards” but were merely factors to be weighed in the balance. The Commissioner might have stood a better chance of success, and his case would certainly have been more intellectually coherent, had that concession not been made.

The second point arising from the Court’s judgment which is of significant interest concerns the way in which the parties and the Court all viewed the July Application through the prism of “bail”. As the Court itself recognised, this case falls far from the ordinary context in which bail principles are applied. One might see this case as demonstrating the admirable ability of English legal principles to address novel factual circumstances. Others might regret that such a unique set of facts could only be addressed by an analytical framework developed in very different cases.

Edward Waldegrave is a barrsiter at 1 Crown Office Row.

The (inadvertent) perils of a strictly formal equality: Re Mediahuis and others’ applications for judicial review [2024] NIKB 45

4 September 2024 by anuragdeb

Introduction

The road to hell, so the saying goes, is paved with good intentions. While not quite as dire, well-intentioned laws can nevertheless sometimes have severe consequences. In Re Mediahuis and others’ applications for judicial review [2024] NIKB 45, the Northern Ireland High Court declared 5 sections of one such well-intentioned law, the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (the 2022 Act), invalid. This is the first invalidation of devolved Northern Ireland statutory provisions since the present devolution settlement (the Northern Ireland Act 1998) was enacted 26 years ago. On one level, the judgment is fairly unremarkable – courts are empowered to declare invalid any devolved statute (or statutory provision) which is found to be outwith devolved legislative competence (in this case because of incompatibility with Article 10 of the ECHR) and have done so without raising eyebrows since the advent of devolution in the UK. On a deeper level, however, the judgment and the justification for the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act show the limits of formal equality in addressing substantive injustice.

The judgment

The 2022 Act was a partial response to a wide-ranging review into the legal and policy measures around serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland. This review, carried out by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir John Gillen (the Gillen Review) made several recommendations. Among these, the relevant recommendations for this case were (1) an extension of anonymity for complainants of sexual offences beyond their lifetimes, (2) pre-charge anonymity for suspects of sexual offences and (3) a statutory prohibition on the publication of suspects’ identities pre-charge. The 2022 Act implements (1) (by extending complainant anonymity to 25 years after the complainant dies) but goes much further in implementing (2) and (3) than recommended in the Gillen Report. In respect of (2), the 2022 Act allows suspects to remain anonymous pre-charge on almost the same terms as complainants (during their lifetimes and up to 25 years after death), meaning that if a suspect is never charged, no identifying details may be published until after 25 years following their death. The reporting restriction can be lifted by a court on the application of the police, the suspect or (if the suspect has died) the suspect’s close family, personal representative or anyone interested in reporting any prohibited matters relating to the suspect. Importantly, the press may not apply to lift the reporting restriction during the suspect’s lifetime. On (3), the 2022 Act criminalises the unauthorised publication of suspect details and prescribes a custodial sentence or a fine (or both) for the offence.

Plainly, the 2022 Act represents a significant hurdle to public interest reporting. The pre-charge anonymity is just as extensive as complainant anonymity, and may only be lifted on the application of an extremely limited cohort of people. The justification offered by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice (DoJ), to put the matter mildly, lacked much (if any) persuasiveness. The DoJ pointed to the deleterious impact of publishing or reporting on a sexual offence suspect’s details before charge, with consequences ranging from reputational damage to a threat to life (Mediahuis, para 58). But the Act does not provide a general public interest defence to the offence of unauthorised publication. Such a defence would allow a court to carefully scrutinise two competing issues – any public interest in publishing a suspect’s details pre-charge and that suspect’s rights under the ECHR – and balance them. And nor does the process to lift reporting restrictions include the press as applicants. The rationale for this was virtually non-existent, with the DoJ simply saying:

“It was considered necessary to draw a distinction between who can apply before the death of the suspect and who can apply thereafter to reflect the very different circumstances that apply in those varying circumstances.“

But the Court was not provided with the reasons why this distinction was “considered necessary”. The DoJ further claimed that broadening the cohort of people who could apply to lift the reporting restriction (journalists, for example) during a suspect’s lifetime would “run contrary to the aims of key recommendation 10 [of the Gillen Report].” The relevant recommendation (in full) is:

“There should be no change in the current law concerning publication of the identity of the accused post charge. The identity of the accused should be anonymised pre-charge and the accused should have the right to apply for a judge-alone trial in the rare circumstances where the judge considers it to be in the interests of justice.“

Plainly, the DoJ’s claim about the recommendation was unsustainable.

It is therefore unsurprising that the High Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) should have found the relevant provisions to be a disproportionate interference with Article 10 of the ECHR (the freedom of speech and expression), creating a ‘chilling effect’ on public interest journalism (Mediahuis, para 102).

To be clear, laws with categorical exclusions like the 2022 Act are not, by their categorical exclusions alone, inconsistent with the ECHR. Another devolved Northern Ireland statute – the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 (which creates areas around abortion services providers for the safety of their users and staff by fining certain conduct within these areas) emerged from the Supreme Court entirely unscathed, despite containing clear categorical exclusions of certain behaviours (in the form of a strict liability offence in respect of those behaviours). But there are important differences between the 2022 Act and the Abortion Services Act. Chief among these is that fact that the former proscribes unauthorised publication with a custodial sentence, whereas the Abortion Services Act provided for a fine. Moreover, the banned behaviours in the Abortion Services Act are spatially limited to the defined safe access zones around abortion services providers; people are free to oppose such services elsewhere, so the limitations on Article 10 rights are themselves limited. By contrast, the pre-charge publication bar in the 2022 Act applies without distinction as to geography or other factor, and continues for a quarter of a century after a suspect’s death if the suspect is not charged. The limitation on Article 10 rights is thus extreme, and could only be justified (if at all) with the clearest and most compelling reasons. In this, the DoJ ultimately failed.

The erroneous focus on formal equality

The largely unsurprising ECHR assessment of the 2022 Act by the High Court aside, it is curious that pre-charge suspect anonymity and complainant anonymity should have been placed on the same formally equal plane. This is especially the case given that formal equality between complainant anonymity and (general) suspect anonymity was categorically rejected as ‘flawed’ by Sir John Gillen (Gillen Report, para 12.90). Sir John identified a number of reasons why complainants are entitled to greater anonymity – not least to encourage their participation in the criminal justice process. In the same vein, publishing or otherwise disclosing the identity of suspects of sexual offences encourages other potential complainants to come forward in a society where the conviction rate for such offences remains, in the words of Sir John ‘troublingly’, low (by the time Sir John had published his findings, the conviction rate for sexual offences in Northern Ireland had also been falling, see Gillen Report pg. 10).

Moreover, the social stigma associated with being a survivor of sexual violence or abuse acts as a further barrier. Within his Report, Sir John recognises the myriad ways in which different groups of survivors – women of colour (para 13.76), people with disabilities (e.g. paras 13.46 and 13.55) and men (para 13.148) – experience stigma.

All of these factors combine to highlight one of the main themes underlying the Gillen Report and the implementation of its recommendations by the DoJ over the years since the Report’s publication: the need to ensure that ‘one of the worst violations of human dignity’ – sexual crime – is not compounded by the very system designed to hold its perpetrators to account. This is not to discount the experiences of those whose details are published despite not being charged, and the indignities they suffer as a result. But fundamental to this complex and highly sensitive area is the recognition that different people experience different indignities. The formal equality which characterised the invalidated provisions of the 2022 Act, however, completely failed to recognise this reality. Instead, it effectively flattened the many accounts of survivors and suspects found in the 700-odd pages of the Gillen Report into a highly simplistic equation: whatever anonymity was conferred on complainants must also (mostly) be conferred on suspects while they remain uncharged.

This flat plane of formal equality ultimately imperilled the very provisions which were intended to protect the dignity of those people who, whether voluntarily or otherwise, come into contact with the criminal justice system for sexual offences. In the aftermath of the High Court’s judgment, the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice initially indicated that she was considering an appeal, before confirming that no appeal would be pursued. The resultant situation is that the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act – sections 12-16 – are invalid, so there is no bespoke statutory pathway to ensure suspect anonymity at the pre-charge stage (the UK Supreme Court judgment in Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 recognises an ECHR-derived reasonable expectation of privacy at the pre-charge stage).

Without impugning the good intentions of the DoJ, the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, Mediahuis and others should give Ministers and Departments pause for thought. Addressing the substantive (and sometimes life-altering) injustices which are experienced as a result of or in relation to sexual crime requires much greater sensitivity than a simple formal equality.

Anurag Deb is a PhD candidate at Queen’s University Belfast and a paralegal at KRW LAW LLP.

The Weekly Round-Up: Taliban Morality Law, Govt to Appeal Protest Ruling, & Scottish Prisons ‘Broken’

2 September 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In UK News

Following May’s High Court judgment finding former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s protest regulations unlawful, human rights organisation Liberty claimed last week that the Home Office has decided to continue its appeal. The case, spearheaded by Liberty, sought to challenge the lowering of the threshold for “serious disruption” during protest from “significant” and “prolonged” to “more than minor” by statutory instrument – which opponents claim is an abuse of secondary legislation. Despite the new Labour government initially pausing the former Tory government’s plans to appeal, Liberty have stated that the Home Office have recommenced the appeal after talks to resolve the dispute failed. The director at Liberty, Akiko Hart, has said she believes the legislation to be “undemocratic, unconstitutional and unacceptable” and that the decision to appeal shows “disregard for the rule of law”. Liberty have stated that the appeal will be heard later this year, with a date yet to be confirmed. A spokesperson for the Home Office has said that “the right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, and all public order legislation must balance this right. However, we disagree with the court’s ruling in this case and have appealed their decision.”

Scotland’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has claimed that the country’s “broken” prison system results in inmates being “set up to fail”. Having stepped down from her role at the end of August, Wendy Sinclair-Giebens expressed concerns about the state of Scottish prisons: “The prison service is underfunded and under-resourced for what the public and judiciary expect of it, yet it’s a very big organisation having to deal with the most marginalised, violent and mentally ill in society”. She revealed there is a pool of inmates unable to move further towards parole due to the “huge” waiting lists for the mandatory behavioural programs. The news follows a 2023 ruling by an Irish judge barring the extradition of a man to Scotland on the basis of a “real and substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment”, largely a result of the overcrowding of Scottish prisons.  The ruling was, however, later overturned on appeal following express assurances from the Crown Office in Edinburgh that the prison would implement a tailored care plan for the respondent. Last week also saw the release of 477 Scottish prisoners as part of an emergency scheme to ease prison overcrowding as Scotland’s justice secretary revealed the prison population has risen by 13% in the last year.

The annual report of the Committee on Fuel Poverty published last week has revealed that fuel poverty is “flatlining rather than falling”. Despite a reduction in fuel poverty of 40% between 2010 and 2019, the last five years has not seen fuel poverty fall “to any meaningful extent”. The government has identified the groups at highest risk of being unable to afford energy and “living in a cold home” as those living in the private rented sector, ethnic minority households, and households using pre-payment meters – the government has emphasised the importance of aligning fuel poverty mitigation measures with wider equality goals. The report follows the controversial announcement by the new Labour government that universal winter fuel payments to pensioners will be scrapped. The energy minister, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has been conducting meetings to consider support measures for households experiencing fuel poverty. The annual report emphasises that it “is not defeatist.  The Committee believes fuel poverty can be beaten.  But for too many low-income households, the unaffordability of bills, especially in the coldest months, is all too real.  We foresee that targeted financial support, possibly including the use of social tariffs, for vulnerable and low-income households may be needed for some years to come.”

In International News

A new “morality” law introduced by the Taliban last week has been met with condemnation by the UN and various human rights organisations. Titled “The Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law”, the law seeks to prevent leading men into “vice” by requiring women to be completely veiled in public. Women are also prevented from singing or reading aloud where they could be heard by a non-family member, as well as looking directly at men to whom they are not related. The laws state that “whenever an adult woman leaves her home out of necessity, she is obliged to conceal her voice, face, and body”. The Chief Spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that the law “effectively attempts to render [women] into faceless, voiceless shadows” and called for its immediate repeal. The head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, Roza Otunbayeva, said that the law reveals a “distressing vision” of the country’s future by extending “the already intolerable restrictions on the rights of Afghan women and girls”. The law comes in defiance of Security Council Resolution 2681 (2023) which called on the Taliban to “swiftly reverse its policies and practices restricting women and girls’ enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms”. It has been reported that Afghan women are posting videos online of themselves singing in protest against the new restrictions.

A UN report published on Friday has further exposed the ongoing human rights violations in Libya. The accompanying press release slams the “lack of accountability and years of impunity” by those committing the violations as further fuelling instability in the country. The report investigates unlawful killings, torture, kidnappings, and sexual violence committed by Al-Kaniyat – a local militia who have conducted what has been termed by the UK Government a “reign of terror” in the region of Tarhuna. The report reveals “serious violations of international humanitarian law”, calling for accountability, the delivery of justice, and effective reparations for victims. The report argues that “leaving root causes and drivers of conflict unaddressed […] will serve to fuel toxic cycles of violence and revenge between communities.” The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed a similar sentiment, stating that “the impunity must end – there must be accountability in accordance with international due process and fair trial standards.”

The Swiss Federal Council voted last Wednesday to affirm Switzerland’s rejection of the groundbreaking KlimaSeniorinnen ECHR judgment from last April, which found that Switzerland was breaching human rights through climate change inaction. Despite previous calls by the dominant party – the Swiss People’s Party – for Switzerland to leave the Council of Europe, the Swiss Federal Council instead reaffirmed in a press release that “the ECHR and membership of the Council of Europe, whose fundamental values of the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law include, remain of great importance to Switzerland”. However, it was added that “the case law must not lead to an extension of the scope of the ECHR”. The move has been criticised by the Center for International Environmental Law as an “embarrassment” for Switzerland, who it claims have missed an opportunity to “strengthen its climate policy in accordance with undisputed science”.

See Rosalind English’s post on the KilmaSeniorinnen ECHR judgment here.