The Weekly Round-Up: Explosions in Lebanon, Paterson loses in ECtHR, Huw Edwards sentenced
23 September 2024
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.”
