The Weekly Round-up: Assisted dying bill, automated immigration decisions, and Daily Mail wins at the ECtHR
18 November 2024
In UK news
This week the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was published, with the second reading vote scheduled for 29 November 2024. The bill would allow terminally ill adults, who have capacity, to request to be provided with assistance to end their own life (clause 1). “Terminally ill” is defined in the bill to mean that the requestor has an inevitable progressive illness that cannot be reversed by treatment and as a result their death can reasonably be expected within six months (clause 2). The requestor would be assessed by two doctors (see clauses 7 and 8) and their request would be subject to approval from a High Court judge (clause 12). The bill confirms that medical workers who object to assisted dying will have no obligation to provide assistance (clause 23). The bill also creates offences of dishonesty, coercion or pressure in relation to requesting assistance (clause 26) and falsification or destruction of documentation regarding requests of assistance (clause 27). The controversial bill has stirred debate regarding the proper balance between bodily autonomy and safeguarding vulnerable people. On this blog, there has been a debate on whether the bill would place the UK in breach of article 2 ECHR (available here and here). There is also discussion of “slippery slopes” ie. whether once the bill has passed assisted dying could be made available to a wider range of requestors and the potential dangers (available here and here).
Investigations by the NGO Privacy International have uncovered the use of automated decision-making in the Home Office. The algorithm called “Identity and Prioritise Immigration Cases” (IPIC) identifies and recommends migrants for particular immigration decisions or enforcement actions. Home Office documents describe IPIC as a triage tool that can “assess the removability and level of harm posed by immigration offenders, automate the identification and prioritisation of cases, and provide information on the length of time a barrier to removal has been in place”. The use of automated decision-making within government is controversial. On one hand it can increase efficiency. On the other, rights groups criticise the lack of transparency around the use of automated decision-making within government and the difficulty in seeking redress when things go wrong. The Data (Use and Access) Bill, currently going through Parliament, will generally allow automated decision-making provided that affected individuals can make representations and have meaningful human intervention when an automated decision is challenged.
In international news
The Hague Court of Appeal has rejected arguments from environmental NGO Milieudefensie that Shell should be required to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019. The Court held that Shell does have an obligation to limit its CO2 emissions due to case law regarding human rights and protection against the dangers of climate change. However, the court declined to mandate Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by a particular percentage, stating that there is insufficient scientific consensus on a specific reduction percentage required from individual companies.
In the courts
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that requiring defendant publishers to pay significant “success fees” in breach of privacy and defamation cases can breach art 10 ECHR (Associated Newspapers Limited v UK (app no. 37398/21)). Associated Newspapers Limited, which owns the Daily Mail newspaper among others, was required to pay significant costs incurred by successful claimants who sued it for breaches of privacy and defamation. Where a claimant entered into a conditional fee arrangement with their lawyers and took “after-the-event” insurance (insurance that protects you against paying opponents costs if the litigation is unsuccessful), Associated Newspapers Limited were not only required to pay their base costs but also the “success fee” in the conditional fee arrangement and the insurance premiums. The ECtHR held that requiring the media company to pay “success fees” was a breach of article 10, but the requirement to pay after-the-event insurance premiums was not a breach of article 10.
