The Weekly Round Up: Ukraine, ARAP, SLAPPs and trans rights
16 March 2026
In the news
The UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine found that 1,205 children have been systematically deported and forcibly transferred from Russian-occupied areas in Ukraine to Russia. Of those cases, eight in ten children have not yet returned. According to the findings, Russian authorities have acted in contravention with international humanitarian law, under which evacuation can only be temporary and for the legally justifiable reasons of health, medical treatment or safety.
The Courts and Tribunals Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons last week. The Bill introduces a range of reforms aimed at reducing court backlogs, including proposals to restrict jury trials and raising magistrates’ sentencing powers. The House of Commons Public Bill Committee has issued a call for evidence from experts in fields relevant to the Bill.
The Netherlands and Iceland sought permission to intervene in the International Criminal Court (ICJ) case initiated by South Africa against Israel’s actions in Gaza. The ICJ had previously received 16 requests to intervene, including from Palestine, Ireland and Colombia.
[* note from editor: The United States and other countries have also filed declarations of intervention in South Africa’s case of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Article 63 of the Statute of the Court allows countries to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of a convention to which they are parties, even if they are not parties to the dispute.
In its 11-page declaration the US rejected South Africa’s accusations of genocide against Israel.
“To avoid any doubt, the United States affirms, in the strongest terms possible, that the allegations of ‘genocide’ against Israel are false. They are also unfortunately nothing new,” it said.
The US said it considered it necessary to intervene in this case in order to offer its interpretations of the provisions of the Genocide Convention, informed by its role in drafting the 1948 text]
In the Courts:
On Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) launched an inquiry into the recent changes to laws relating to protest. The inquiry will examine whether the Government has correctly balanced its duty to protect the public from disruption or fear, with its duty to protect the right to protest – described by JCHR chair, Lord David Alton, as “a cornerstone of our democracy”.
In the courts
CHD, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence
On Thursday, the High Court ruled that the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) refusal of an Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) application was unlawful, on the grounds of an error of fact and a failure to publish related caseworker guidance. Although the MoD withdrew the decision shortly after the hearing, Saini J still handed down judgment, noting that the Court’s findings could affect other ARAP cases [1-2].
The judicial review challenge was brought by CHD, an Afghan national who was tortured by the Taliban and is currently in hiding in Afghanistan. For 13 years, until the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2021, CHD held a key public-facing role within a partly UK-funded organisation that promoted the rule of law and combatted the Taliban’s influence.
CHD’s application to re-locate to the UK was rejected by the MoD on the grounds that he failed to meet Condition 2 Category 4 of ARAP, which requires applicants to have made, in the course of their employment, “a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s military objectives or national security objectives (which includes counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and anti-corruption objectives) with respect to Afghanistan” [15].
Saini J held that MoD decision makers had made an error of fact when determining that the objectives of CHD’s employer – the advancement of the rule of law and a functioning legal system – were not also part of the UK’s national security objectives at the time of CHD’s employment [75-77].
Saini J also noted that he would have been inclined to find the unpublished guidance and any decision made pursuant to it unlawful, had it been necessary to decide the issue [21]. Applying R (Lumba) v SSHD [2012] 1 AC 245, Saini J held that the MoD’s failure to publish interfered with the general rule of law that the publication of policies is necessary for applicants to make informed and meaningful representations [84].
Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor
In a landmark decision handed down on Wednesday, the High Court has applied a statutory SLAPP – ‘strategic litigation against public participation’ – for the first time. The early dismissal mechanism, provided for by Section 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, was introduced to give defendants greater protection when facing defamation cases.
The case stemmed from an £8m libel claim and a malicious falsehood claim, referred to as a “spectacularly inflated figure” by Collins Rice J [210]. The case was brought by Setu Kamal, a tax barrister, against journalist Dan Neidle, following the publication of an article which warned that the barrister’s tax scheme was “nonsense” [2] and called for an HMRC investigation [135].
Collins Rice J clarified the statutory SLAPP test in her 230-paragraph judgment, which requires the following conditions to be satisfied:
- Defendant’s exercise of the right to freedom of speech (improperly) restrained [114 – 125]
- Information related to economic crime [126-146]
- Public interest purpose of publication to combat economic crime [147-152]
- Claimant’s intentionality [153-220]
The Court noted that the economic crime condition was not intrinsic to the concept of a SLAPP — it was only required for statutory SLAPPs [126-129]. Collins Rice J also emphasised that the legislation included claims stemming from both factual and opinion information [120].
K. M. H. v Obshtina Stara Zagora, C-43/24
In a judgment published last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that legislation which does not permit the amendment of gender data in the civil status registers is contrary to EU law and must be set aside [64].
The Bulgarian Supreme Court had requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, following proceedings brought by K. M. H., a Bulgarian national seeking to amend data relating to sex in civil status documents. K. M. H. was registered as male at birth, but now presents herself as a woman. She has begun hormone therapy in Italy, where she currently lives.
Bulgarian law does not provide for the possibility of changing data relating to sex in the civil status documents of a person who identifies as transgender [21].
The Court acknowledged that while the issue of identity documents falls within the competence of the Member States [37], prohibiting the alteration of identity documents breaches the principles of equality of Union citizens (Article 8 TFEU) and freedom of movement (Article 21 TFEU).
The Court explained that a person’s freedom of movement is likely to be hindered when there is a discrepancy between a person’s gender on identity documents and a person’s lived identity [39-44]. In written observations, K. M. H. told the Court that she faced considerable inconvenience whenever identified herself to airline staff and border control authorities because her travel documents mention a male identity [42].
On the UKHRB
- Sammuel March examines a recent landmark animal justice case, highlighting the importance of a jury trials
On Law Pod UK
- In the latest Law Pod UK episode, Lucy McCann speaks to Jonathan Metzer about the High Court’s recent decision in Ammori, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which held that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful
