We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
Personal data is intimately connected to privacy (art 8, ECHR) but is regulated by specific data protection regimes, such as the UK GDPR. Attention-grabbing legal issues arising out of Big Data dominate the public discourse around data protection: can generative AI use datasets without breaching intellectual property laws; how should the NHS use its mass of personal data; should we be compensated for the value of the data we provide to tech companies who go on to use it in advertising.
But on the other end of the scale from big data claims sits what might be thought of as ‘small data’ – issues around the use of one individual person’s data and the sometimes serious effects that can have. Jasper Gold joins Lucy McCann in a new episode of Law Pod UK to discuss the intersection of data protection, distress and personal injury, and consider some of the legal and tactical issues for litigants involved in these claims.
Brown v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis & Anor(2016), Claim No. 3YM09078 (at first instance) and [2019] EWCA Civ 1724 (in the Court of Appeal, on the issue of qualified one way costs shifting)
The case of R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin) in the High Court before Mr Justice Linden concerned a claim brought by a pupil referred to as a TTT (“the Claimant”) against the Michaela Community Schools Trust; (“the School”). The School is a secular secondary free school in the London Borough of Brent, which appeared as an interested party. The School is ethnically and religiously diverse, although over half of the pupils, including the Claimant are Muslims [1].
This post addresses only Ground 1 of the Claimant’s claim – alleged breach of the right to religious freedom under Article 9, ECHR – although the judgment (all 83 pages of it!) includes extensive discussion on Indirect Discrimination [214-232], the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) [257-273] and school exclusions [294-311], none of which were successful save for Ground 4b which concerned procedural unfairness around exclusions.
This week Israel began military operations in Rafah, a town at the south of the Gaza strip where 1.4 million displaced Palestinians are sheltering. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the military offence was necessary to secure the return of Israeli hostages and eliminate Hamas: “military pressure on Hamas is an essential condition for the return of our hostages”. The announcement was met with a mixed response from the US, a key Israeli ally. At the beginning of the week Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, stated that the Biden administration paused the supply of weapons to Israel. Later in the week the US state department released a declassified report (available here), which stated that Israel is likely to have violated international law but confirmed that the supply of weapons would continue. South Africa is once again seeking provisional measures from the International Court of Justice, arguing that the Rafah offensive “gives rise to new facts that are causing irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people in Gaza”. In a separate development, the UN General Assembly voted to enhance the status of the Palestinian delegation within the UN, and to urge the Security Council to give “favourable consideration” to full Palestinian membership.
Human Rights Watch has published a report about the conflict in Sudan, alleging that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and related militias are carrying out ethnic cleansing in West Darfur. The report details the RSF’s attacks in El Geneina, the capital of West Dafur between April and November 2023. Human Rights Watch alleges that the attacks constituted a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Massalit and other non-Arab populations in the area, and included serious abuses including torture, rape and looting. The report cites a UN panel of experts which estimated that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 people were killed in El Geneina in 2023. A UNHCR explainer about the origins of the conflict is available here.
The Ministry of Justice has introduced a pilot scheme providing free counselling and 24/7 support for jurors following difficult cases. The pilot will run for ten months in 15 courts; jurors will be provided six free counselling sessions alongside a 24/7 telephone helpline with support advice and information. The current jury trial rules which allow for majority verdicts have come under scrutiny this week as research by Appeal, the miscarriage of justice charity, has shown that at least 56 miscarriages of justice in England and Wales occurred where the jury was split. The charity has published a report calling for a requirement of jury unanimity for criminal convictions and a repeal of s.8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which guarantees the confidentiality of jury deliberations, so that the fairness of jury trials can be more closely studied.
The government has accepted a proposal put forward by Lord Reed, President of the UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) to enable overseas judges to sit on the JCPC. Lord Reed commented that the change would “enhance the quality of the Privy Council’s decision-making” by providing “the benefit of the opinion of a judge with direct experience of local conditions”.
A substantial majority of Special Advocates has felt driven to decline to accept new appointments to the role. This is a result of the Government’s continuing failure to provide proper support for the controversial system for secret evidence and closed proceedings, avoidably heightening the unfairness that is inherent in such cases. Special Advocates are the security-cleared lawyers appointed to represent the interests of those excluded from closed proceedings and they are central to the functioning of the system.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel’s rejection of Hamas’ offer for the return of all hostages in return for the end of the war in Gaza on Sunday, claiming such a deal would ‘leave Hamas intact’ and render ‘the next October 7th only a matter of time’. The main conflict at the peace negotiations underway in Cairo appears to remain whether a ceasefire would be temporary, allowing Israel’s recovery of hostages, or permanent, as Hamas insists it must be. The US State Department also announced this week that they have found five Israeli military units committed gross violations of human rights before October 7th. Israel claims corrective action has been taken against four of these units but has declined to give any details. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State declined to confirm whether the US would therefore impose sanctions in line with the Leahy Law, which prohibits the US from allocating funds to foreign forces in the light of evidence of gross human rights violations. Netanyahu has said that ‘to impose a sanction on a unit in the IDF [would be] the height of absurdity and a moral low’ at a time when Israeli soldiers ‘are fighting the monsters of terror’. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice ruled in a 15-1 vote last week against imposing emergency measures to prevent military exports from Germany to Israel in a case brought by Nicaragua earlier this year. However, the Court also declined to throw out Nicaragua’s case in its entirety, taking the opportunity to ‘remind all states of their international obligations relating to the transfer of arms to parties to an armed conflict, in order to avoid the risk that such arms might be used’ to violate international law.
The debate about single-sex spaces has come back into the news this week after ministers have announced plans for transgender patients in hospital to be treated in separate wards. The Government argues that there is a legitimate basis for the segregation and that the measures are proportionate, thus preventing the policy from breaching the Equality Act 2010 or the ECHR. The proposals have received cross-party support; Sir Keir Starmer supported the proposition in an interview on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, stating that his views on gender ‘start with biology’. The plans were announced amongst other changes proposed to the NHS Constitution, including the right for patients to insist on having their care carried out by a doctor of their biological sex. Kemi Badenoch, Minister for Women and Equalities, has made a call for evidence of organisations who are ‘wrongly stating that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces according to their self-identified gender’. The information will be used to ensure the Government’s ‘policymaking continues to tackle any confusion’ so that ‘single-sex spaces can be maintained’. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, pleaded following the announcement that the NHS not be ‘dragged into a pre-election culture war’. Ministers should rather be ‘bringing forward detailed plans to improve NHS funding, tackle the decrepit state of many health facilities and get waiting times for A&E care and planned surgery back to the levels that existed when the constitution was first published in 2012.’
In the Courts
Several groups have announced legal challenges to the UK’s Rwanda Migrant Scheme in the wake of the passing of the Safety of Rwanda Bill in April. Asylum Aid announced last Friday their intent to challenge the legality of a Home Office policy document published last week on the grounds that it ‘fundamentally misunderstands the Act’. The policy requires caseworkers to consider Rwanda safe even in the face of compelling evidence that Rwanda would not be safe for the individual – ignoring Section 4 of the Act which provides a limited right to appeal against removal on the grounds that Rwanda would not be safe given the asylum seeker’s individual circumstances. The FDA Trade Union has also commenced proceedings on the grounds that the policy creates a conflict for civil servants between their obligations under the Civil Service Code and following the instructions of ministers. The Civil Service Code imposes a legal obligation upon civil servants to ‘uphold the rule of law’, which may not be possible if given instructions by a minister to ignore a Rule 39 Order from the ECHR – a breach of international law. Dave Penman, General Secretary for the FDA, has emphasised that the legal action is not a political decision nor about the policy itself, but about protecting civil servants and ‘the integrity of the Civil Service Code’. The case is to be heard the first week of June. In the meantime, detentions have begun for the first migrants set for removal to Rwanda, with more to come over the next few weeks. It has been suggested detentions have begun so far in advance – over nine weeks before the departures of the first flights – in anticipation of legal challenges. Earlier this week, a bus intended to remove asylum seekers from a South London hotel for transfer to the Bibby Stockholm barge had to leave empty after protestors surrounded the vehicle in a successful attempt to disrupt the removal. 45 protesters were arrested in total following the clash with over 100 Metropolitan police officers.
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the lack of protection given to workers on strike constitutes a breach of their human rights. The right to strike is protected under Article 11 ECHR, which ensures freedom of assembly and association. However, UK domestic law provides workers with no protections against detriments short of dismissal for exercising that right. While s146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protected workers from detriment for engaging in trade union activities, strike action has not been considered to qualify – a situation which the Supreme Court said ‘nullifies the right to take lawful strike action’. The Court found that the current legal position fell short of a fair balance between the interests of employers and Article 11 rights, and consequently has declared the relevant statute incompatible with human rights. A significant victory for worker’s rights, the Claimant, Fiona Mercer, has said: ‘I am delighted at today’s outcome. Although it won’t change the way I was treated, it means irresponsible employers will now think twice before behaving badly towards their unhappy staff.’ It remains to be seen whether legislation will now be amended to protect the rights of striking workers against detriment. While the government are under no legal duty to respond, Professor Alan Bogg, who was part of the Claimant’s legal team, has suggested not to do so would be ‘constitutionally surprising’.
The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has ruled it is not a breach of human rights for schools to exclusively teach about Christianity in religious education classes. The Court upheld a previous finding that the curriculum is not taught in an ‘objective, critical, and pluralistic manner’ and stated that the finding was ‘capable of constituting evidence supporting an inference that the forbidden line (of indoctrination) had been crossed’. However, this did not breach Article 2 Protocol 1 of the ECHR – the right to education – as parents are granted an unfettered statutory right to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship. The law in Northern Ireland demands that state-funded schools organise ‘collective worship’ in at least one assembly per day; while parents can withdraw their children from this activity, pupils are not granted the right to withdraw themselves. The Court recognised the ongoing review into teaching in Northern Ireland, suggesting that policymakers may soon implement a ‘refresh to the Northern Ireland curriculum that will inevitably include consideration of religious instruction to take into account the complexion and changing needs of our society’. The Claimant intends to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The following piece was first published on the UK Constitutional Law Blog on 25 April 2024 and is reproduced here with their permission, for which the editors are grateful
Commentary on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act (“RA”), which is shortly to receive Royal Assent, has concentrated principally on its deeming of Rwanda as a safe country whilst ousting the supervision of courts. This post considers a separate issue – section 4 of the Act as it applies to victims of slavery (“VOS”). Section 4 provides a carve out from the Act’s deeming provisions where the Home Secretary considers Rwanda is unsafe for an individual “based on compelling evidence relating specifically to their particular individual circumstances”. It also providescourts with a power of review of that question.
This post argues that, read in the light of the common law constitutional prohibition of slavery (“POS”), s.4 should prevent all suspected and confirmed victims of slavery from being removed against their will to Rwanda without, at the least, a detailed assessment of their specific risks of re-trafficking there.
Football fans everywhere will be familiar with reckless tackles, whether from their own Sunday league experience or as followers of the professional game. But when will a tackle amount to negligence and be actionable in a civil court, such that an injured player can sue their opponent?
At the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Scott Rider, the coroner described Rider’s treatment in prison as “inhumane and indefensible”. Rider died by suicide in June 2022 after serving 17 years of an “imprisonment for public protection” (IPP) sentence, a form of indeterminate prison sentence. A few weeks before his death Rider told a member of prison staff that he felt as though his sentence had ruined his life and there was no hope of release. IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, but the abolition did not apply retrospectively to those who had already received the sentence. As of 31 December 2022 there were 2,892 prisoners serving IPP sentences. The coroner sent a Prevention of Future Deaths Report to the prisons minister, writing that “if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths occurring”.
The purpose of inquest proceedings also came under scrutiny this week, with the outgoing Chief Coroner, HHJ Thomas Teague KC, describing “a long-latent tension” at the heart of what the coronial service is trying to achieve in his Annual Report published on Thursday. He criticised the pressure on coroners to expand the scope of their investigations and expressed his view that “an inquest should remain a hearing that is narrowly focused on establishing a person’s immediate cause of a death, as opposed to in effect becoming a surrogate public inquiry”.
Finally, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration Act) 2024 was passed into law on Thursday. The Act requires decision makers to “conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”, where a “safe country” means a country to which a person may be removed without violating the UK’s obligations under international law. Speaking on 22 April, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that he anticipated that first flight removing people to Rwanda would leave in 10-12 weeks, stating that “these flights will go come what may” and that “no foreign court will stop us from getting flights off”.
In international news
Major campus protests have broken out across the US regarding the ongoing conflict in Gaza, with students calling for their universities to divest from companies with ties to Israel. Hundreds of arrests have been made over the last week. At New York University 120 people who had erected an encampment were arrested and all but four were charged with trespass. Hundreds more arrests were made at Emerson University, Yale University, Columbia University, the University of South California and the University of Texas. At the University of Texas, the state Governor called in troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety, who wore riot gear and were seen using their bikes to push protesters back.
In the Courts
The High Court dismissed the Solicitor General’s claim against Ms Trudi Warner in a judgment handed down on Monday. On 27 March 2023 Warner had stood outside a court where members of an environmental protest group were due to be tried with a placard that read “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”. The Solicitor General alleged that Warner’s conduct was intended to interfere with the administration of justice and amounted to contempt of court. Mr Justice Saini held that it was “fanciful” to suggest that Warner’s behaviour could be considered to fall within the category of contempt. The content of the placard “accurately informed potential prospective jurors about one of their legal powers… It is not unlawful to accurately communicate the bare principle of law to potential jurors in a public forum”.
In January this year, the Transparency Implementation Group Reporting Pilot was rolled out to 16 more courts across England. The pilot works on the basis of a presumption that journalists and legal bloggers may report on what they see and hear during family cases, subject to strict rules of anonymity.
In Episode 197 of Law Pod UK barrister Jim Duffy speaks to two experienced 1COR family law practitioners – Richard Ager and Clare Ciborowska. They explore the principles at stake and the on-the-ground impact of the pilot so far.
The decision of the Court of Protection in Rotherham and Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust and NR [2024] EWCOP 17 is the latest in a line of cases where the Court has been asked to determine whether a termination of pregnancy is in a woman’s best interests. Any case about a termination engages the pregnant woman’s Article 8 rights. But where the woman also lacks capacity to decide for herself whether to have a termination, there must be a particularly careful analysis to ensure that her rights are respected. While previous decisions have frequently accorded weight to the wishes and feelings of the pregnant woman at the heart of the case, Mr Justice Hayden’s decision goes further in handing the decision over to the pregnant woman herself.
Exemption for allies of the UK overseas, such as Afghan service veterans
Ensuring that Rwanda is only considered a safe country when the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty are fully implemented and adhered to in practice.
The Bill is going back to the House of Commons this week and may soon come into law despite the disputes between the Commons and the Lords.
In international news
The US Supreme Court has announced that it will not hear the case of Mckesson v Doe. This was an appeal against a lower court decision which held that a protest organiser could be held liable in tort and face steep financial consequences if a single participant at a mass protest commits an illegal act. The case arises out of a Baton Rouge protest following a police shooting. DeRay Mckesson, one of the organisers of the protest, was sued by a police officer, identified only as John Doe, who was seriously injured when a participant in the protest threw a rock at him. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case means that the lower court’s decision remains good law in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and has been criticised for having a stifling effect on protest rights.
In the courts
The High Court held that Michaela Community Schools Trust’s decision to ban ritual prayer practices was lawful. The challenge was brought by a Muslim student at the school who wished to be permitted to pray for five minutes during the lunchtime break. The court rejected arguments that the ban was a breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and indirect religious discrimination against the school’s Muslim students. The High Court held that there was no interference with the claimant’s Article 9 rights as the claimant impliedly consented when she enrolled at the school, which is a secular school, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion and she would be able to “make up” for missed prayers when she got home (Qada prayers). Alternatively, the prayer ban was a proportionate means of promoting social cohesion at the school and preventing students from being pressured into participating in the prayers.
I argue that both perspectives are misleading in some important respects. While there were some genuine innovations on standing, particularly for associations (which have been covered by others already), the decision on the substance of the Convention rights is far from a doctrinal revolution. Klimaseniorinnen is best understood as an extension of three well-established principles from ECHR environmental cases: (1) the crucial importance of procedural requirements, particularly the exhaustion of domestic remedies, (2) the application of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR requiring regulation and enforcement, including with respect to risks that have not (yet) materialised, and (3) the preference for Article 8 ECHR over the lex specialis in Article 2 ECHR.
Overall, the margin of appreciation looms large in the Klimaseniorinnen and ultimately, the ECHR remains on the outer margins of climate change policy: unless states do not have any greenhouse gas reduction targets, or choose not to enforce them, they are unlikely to exceed the margin of appreciation. Notably, the judgment does not require any particular reduction targets or mitigation measures ([547]), nor does it enforce the Paris Agreement via the Convention ([543]).
Dr Hilary Cass, Chair of the Independent Review of gender identity services for children and young people, submitted her final report last Wednesday to NHS England. The Cass Review was commissioned in 2020 to look into the effectiveness of the gender care services provided to young people by the NHS. The report stressed that gender-affirming care is an extremely poorly researched area, and that the “toxicity” of the conversation surrounding transgender identity was severely hampering competent medical care for trans youth. Further research studies commissioned by the review were “thwarted” by the lack of cooperation from NHS gender care services, and the little evidence already available was insufficient to suggest that, in their current state, NHS gender services are producing positive outcomes. The report has made a total of 32 recommendations to the NHS – notably, Cass argues for a more holistic approach to gender care for children, factoring in support for mental health and neurodiversity. Taking a non-partisan stance, Cass noted in her report that ‘for some, the best outcome will be transition, whereas others may resolve their distress in other ways. Some may transition and then de/retransition and/or experience regret. The NHS needs to care for all those seeking support.’ The report follows news last month that puberty blockers will no longer be a routinely available treatment option on the NHS for children with gender dysphoria.
The Government announced last week that they will be closing another 150 asylum hotels by the beginning of May, following the closure of 50 in January and a further 50 by March. Home Secretary James Cleverly stated that the process will ‘keep going until the last hotel is closed’. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact that the asylum hotel closures may have on housing services for local councils – Chair of the Local Government Association, Shaun Davies, has suggested that ‘councils are becoming increasingly concerned over the numbers of asylum seekers presenting as homeless, which is likely to dramatically increase when Home Office accommodation is withdrawn.’ Charity Refugee Council published a report last week revealing that official Government statistics show a 239% increase in the number of households requiring homelessness support from local authorities following eviction from Home Office asylum support accommodation. The Government statement from last week ends: ‘Ultimately, the best way to save money is by deterring people from coming to the UK illegally in the first place, and our partnership with Rwanda intends to do just that’.
The European Parliament voted to pass a new pact on migration and asylum last Thursday. The new laws brought in through the pact have been ten years in the making and are intended to provide a ‘robust legislative framework’ that ‘puts humanity first’. The pact, comprised of a series of 5 closely related laws, was passed by a narrow margin – the laws received an average of 300 votes for to 270 against. The laws cover a variety of issues including biometric data collection, detention regulations, and national security. The pact establishes a system of ‘mandatory solidarity’ between EU member states, seeking implement procedures which will divide responsibility for migration throughout the EU bloc. The pact has already been criticised on both sides of the political spectrum: Amnesty International have claimed the pact will cause a ‘surge in suffering’, while Jordan Bardella, President of France’s far-right party National Rally, called the pact ‘terrible’ and asked voters to give it the ‘worst possible defeat’ when France heads to the polls in June. The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, admitted that the pact ‘will not solve everything overnight’, but argued that ‘it is 10 giant leaps forward’.
In the Courts
Last Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment that, for the first time, held that government climate inaction constituted a breach of human rights under the ECHR. A group of Swiss older women – as part of the activist group KlimaSeniorinnen, Senior Women for Climate Protection – brought the case to the Court. They alleged that Switzerland’s poor climate policies has put them at increased risk of death during heat waves caused by climate change. The judgment confirms that the convention places countries under positive obligations to take effective and timely measures to fight climate change; finding a breach of Article 8 by sixteen votes to one, the Court held that Article 8 confers a right upon citizens to be protected from the ‘serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, wellbeing, and quality of life’. The Court also found unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) as domestic courts in Switzerland had not taken the complaints of the KlimaSeniorinnen sufficiently seriously. Though the Court also dismissed two other cases making similar arguments for issues of admissibility, six other climate cases previously adjourned can now be fully considered by the Court in light of this historic decision. The case was discussed in more detail earlier this week on the latest episode of Law Pod UK, available here.
The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled last Tuesday that a near-total ban on abortion can come back into force following the repeal of Roe v Wade. The law in question was originally established in 1864 and bans all abortions with no exceptions but to save a woman’s life. It was stated in judgment that the case is only one of ‘statutory interpretation – it does not rest on the justices’ morals or public policy views regarding abortion; nor does it rest on [the law’s] constitutionality, which is not before us’. The judges ruled that, in the absence of any legislation restricting the law or authorising abortion, and in light of the repeal of Roe v Wade, the law was enforceable. Despite this, the Supreme Court did delay enforcement for two weeks to allow the plaintiffs to commence further challenges against the law – in particular with regard to its constitutionality – in the lower courts. Katie Hobbs, Governor of Arizona, has come out against the judgment. In an official statement released after the ruling, she stated: ‘I will not let overzealous county attorneys take this as an opportunity to target any individual. As long as I am Governor, no Arizonan will be prosecuted by extremist county attorneys for seeking abortion care’. She has reiterated that an Executive Order she passed last year will continue to stand, which centralises all abortion-related prosecutions to Democrat Attorney General, Kris Mayes, and prohibits Arizona state agencies from assisting in abortion-related investigations.
In a judgment handed down by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) last week, the Court held that Home Office decisions to refuse to grant family reunion visas to refugees feeling Gaza without biometric checks were ‘irrational and unreasonable’. The applicants had requested their applications be substantively decided in advance of the submission of biometric data, since, as a result of the ongoing conflict, the visa centre in Gaza is not functioning. The nearest centre conducting biometric checks is in Cairo, Egypt. The Home Office policy required that for visas to be approved without biometric data, applicants must prove they face a ‘personal risk of harm, which is separate to the level of risk faced by the wider population’. Jackson J stated that he does ‘not consider that in the context of the conflict in Gaza […] that it is necessary for a person to show that they are specifically targeted to be able to establish that they are at risk due to their personal circumstances.’ The Court thus held that the Home Office policy was a disproportionate infringement on the Palestinian families’ right to private and family life, and thus in breach of Article 8 ECHR.
Yesterday (Tuesday 9th of April) the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg handed down three judgments from the Grand Chamber. Two of the applications were rejected on admissibility grounds. The third, a representative action by an NGO against the Swiss government, succeeded. It has caused something of a stir, to say the least.
The Strasbourg Court has broken new ground in finding that Switzerland has breached Article 8 of the ECHR, a provision which was drafted to protect the right to private and family life. In the case of Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and others v Switzerland, 16 of the 17 member panel concluded that Article 8 encompasses a right to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.
The case of Duarte Agostinho and five others v Portugal and 32 other states was one of the applications considered by the Grand Chamber. Emma Louise Fenelon advised Save the Children in its third party intervention in this case.
The new and wide-ranging Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) introduced by the Public Order Act 2023 came into force on Friday. As part of the Government’s attempt to ‘crack down’ on protesters ‘dedicated to wreaking havoc’, the police will now be able to apply to courts for an order to place restrictions on protesters’ locations, associations with others, online activity, and more. Breaching an order will be a criminal offence carrying up to six months’ imprisonment and an order can be made against anyone who has previously committed ‘protest-related offences’, including the many newly criminalised by the Public Order Act itself. Liberty have previously criticised SDPOs as an ‘unprecedented and highly draconian measure, which could amount to a ban on named individuals’ fundamental right to protest’.
Scotland’s new laws on hate crime came into force last Monday. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act both consolidates existing hate crime offences and creates a new offence of ‘threatening or abusive behaviour intended to stir up hatred’ on the basis of ‘age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics’. A working group headed by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC has recommended that a separate offence be created to tackle misogynist abuse. Despite concerns about freedom of expression being raised by a variety of high profile online commentators, the Scottish Government have insisted the threshold for prosecution is very high with the act having multiple built in protections, including a ‘reasonableness’ defence. Some reports have suggested Police Scotland have already received up to 6000 complaints under the new law since Monday.
In Other News
Last Monday, drone strikes by the Israeli Defence Force killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in the Gaza strip. Over a five minute period, three missiles struck three WCK vans delivering food to Northern Gaza despite previous coordination of the route with Israeli forces. Israel has admitted responsibility for the strikes and launched an investigation, reporting on Thursday that IDF forces had mistakenly believed the cars had been hijacked by Hamas militants and that drone operators were unable to see the WCK logo on the vans in the darkness. WCK has criticised the lack of accountability demonstrated by Israel’s response and has called for an independent inquiry. In related news, an open letter signed by UK judges and lawyers – including multiple former Supreme Court Justices – has called for the UK Government to end its supply of arms to Israel. The 17-page letter explains that the Government’s current position ‘falls significantly short’ of fulfilling its obligations under international law. The majority of British voters also believe the UK should cease their exports of arms to Israel, as revealed by a YouGov survey conducted last week.
The UN Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution on Thursday to recognise and enhance the rights of intersex people. In a resolution proposed by Chile, Australia, Finland, and South Africa, the Council voted to call on Member States to ramp up protections offered towards intersex people against ‘discrimination, violence and harmful practices’. The resolution includes a provision requesting a report from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ‘examining in detail discriminatory laws and policies, acts of violence and harmful practices against persons with innate variations in sex characteristics, in all regions of the world.’ Intersex people do not currently enjoy specific protection in the UK under the Equality Act 2010.
In the Courts
Uganda’s Constitutional Court declined last Wednesday to nullify the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act. Enacted last May, the law – which permits the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ – has received international criticism for violating rights protected both by Uganda’s own constitution and by international treaties to which Uganda is a signatory. The Court did strike down particular provisions which it held to be ‘inconsistent with right to health, privacy and freedom of religion’; one such provision placed an obligation on all citizens to report anyone they suspected of engaging in homosexual activity, which was held to violate individual rights. Despite this, the judgment has been criticised by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, who revealed that ‘close to 600 people are reported to have been subjected to human rights violations and abuses based on their actual or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity since the Anti-Homosexuality Act was enacted in May last year’. He stated that the Act ‘must be repealed in its entirety, or unfortunately this number will only rise’. The LGBT+ activists behind the court case told Reuters that they intend to appeal to the Ugandan Supreme Court to seek a full annulment of the Act.
The European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment last week finding that the lack of access to asylum to those arriving on Poland’s eastern borders meant that Poland was in breach of the ECHR. The case concerned a group of Tajik asylum seekers repeatedly turned away at the Ukrainian border crossing. During interviews with Polish border guards, the claimants stated they were seeking international protection from political persecution in Tajikistan, and that they were at danger of deportation in Ukraine. Their denial of access to the Polish asylum system and lack of an effective appeal process for the rejection at the border crossing violated Articles 3 (freedom from torture) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). A violation of Article 4 of Protocol 4 (prevention of collective expulsion of aliens) was also found, as the claimants successfully contended that the refusal of entry was on the basis of a wider policy to not accept asylum seekers at Polish border crossings.
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.
This blog is run by
Recent comments