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]
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.
These two appeals both concern Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”) which deals with convicted individuals who are subject to convictions in their absence. Trials in absentia are extremely common in civil law jurisdictions and it is sometimes said that there is the possibility of unfairness arising from a trial with an absent defendant
Section 20(3) requires an extradition judge to decide whether or not a person has deliberately absented themselves from their trial. In those circumstances they can be extradited to serve a sentence without an entitlement to a retrial.
If the Court determines that the person was not deliberately absent Section 20(5) must be addressed and it is necessary to decide if they would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) a review amounting to a retrial. The case of Bertino considered deliberate absence within Section 20(3) and Merticariu the right to a retrial within Section 20(5).
These issues are integral to the protection of Article 6 of the ECHR. It is plain that deliberately absenting oneself from a trial would not subject someone to a violation of Article 6 but the two basic principles of that Article are the right to be present and the right to be represented (Bertino §27).
Bertino: the facts
The Appellant’s extradition was sought pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) issued for his extradition to serve a year’s imprisonment after trial in his absence at the Italian Court of Pordenone. He was convicted for the offence of sexual activity with an under-age person.
The Appellant signed a document confirming that he was under investigation and he “elected domicile” in Italy. The document stipulated that he was obliged to notify the authorities of any change of address. Without such a notification service of any document would be executed by delivery to his lawyer. Mr Bertino elected his domicile by giving an address in Venetico, Messina and also indicated that he would be assisted by a court-appointed lawyer.
However he then left the country in November 2015 and came to the UK where he began to work. Meanwhile the prosecution in Italy commenced on 8 June 2017, a writ of summons for the court hearing was issued on 12 June 2017 and he was summoned to appeal at the Pordenone Court on 28 September 2017. The summons included a warning that his non-attendance without “lawful impediment” would lead to judgment in his absence. However he had never received the summons and by then the judicial authority knew that he was no longer at the address in Venetico. He had also failed to notify the authorities of any change of address.
There were then many unsuccessful attempts to trace him in Italy between 2016 and 2019. The Appellant did tell Westminster Magistrates’ Court that he had informed the authorities of his departure to the UK for family law purposes because, by then, his marriage was failing and arrangements were to be made for the children, but not the police in connection with the investigation.
The Council Framework Decision
EAWs must be drafted in a prescribed form according to the Council Framework Decision of 26 February 2009 2009/299/JHA, and there are various options which the issuing judicial authority is required to tick. In this case the EAW indicated that he was absent from his trial. There are a range of boxes for indicating, roughly, why this was; in Mr Bertino’s case none of those boxes was ticked and the evidence was that he was unaware of the date and place of his trial and even that there had been a decision to prosecute him.
The Deputy Senior District Judge ordering extradition found that, because the Appellant left his address without notifying a forwarding address and then came to the UK he had demonstrated a “manifest lack of diligence” [§10], a phrase echoing Court of Justice of the European Union case law.
On appeal Swift J found that there was no reason in principle to distinguish between a requested person’s awareness of the date and place of trial and the knowledge that if he does not attend trial he could be tried in absentia. This, he observed, is in accordance with Article 6 ECHR which guarantees a person’s right to be present at trial but that right, so he said, could be waived expressly or by inference.
Swift J certified the following point of law of general public importance:
For a requested person to have deliberately absented himself from trial for the purpose of Section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 must the requesting authority prove that he has actual knowledge that he could be convicted and sentenced in absentia?
The Court’s conclusions on the law
If the EAW is used to convey information which demonstrates that one of the criteria from the 2009 Framework Decision is met that is normally determinative of whether or not the extraditee can be considered deliberately absent (§44). However the Framework Decision (§45) acknowledges that the question of whether or not to extradite is a matter of domestic law when none of the criteria has been satisfied. Consequently Section 20 falls to be analysed.
The phrase “deliberately absented himself from his trial” is the same, under Strasbourg jurisprudence, as the suggestion that an accused has unequivocally waived his right to be present at trial. If those circumstances lead to a finding of a breach of Article 6 then the judge must be required to consider retrial rights under Section 20(5). However if the trial in absentia did not lead to a breach of Article 6 then the person will have deliberately absented himself from his trial.
It is also for the requesting judicial authority to prove to the criminal standard that an appellant has unequivocally waived his right to be present at his trial.
Application of the facts to the law
The Appellant was never arrested, charged or questioned. He was never informed that he was to be prosecuted and was never notified of the time and place of his trial (§50). He knew that he was suspected of a crime which was being investigated but there was no certainty that he would subsequently be prosecuted. When he left Italy, without giving the judicial police a new address, there were no criminal proceedings of which he could have been aware and definitely no trial from which he could have deliberately absented himself. This was the basis upon which the Supreme Court ruled that the Courts below had erred in finding that he had deliberately absented himself.
At paragraph 52 the Court stated that the Magistrates’ Court and the High Court had inferred that he had unequivocally and intentionally waived his right to be present at his trial by finding that he could reasonably foresee that the trial would proceed in his absence. The Supreme Court noted that the concepts of waiver and reasonable foreseeability were from Strasbourg case law and were not synonymous with the same concepts in English private law. The Strasbourg standard is that, in order for a waiver to be unequivocal and effective, knowing and intelligent, the accused must ordinarily be shown to have appreciated the consequences of their own behaviour and will usually require them to have been warned (§54).
The District Judge had described the Appellant’s “manifest lack of diligence” but the Supreme Court concluded (§55) that this would not have been a waiver by the fact that he could have avoided the situation which led to an impairment of his rights. It was on that basis that the Supreme Court found that the courts had previously overly broadened the definition by finding that deliberate absence is found where the person’s conduct led to him becoming unaware of the date and time of trial. However (§58) these cases are clearly to be considered on their individual facts and there may be circumstances where accused people knowingly and intelligently place themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the prosecuting and judicial authorities so that a trial in their presence is impossible and they could be considered to appreciate that a trial in absentia is the only option.
The Court therefore ruled that Mr Bertino did not unequivocally waive his right to be present at his trial and was not deliberately absent. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Merticariu: the facts
The EAW was issued in 2019. District Judge Ezzat gave judgment on 26 August 2020 and found that Mr Merticariu had not deliberately absented himself from his trial but did have a right to a retrial in Romania and therefore, with this apparent guarantee, extradition was ordered.
On appeal (§6) to the High Court Chamberlain J dismissed the appeal, having found that he was bound by the authority of BP v Romania [2015] EWHC 3417 where the Divisional Court held that Section 20(5) of the Act will be satisfied even if the right to a retrial is conditional on a finding in the requesting state that the person was not deliberately absent from their trial.
The certified question
Chamberlain J certified the following question of general public importance arising from his decision. He refused leave to appeal.
In a case where the appropriate judge has decided the questions in section 20(1) and (3) of the Extradition Act 2003 in the negative, can the appropriate judge answer the question in section 20(5) in the affirmative if (a) the law of the requesting state confers a right to retrial which depends on a finding by a judicial authority of that state as to whether the requested person was deliberately absent from his trial; and (b) it is not possible to say that a finding of deliberate absence is ‘theoretical’ or ‘so remote that it can be discounted’? If so, in what circumstances?
The decision
As a Romanian extradition case the High Court considered Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provided that the person has a “right to ask for a retrial of the case”(§34). However this was not sufficient for the Supreme Court. The “natural and ordinary” meaning of the words in Section 20(5) were clear. It is not solely a question of being entitled to apply for a retrial. The answer to the question in Section 20(5) should not be “perhaps” or “in certain circumstances” (§51). The entitlement to a retrial therefore cannot be contingent on the court making a factual finding that the person was not present at or was not deliberately absent from their trial. The question is clear: are they entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial?
The decision in BP was therefore wrong at paragraph 44 where it stated that an application for a retrial was a procedural step contingent on the court determining whether the person had or had not instructed a lawyer to represent her at her trial (§52). The 2009 Framework Decision replaced “an opportunity to apply for a retrial” with “a right to a retrial.”
The Supreme Court also agreed that the right to a retrial was consistent with Strasbourg principles where there is a “duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom” (§54). It is consistent with Article 6 obligations.
Furthermore the principle of mutual trust and confidence, which pervades extradition arrangements between the UK and EU (§60) runs both ways because the issuing judicial authority takes part and is represented in the proceedings in the UK court and it would be entirely in accordance with this principle that courts in requesting states respect the executing courts’ decisions in this country.
The answers to the certified questions
The Supreme Court found that an appropriate judge cannot answer Section 20(5) in the affirmative if the law confers a right to a retrial which depends on a finding by a judicial authority as to whether the person was deliberately absent from their trial.
In relation to (b) of the question the Court found that it is for the issuing judicial authority to provide information in the EAW or in response to a request for further information. The executing court should not take part in a “mini trial” as to whether, on the facts and law of the requesting state, a finding is theoretical or so remote that it can be discounted. The evidence should be clear. (§64)
The application to the case
Given that the judicial authority in this case was unable to confirm whether or not the Appellant had a right to a retrial and Article 466 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure demonstrated that he would not be regarded as having been tried in absentia he had no right to a retrial (§67).
Comments
In Bertino, This decision represents a pendulum swing from the past ten years of High Court authority where the concept of “manifest lack of diligence” had imposed a significant level of responsibility on a person who may not have fully understood the consequences of their decision to leave the country after they may have only been partly aware of a criminal prosecution. It provides a greater protection to those lay persons who assume that the authorities will contact them. It also now requires District Judges to exercise greater inquiry into the circumstances of an individuals departure from the country which requests their extradition.
In Merticariu, the Supreme Court has finally resolved what is a very short point. If the Court is required to consider Section 20(5) there can be no assumptions in these cases, in the absence of any clear evidence, that a right to a retrial exists. There was always a doubt that the requesting state’s s findings about deliberate absence would chime with those of the executing state and now they need to be considered together. These questions are fundamental to the fair carriage of extradition cases between the UK and EU. Whilst the earlier cases assumed compliance with Article 6 on the basis of mutual trust and confidence the UK courts now do not need to be so quick to reach the same conclusions and they will also offer greater protections to those who find themselves in our extradition courts.
This week multiple UN institutions responded to the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza. The UN Security Council passed a resolution, with the USA abstaining, demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan…leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire” and the release of all Israeli hostages taken by Hamas during the 07 October attack. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory has released a report critical of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, which argues that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met”.
Meanwhile, South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) continues. The ICJ has imposed further provisional measures in response to the “famine setting in”. The ICJ’s order requires Israel to cooperate with the UN to ensure “the unhindered provision at scale” of humanitarian assistance including food, water, medical supplies etc. Micheál Martin TD, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence for the Republic of Ireland, has announced that Ireland will intervene in South Africa’s case at the ICJ.
This week the US Supreme Court heard what may be the most significant case regarding reproductive rights since Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which overturned Roe v Wade. The case is about whether the abortion medication Mifepristone was correctly approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It was brought by several individual doctors and doctors’ groups opposed to abortion. The arguments this week focused on whether these individuals and groups had standing to sue, i.e. that they have a close enough connection to the issue to bring the case.
Michael John Smith (appellant) v Fronterra Co-operative group Ltd and others [2024] NZSC 5
This appeal to the New Zealand Supreme Court concerned strike out of a claim in tort (comprised of three causes of action) relating to damage caused by climate change. The question was whether the plaintiff’s claim should be allowed to proceed to trial, or whether, regardless of what might be proved at trial, it is bound to fail and should be struck out now.
The implications of this ruling could be enormous, particularly if the English courts decide to follow the New Zealand model. In its conclusion to this lengthy judgment, the New Zealand Court observed that “the principles governing public nuisance ought not to stand still in the face of massive environmental challenges attributable to human economic activity. The common law, where it is not clearly excluded, responds to challenge and change in a considered way, through trials involving the testing of evidence.”
The plaintiff was an elder of a Maori tribe and climate change spokesman for a national forum of tribal leaders. The defendants were all New Zealand companies involved in an industry that either emitted greenhouse gases or which released GHG when burned.
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