Media By: Kate Beattie


REMINDER: Public Law in an Age of Austerity – Major 1COR/JUSTICE seminar on 4 June

3 June 2015 by

Tomorrow night (4 June) 1COR and JUSTICE are holding a seminar on public law in an age of austerity.

The seminar is designed for solicitors (whether in private practice or in-house) and those working in the civil justice and human rights sector.

Topics include:

  • introduction to Public Law: Judicial Review Principles, Procedure and Funding
  • Human Rights in an Age of Austerity – Moving towards a British Bill of Rights?
  • Breakout sessions
  • Panel discussion on the Future of Public Law in an Age of Austerity – Speakers include The Rt Hon Sir Stanley Burnton.

Thursday 4 June 5.00-7.30pm.  Follow this link to the full programme: 4 June programme.

Places are free but you must register by emailing lisa.pavlovsky@1cor.com. When replying please state your preference for the break-out sessions.

Public Law in an Age of Austerity – Major 1COR/JUSTICE seminar on 4 June

28 May 2015 by

Join 1COR and JUSTICE on Thursday 4 June 5.00-7.30pm in central London to discuss public law in an age of austerity.

Topics include:

  • introduction to Public Law: Judicial Review Principles, Procedure and Funding
  • Human Rights in an Age of Austerity – Moving towards a British Bill of Rights?
  • Breakout sessions
  • Panel discussion on the Future of Public Law in an Age of Austerity – Speakers include The Rt Hon Sir Stanley Burnton.

This seminar is designed for solicitors (whether in private practice or in-house) and those working in the civil justice and human rights sector.

Follow this link to the full programme: 4 June programme.

Places are free but you must register by emailing lisa.pavlovsky@1cor.com. When replying please state your preference for the break-out sessions.

Removal of clothing by police and Article 8 ECHR – Court of Appeal expresses sympathy for vulnerable position of children in custody

9 March 2015 by

logo-orangePatricia Davies (by her mother and litigation friend Zelda Davies) v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2015] EWCA Civ 114 – read judgment

The Court of Appeal has considered the compatibility with Article 8 ECHR of the police’s removal of a 14 year old girl’s clothing after she had been arrested and taken to a police station.

Background

The background facts were that the claimant was arrested outside a kebab shop in Argyle Street, Birkenhead. Her behaviour was uncontrolled and aggressive and she was handcuffed and taken to Wirral police station. The custody officer ordered that her clothing should be removed because she was a suicide risk. She was taken to a room by three female officers who removed her clothing and dressed her in a safety gown. She was then placed in a cell in which she could be observed by means of internal CCTV.
Continue reading →

Police not liable in negligence to victim of domestic violence, but Article 2 claim proceeds

4 February 2015 by

A-police-officer-on-foot--007Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 2 – read judgment

Duncan Fairgrieve of 1 Crown Office Row was part of the team of counsel representing the appellants in this case. He has had nothing to do with the writing of this post.

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the long-standing rule that the police owe no duty of care in negligence in the context of protecting victims from potential future crimes.

Background

The background facts to the case are shocking. On 5 August 2009, at 2.29am, Ms Michael dialled 999 from her mobile phone. She told the call handler at the Gwent Police call centre that her ex-boyfriend was aggressive; he had just turned up at her house; he had found her with another man; he had bitten her ear really hard; he then drove the other man home with Ms Michael’s car but, before doing so, told her that he would return to hit her; that he was going to be back “any minute literally” and, according to the recorded transcript of the conversation, that her ex-boyfriend had told her “I’m going to drop him home and (inaudible) [fucking kill you]”.
Continue reading →

Human rights – coming to a private care home near you?

28 October 2013 by

Winterbourne View

Winterbourne View

Human rights protection for residents in private care homes could be a step closer after the House of Lords passed an amendment to the Care Bill.

The amendment, moved by Lord Low of Dalston and supported by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Lord Pannick QC, makes clear that a person who provides regulated “social care” is to be taken for the purposes of subsection 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to be exercising a function of a public nature.

It is the latest development in a long-running battle to secure human rights protection for service users who are not in local authority-run care homes.

Continue reading →

Abolition of Chief Coroner post slammed

19 October 2010 by

In August we commented on the risk that long-awaited reform of the coronial system would be shelved by the Ministry of Justice, arguing that the wait for promised reforms had left relatives of the dead in legal limbo.

To the dismay of campaigners, the new office of the Chief Coroner for England and Wales has fallen victim to the “bonfire of the quangos“.

The post was created by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which the Ministry of Justice said aimed “to deliver more effective, transparent and responsive justice and coroner services for victims, witnesses, bereaved families and the wider public”.  In February, the previous Government heralded the post:

Continue reading →

Coroners take action on deaths in custody

29 September 2010 by

Coroners are making more recommendations about how to avoid deaths in custody, according to the latest report from the Ministry of Justice.

The latest statistics on “rule 43 reports”, where coroners make reports to prevent future deaths, show that deaths in custody account for 11% of reports made, up from just over 6% in the two previous reporting periods.

Since July 2008 coroners have had a wider power to make reports to prevent future deaths and a person who receives a report must send a response within 56 days.

Continue reading →

Prisoners in psychiatric hospitals not entitled to equal benefits with other patients

29 April 2010 by

R (D and M) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (EM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] EWCA Civ 18

Read judgment

With apologies, this post originally appeared with the wrong title

The Court of Appeal has ruled on two linked challenges to the entitlement to welfare benefits of prisoners detained in psychiatric hospitals. One claim alleged unlawful discrimination as compared with other psychiatric patients not serving sentences, in breach of Article 14 ECHR, taken together with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The other claim raised a point of construction of the relevant regulations affecting one category of such prisoners

The discrimination aspect of the case considered two categories of convicted, sentenced prisoners: those transferred to psychiatric hospitals under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and those subject to hospital and limitation directions under section 45A of the Act. Prisoners in the first category are transferred after sentence, and generally after serving time in prison, while those in the second were subject to a direction at the same time as they are sentenced. Such prisoners were to be contrasted with, on the one hand, convicted prisoners who serve their sentence in prison and, on the other, patients who have been detained under purely civil law powers or under section 37 of the Act (that is, following conviction, but without any sentence having been passed).
Continue reading →

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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.

%d bloggers like this: