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]
Council of Europe adopts political declaration on migration
All 46 member states of the Council of Europe have adopted the Chișinău Declaration on migration and the ECHR.
The declaration reaffirms the signatories’ commitment to the ECHR, while stressing the need for member states to be able to tackle “significant, complex, migration-related challenges … which were either unforeseen at the time the Convention was drafted or have evolved significantly since then”.
The declaration states that it is “an obligation and a necessity” for member states to protect their borders in compliance with the ECHR. A desire is expressed for further guidance from the ECtHR on a number of points, including the use of Article 3 to avoid expulsion or extradition.
The “living instrument” doctrine is pointedly highlighted twice, with emphasis on the ECtHR’s practice of interpreting the Convention in view of “present-day realities” and “novel challenges”.
The declaration also asserts that member states must be allowed to adopt new approaches to address irregular migration. Particular mention is made of the fact that several member states are currently envisaging the use of third countries as processing and return hubs.
Written ministerial statement on responding to antisemitism
In the wake of the Golders Green attack, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has issued a statement setting out the Government’s strategy on tackling antisemitism in the UK.
The statement refers to the Government’s recent command paper on improving social cohesion (published in March 2026) and announces additional measures, stating that “we all need to do more”.
The statement also commits the Government to fast-tracking legislation to introduce “new proscription-like powers to clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states”.
In the courts
Barrister contempt proceedings dismissed
The Court of Appeal has held that the Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to refer an alleged contempt of court directly to the High Court. Accordingly, the court dismissed High Court proceedings against the barrister Rajiv Menon KC, leaving the matter back in the hands of the Crown Court judge. The case is Re Contempt Proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Civ 573.
In January 2026, Mr Menon was held by a Crown Court judge to have breached, in his closing speech to the jury, the terms of a directions ruling which prohibited counsel from inviting the jury to disregard the court’s rulings of law, to disregard their juror oaths, or to apply the principle of jury equity. The judge then referred the matter to the High Court for consideration.
According to a statement by Mr Menon’s chambers, this was the first time in English legal history that a barrister had been prosecuted for contempt in respect of a closing speech at a criminal trial. The Chair of the Bar Council, Kirsty Brimelow KC, has also referred to the proceedings as “exceptional” and “troubling” and highlighted the risk of a chilling effect on the profession.
On Mr Menon’s appeal against a preliminary directions ruling, the Court of Appeal accepted the submission that the Crown Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making a direct reference to the High Court. The High Court would only have jurisdiction to deal with the case on an application by the Attorney-General ([62]).
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeal followed “the overwhelming weight of authority”, which indicated that the Crown Court has only two options when confronted with an alleged contempt in the face of the court ([55]). These are: (a) it can deal with the matter itself in summary proceedings; or (b) it can make a reference to the A-G, who may make an application to the High Court if doing so would serve the public interest.
The court’s conclusion affirms the A-G’s role as a necessary filter in the majority of contempt cases. This is consistent with the guidance given in the leading case of Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73, which is that the Crown Court judge should leave the matter to the A-G’s discretion unless it is imperative to act immediately ([57]).
On Tuesday, the House of Commons approved an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill under which women convicted of historic abortion offences will be pardoned and have their criminal records expunged. The amendment was originally proposed in the House of Lords to complement the bill’s provision to decriminalise abortions by women acting in relation to their own pregnancies.
Bar Council publishes paper criticising jury curtailment proposals
As the Courts and Tribunals Bill continues its committee stage, the Bar Council has published a 31-page polemic by Geoffrey Robertson KC attacking the government’s proposals to limit jury trials.
Robertson argues that the proposals will not clear the criminal courts backlog and may worsen delays. He points to time being taken up on novel pre-trial allocation proceedings and on judges retiring to produce reasoned judgments.
Robertson also contends that the proposals overlook the constitutional significance of a jury’s power to show mercy and acquit on conscientious grounds. He positions this as a crucial safeguard against injustice and draconianism – a ‘proud boast of British justice’.
Concluding, he writes:
‘The proposed reforms take the axe to a substantial proportion of jury trials (half at a rough estimate), disadvantaging not only defendants but all who are proud of the way in which justice has been delivered, through majority deliberation of a dozen community representatives, more in touch with current values than judges or magistrates and able, in their own way, to show mercy when the law does not allow for it.’
In the courts
Assessing persecution under the Refugee Convention
Dismissing an appeal against refusal of a protection claim, the Court of Appeal has reiterated that the question whether an asylum-seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution is ‘acutely fact-sensitive’. The court also echoed previous cautions against overly ‘forensic’ reasons challenges. The case is MN (Vietnam) v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 485.
The appellant (MN) was a Vietnamese national. In 2014, he attended a demonstration in Ho Chi Minh. On his account, he was arrested by police, beaten, charged with attending an illegal demonstration, and returned to his home area. Once there, the authorities told him that he was on a blacklist and would be watched.
Later that year, MN entered the UK using a business visa and overstayed. He sought to avoid removal by claiming entitlement to refugee status under Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention on the basis that he had a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ if returned to Vietnam. The Secretary of State rejected his claim. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected his appeals.
On his further appeal to the Court of Appeal, MN argued that the FTT judge, whose reasoning and conclusions were adopted by the UT, had: (i) failed to make proper findings about, and failed properly to assess, MN’s ill-treatment in 2014; and (ii) operated on the mistaken basis that ill-treatment must be ‘systematic’ to constitute persecution.
The court rejected both arguments. As to the first, the judge had clearly accepted all aspects of MN’s evidence about what happened to him in Vietnam and was not required to repeat every detail in his conclusions ([38]). The judge had also accepted evidence of intolerance of protests and action taken by the Vietnamese authorities to suppress state opposition ([41]).
As to the second argument, the court rejected the contention that, by using the word ‘systematic’, the judge had been applying an erroneous threshold test. This was an ‘overly forensic scrutiny or dissection’ of the judge’s language ([46]). Stating that MN would not be subjected to ‘persistent or systematic’ ill-treatment was simply a way of reiterating that MN was not likely to face adverse interest from the authorities upon his return.
Although it was true in law that a single episode of ill-treatment could amount to persecution, this was an ‘acutely fact-sensitive’ evaluation ([47]). Thus, despite the acknowledged possibility that MN might face a further beating, the judge was not prevented from concluding that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, taking the circumstances in the round.
Determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking
In R (CGW) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 858 (Admin), the High Court has criticised an apparent understanding among Home Office officials about the level of detail required to meet the standard of proof as to whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
The claimant for judicial review (CGW) arrived in the UK on a small boat in 2021. His account was that, while in asylum accommodation, he was approached by some men who purported to offer him work. He was then transported to a series of indoor cannabis farms where he was held against his will, beaten, and forced to tend the cannabis plants. He was eventually found by police, who referred him to the Home Office to assess whether he was a victim of human trafficking.
The Home Office’s Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority eventually took a negative ‘conclusive grounds’ decision to the effect that CGW was not a victim of human trafficking. CGW challenged this decision from multiple angles, including that the decision-maker had failed to give legally adequate reasons.
The Deputy Judge accepted this ground of challenge, holding that the purported reasons were ‘plainly deficient’ ([24]) and simply did ‘not provide rational justification for the conclusions reached’ ([25]). There were two fatal problems:
the reasons were ultimately bare conclusions because they stated that there was ‘insufficient’ information for a positive decision but did not explain why; and
the reasons were non sequiturs because CGW’s account of what happened to him appeared sufficient and the decision did not say that his account was not credible.
The Deputy Judge also responded to his impression that Home Office officials were taking ‘conclusive grounds’ decisions on the understanding that a person will not meet the required standard of proof unless they have provided ‘detailed’ information about their exploitation.
This approach was ‘legally wrong’. The decision-maker was simply required to determine on the balance of probabilities whether the individual was a victim of human trafficking or slavery, basing that decision on the totality of the evidence available, including any circumstantial evidence. There was no minimum requirement as to the level of detail that an individual had to provide ([30(2)-(3)]).
Upcoming ICLQ Annual Lecture, 12th May 2026
The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Annual Lecture will be taking place on Tuesday 12th May, at 17:30 to 19:30, followed by a reception or online via Zoom.
The lecture will be delivered by Dr Sofia Galani on ‘Human Rights Obligations in Maritime Search and Rescue’, based on her article which was recently published in ICLQ vol. 74(1).
Scottish assisted dying bill falls while Westminster proposals lag in the House of Lords
Tuesday evening saw the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill defeated at the last stage of the Holyrood legislative process. After a final debate, Members of the Scottish Parliament voted against the bill by 69 votes to 57, with one abstention. The bill would have allowed some terminally ill patients to be assisted to end their lives. Patients would have been required to make two declarations of their wish for assisted dying and to undergo assessment by two doctors as to their eligibility and freedom from coercion or pressure.
Meanwhile, the House of Lords continues to debate amendments to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales. Owing to the 1,200+ amendments which have been tabled, the bill is now widely expected to run out of time – despite passing the Commons in June 2025. The bill’s proposer, Kim Leadbeater MP, is reported to have said that the House of Lords has ‘signed its own death warrant’ by stalling the legislation.
NHRI joint statement urges UK government not to dilute the ECHR
On Thursday, the UK’s three National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) issued an unusual joint statement urging the government to ‘commit to no reduction in rights protections’.
The NHRIs note that the UK government has expressed an intention to ‘re-balance’ and ‘clarify’ the position relating to migration by adopting political declarations on Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. They ask the government to explain how it will ensure that its proposals do not weaken ECHR protections. The statement continues:
‘The erosion of anyone’s rights puts us all at risk; it signals that these shared standards are not guaranteed and that any of our rights could be subject to debate.’
The UK’s NHRIs – the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission – are required to abide by the Paris Principles. These call on them to promote and protect all human rights by acting independently from government.
Rights groups criticise airlines for removals under ‘one in, one out’ scheme
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and 27 other human rights organisations have written letters to four airlines criticising them for providing removal flights under the UK and France’s ‘one in, one out’ pilot scheme.
Under the scheme, which became effective in August 2025, asylum-seekers arriving in the UK from France in small boats can be detained and removed to France for readmission. The UK has a reciprocal obligation to maintain a voluntary application route for qualifying individuals to be transferred legally from France to the UK.
The letters call on the airlines – Air France and three private charter companies – to cease participation in the scheme or face boycotts. They refer to correspondence published earlier in February, in which UN mandate-holders said that the scheme ‘may result in serious violations of international human rights law’ and urged the UK and French governments to end it.
UN Human Rights Council responds to situation in Iran
In its 39th Special Session on Friday, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) called for an urgent investigation into human rights violations by the Iranian state in the context of its repression of nationwide protests beginning in late December last year.
The UNHRC also extended the mandates of the Fact-Finding Mission and Special Rapporteur on Iran. The Special Session was informed of credible reports that thousands have been killed, many more injured, and over 24,000 arrested since the start of the protests, which have been accompanied by a complete internet and mobile services shutdown since 8 January. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said:
“The only way out of this frightening escalation is through dialogue based on the human rights of all Iranians. The aspirations and ideas in particular of women, girls, young people and ethnic and religious minorities must be allowed to shape Iran’s future. We remain available to support any change in direction that fully respects Iran’s human rights obligations.”
European Committee of Social Rights publishes 2025 Conclusions
On Wednesday, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) published its Conclusions on Labour Rights for 2025. The Conclusions for the UK make findings of non-conformity with Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter on several grounds, including:
a lack of a right to disconnect from work;
a lack of coverage by health and safety regulations for domestic and self-employed workers;
a failure to promote the freedom of association and collective bargaining of gig economy workers; and
the denial of the right to strike to the police, prison officers, and members of the armed forces without effective alternative means of negotiating terms and conditions.
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.
Recent comments