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]
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, urging ‘proportionate policing and protection of protest rights’ in the ongoing controversy over the Government’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. In her letter of 15 August, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner raised concerns over recent ‘reports of police engagement in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation’, ‘heavy handed policing’, and ‘blanket approaches [which] risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences.’ Baroness Falkner stressed that any ‘restrictions on the exercise of… fundamental freedoms’ imposed by the police must be subject to an ‘established’ three-stage proportionality test, and that ‘all police officers should receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations in relation to protest.’ On the same day as the EHRC’s intervention, it was reported that Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Global Witness and the Quakers had written to the Attorney General, urging him to suspend the prosecution of protestors detained under the Terrorist Act until the judicial review of the Government’s ban on Palestine Action (due to be heard in November). Over 700 protestors have been arrested under the Terrorist Act since its amendment last month.
The Court of Protection has refused to let a hospital trust in north-west London withdraw life support from a 60-year-old man described as being in a permanent vegetative state after his two partners spoke about his strong belief in the power of spiritual healing.
Background facts and law
The patient, referred to as YD, suffered a bleed to the brain last October resulting in what’s now called a prolonged disorder of consciousness and leaving him in what his clinicians describe as a permanent vegetative state. YD was being provided with clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) at a specialist neuro-rehabilitation centre in north-west London.
The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, responsible for his care, applied to the Court of Protection seeking permission to withdraw CANH, which would lead to YD’s death. The Trust argued that continuing such treatment was not in YD’s best interests, given the medical prognosis and burdens of ongoing care. The application was opposed by YD’s two partners, JG and MB, who were both closely involved in his daily care and attuned to his needs, and by the Official Solicitor, who represented YD’s interests. Notably, YD’s partners spoke of his strong faith in spiritual healing, his value for life, and his belief in perseverance through adversity.
Best Interests Test:
Central to the Court of Protection’s task was the determination of YD’s best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The statute requires the court to take into account a range of views, including medical evidence, the patient’s own beliefs and values (as far as they can be discerned), the perspectives of family, and the overall balance between burdens and benefits of ongoing treatment.
There is a strong legal presumption in favour of preserving life, which may only be displaced by countervailing factors such as “the very profound brain damage,” absence of pleasure or awareness, and the absence of any prospect for improvement.
Role of Advance Decisions and Family Views
The Court examined whether YD had made any valid advance decision to refuse treatment (which would be binding under sections 24–26 MCA 2005). No such advance directive existed in YD’s case. The views of his partners were consequently given considerable weight—they described YD as someone who valued life strongly, believed in spiritual recovery, and would have wanted to persevere even in adverse circumstances.
Medical Evidence
Treating clinicians and an independent expert testified that YD’s prognosis was bleak: there was no realistic prospect of meaningful recovery or awareness, and he would not regain consciousness. The medical consensus was that continuing CANH would only prolong biological life, with no benefit or possibility of improvement in consciousness or quality of life.
The Official Solicitor’s Submission
Representing YD’s interests, the Official Solicitor argued that the dignity and meaning of YD’s current existence derived from the love and care provided by his partners, and that YD would wish to continue living in this way until a natural death occurred through another medical event (e.g., infection or heart attack).
The Court’s Decision
Mrs Justice Theis, Vice-President of the Court of Protection, refused the Trust’s application to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. In a detailed judgment delivered on 12 August 2025, the court emphasized the following:
• Presumption in Favour of Life: The court found that, despite the medical evidence of permanent vegetative state and the bleak prognosis, the presumption in favour of life had not been displaced by the Trust. The evidence from family and the Official Solicitor about YD’s values and perceptions of his dignity was compelling.
• Best Interests Not Demonstrated: The court concluded that withdrawal of CANH was not proven to be in YD’s best interests. The strong and heartfelt testimony of YD’s partners, coupled with their daily engagement with him, supported the continuation of care. The court was persuaded that YD’s sense of dignity and the meaning of his life could not be presumed to be absent or negative.
• No Valid Advance Decision: In the absence of a legally binding advance decision to refuse treatment, continued life-sustaining treatment was favored
Conclusion
The Court of Protection’s refusal to permit withdrawal of treatment in this case signals the ongoing primacy of the best interests test, fortifies the presumption in favor of life even against a grim prognosis, and puts significant weight on the genuine beliefs and wishes of those closest to the patient. Unless and until a court is satisfied, based on all the evidence, that ongoing treatment is not in the patient’s best interests, life-sustaining treatment will continue.
Comment
This is a surprising and unusual decision. Following the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, where the House of Lords ruled that it was lawful to discontinue life support when it serves no useful therapeutic purpose and does not benefit the patient, the tendency has been to go along with the medical evidence that mere life without consciousness is of no benefit to the patient.
Here the Court of Protection upheld the continuation of artificial nutrition and hydration because of the evidence advanced by the patient’s partners, who cited his spiritual beliefs and the view that he would want to continue receiving treatment to try to “heal himself”. The evidence included declarations of spiritual communication, which led to the Court deciding that withdrawal of ANH would not be in line with the patient’s perceived best wishes and spiritual beliefs.
This is all very well, but as we know, the NHS is running out of money.
The average annual NHS cost to care for a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) in a specialist nursing home is about £85,000–£91,000, which covers nursing care, medication, feeding (such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy), and, for some, tracheotomy. Occasionally, additional costs from emergency hospital admissions (“blue light events”) for infections or other complications add roughly £5,000 per year, bringing the typical annual cost close to £91,600.
Not now, or even in the near future, but one day it will occur to cancer patients being denied treatment or sufferers from severe cardiac conditions on never ending waiting lists for surgery that perhaps public money should be spent on them, rather than keeping PVS patients alive for years if not decades.
This will require a root and branch review of the “best interests” test and promote the absence of an Advance Decision to the same level as an Advance Decision not to prolong life. Simply saying that these decisions “should never be driven by resource allocation or staff burdens, but solely by robust best interests assessments” is no answer to the profound and continuing financial burden on the public purse for prolonging unconscious life at all costs.
For a nuanced discussion of the cost consequences of this case, read Alex Ruck-Keene KC’s post on the Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog.
David Wolfson KC, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Shadow Attorney General, and Michael Ellis KC, Attorney General from 2021 – 2022, have written to Labour’s Attorney General Richard Hermer KC regarding the government’s decision to recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly meeting in September. We highlight this here because Lord Wolfson has recently given an interview on Law Pod UK setting out some of the differences between him and Richard Hermer on what they deem to be the proper boundaries of international law.
They commence their letter with the following statement:
“The recognition of a foreign state is a prerogative act, exercised by the Government. The long-standing position of the UK Government has been that the UK will recognise a state if four criteria are met, often referred to as the Montevideo criteria: ” it should have, and seem likely to continue to have, a clearly defined territory with a population, a government who are able of themselves to exercise effective control of that territory, and independence in their external relations”.
In their view, the position taken by successive UK governments until 2025 was that the Palestinian Authority has been both factually and legally unable to exercise a range of governmental functions in the West Bank,
The PA, they point out, has also, “of course, lost control of Gaza to Hamas”.
They therefore pose a number of questions, as to whether the government is applying a different basis of statehood and recognition, and on what basis.
“If the new policy is that protracted frustration of self-determination justifies recognition of statehood regardless of facts on the ground, why is the UK refusing, for example, to recognise Western Sahara as a state?”
They urge the Attorney General to explain how, as a matter of international law, steps taken by Israel can themselves lead to the non-recognition of Palestine. In this case it would seem to be that by declaring a ceasefire, Israel could avoid the “punishment” of Palestine being recognised as a state. This, in the authors’ view, is an incoherent interpretation of international law – “the Government, so vocal when it comes to public pronouncements of general legal principle, appears to lose its voice.”
They conclude their letter with the following paragraph:
“The position of the UK government in recognising Palestine while hostages remain in dungeons in Gaza is shameful. That is a matter for your private conscience. But we believe that the Government’s policy on this issue is also a significant change from the UK’s policy as long stated and understood. That is something which you ought to explain, in public, to Parliament.”
Whatever your position on the conflict, it is worth reading the letter in full, to understand the UK’s policy on statehood recognition as set out by a written answer in the House of Commons in 1986, and in several subsequent communications.
The response to the points raised in this communication will no doubt add to the warp and weft of international law and its varying interpretations in Westminster. There can be no doubt that policy on this issue is governed not by law, but by politics.
A debate in the House of Lords on this issue would be of considerable utility to all lawyers interested in this area.
The UK Human Rights Blog is now available on Substack – see our profile and subscribe here.
The first migrants were detained under the new ‘one-in, one-out’ deal with France. The ‘Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys’ came into force on 6 August; detentions began at lunchtime that day. Under the scheme, anyone crossing the Channel in a small boat can be returned to France. An equal number of migrants will be eligible under a new legal route to come to the UK. The Agreement, which governs the pilot scheme, will remain in force until June 2026.
The government announced ‘restriction zones’ curbing freedom of movement for serious violent and sexual offenders. Under the new plans, offenders will be confined to agreed areas — a step beyond existing ‘exclusion zone’ measures which simply prevent them entering a location where the victim lives. Restriction zones will be technologically monitored, with prison time as a possible sanction.
The Home Secretary called for police to disclose the nationality and asylum status of criminal suspects. This follows the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Warwickshire in July. Police refused to reveal the immigration status of the two men charged, prompting accusations of a ‘cover-up’ from Reform leader Nigel Farage. Current guidance by the College of Policing is silent on whether this information should be released. The College has said that this guidance is already under review.
In Searson v Chief Constable of Nottingham Constabulary [2025] EWHC 1982 (KB), the Appellants successfully appealed against the dismissal of their claim for damages against the Respondent’s police force. The claim arose out of the circumstances of the Second Appellant’s unlawful detention contrary to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”). Wall J’s judgment emphasises the need for strict compliance with the spirit of the procedural safeguard of regular reviews of detention in s 40 PACE, which serves to protect the fundamental right of freedom of movement.
Most of our subscribers will have received a “Welcome to Substack” email regarding the UKHRB. To avoid any confusiong we wanted to assure you that this does not mean that we have moved the content of the blog from WordPress to Substack. Those of you who read the blog on WordPress will find it there as usual, completely unchanged. However, as Substack has become a popular platform for authoritative writing we decided that we should have a presence there as well, so the posts as they appear on the blog will also be on Substack, although there might be a slight time lag between the two.
Two prominent human rights organisations in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), released reports contending Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by targeting Palestinians because of their identity.
The organisations have been monitoring events in the region for years, preceding the current conflict; however, the reports specifically focus on human rights and international law violations over the last two years. The 88-page report from B’Tselem outlines crimes of killing (elderly, women, children), starvation, the prison system, forced displacement and the depravation of healthcare and education. PHR’s report outlines the assault on the Palestinian health care system over the last two years, as well as the impact that the lack of medical care, the destruction of health infrastructure and killing of medical personnel is having.
These reports were released at the same time that Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), are reporting critically low food supplies in Gaza as concerns of a famine mount.
In the Courts
This week, the High Court determined that Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, may proceed with an unprecedented legal challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to ban the direct-action group under proscription laws. This is the first time a group or organisation has been permitted to challenge a proscription order at a trial. The three-day hearing will take place in November.
In HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB), the Divisional Court (the Lady Chief Justice,the President of the King’s Bench Division, and Chamberlain J) gave judgment in relation to the deployment of evidence by MI5 in proceedings concerning the BBC’s reporting on a covert human intelligence source (CHIS), referred to as “X”. The judgment is quite extraordinary, including substantial criticism of the approach taken by MI5 in this case and specific guidance as to the way that evidence from an agency such as MI5 should be presented in future.
R (Ferguson) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowlsey and St Helens [2025] EWHC 1901 (Admin) concerned a challenge by the next of kin of Joseph Farley, who died after jumping from the fourteenth floor of a carpark. The Coroner conducting mr Farley’s inquest has determined that Article 2, ECHR, did not apply and that the inquest could be heard without a jury. Mr Ferguson challenged both of these decisions by way of judicial review.
In a thorough and detailed judgment upholding Mr Ferguson’s challenge, Mrs Justice Hill gave a useful restatement of the law on Article 2, as well as a useful illustration of how it applies if difficult and complex fact patterns. The judgment also contains helpful clarification on the different sorts of causation tests that apply to parts of the Coronial process.
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory Opinion on the “obligations of states in respect of climate change” from 15 judges, in 130+ pages. Its ruling was unanimous, with a strong closing flourish trailed in my title. There has been a great burst of favourable responses to the Opinion which was delivered yesterday, for instance the Center for International Environmental Law.
But what does the Opinion say, and does it matter?
The questions
The request for the Opinion had come from the UN General Assembly in March 2023. After a typically baggy “chapeau” of potentially relevant climate change and human rights treaties, the UN GA sought answers to the following questions
What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?
What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
The peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?”
In December 2014, the ICJ heard oral submissions from 96 states and 11 international organisations (including the EU, the African Union, WHO, and various organisations representing small island states). Major emitting states such as the UK, the US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait made individual submissions. This response marks the importance that most UN states attached to this process.
Written transparency of the case is excellent: all those submissions, the written statements preceding them, and the underlying treaties and legal materials are to be found on the ICJ website here.
An ICJ advisory Opinion is just that – advisory. As the ICJ itself acknowledges, it has no binding force, but they may carry great weight and, as the ICJ hopes, “moral authority”. Such opinions are not for bruising fights between individual state parties. Their aim is that the ICJ contribute to the clarification and development of international law.
So how does this Opinion advance the sum of international law knowledge on climate change?
Over 100 people have been arrested across the UK in the wake of the Government’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, via its amendment of the Terrorism Act 2000 earlier this month. The arrests, which mostly took place this weekend in Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Manchester and Truro at demonstrations co-ordinated by Defend Our Juries, saw protestors who had called for a reversal of the ban on Palestine Action charged with the offence of supporting a terrorist organisation. At a separate event in Canterbury, another pro-Palestine demonstrator was filmed being threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act by armed police, without having expressed any support for the proscribed group. Amnesty International have called the footage “very concerning… We have long criticised UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. This video documents one aspect of exactly the kind of thing we were warning about.” The following Monday, Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori renewed her legal challenge against the ban at the High Court. The group’s acts of terror include spray-painting aircraft and blockading traffic.
At the heart of the case of R (Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin), a tragedy: the murder of a 14-year-old boy, Jaden Bailey, and the profound grief of his mother. Jaden had been drawn into criminal activity, first in Nottinghamshire, then London. In October 2018 he had been found at a “cuckoo house” in Bournemouth, in possession of cocaine, a mobile phone and £325 in cash. He was brought back to London by the Metropolitan Police, following which an action plan was prepared by the Children’s Social Care Department of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. In November 2018 Jaden was permanently excluded from school after a Snapchat video showed him in possession of an imitation firearm, for which he was arrested and charged, pleading guilty. On 8 January 2019 Jaden was riding a moped in Leyton when he was hit by a car; the occupants of the car got out and stabbed Jaden. He died at the scene.
On 10 July 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Semenya v Switzerland. The case arose from the legal challenge by Olympic champion Caster Semenya to World Athletics’ regulations (“the DSD Regulations”)requiring athletes with differences in sex developments, also known as ‘intersex’ athletes, to lower their testosterone levels in order to compete in the female category of certain events.
Importantly, the Applicant’s case in the ECtHR was not against World Athletics (since World Athletics is not an entity directly subject to the Convention) but against Switzerland for the role of its Federal Supreme Court (“SFSC”) in upholding the arbitral award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). The case therefore highlights the complexities involved in protecting human rights in the realm of international sports arbitration.
The Grand Chamber’s judgment, while ostensibly narrow in some respects, affirms the importance of Article 6 ECHR safeguards and arguably broadens the scope of its protection, particularly where fundamental rights are concerned in compulsory arbitration.
The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, published part 1 of its report. The Review was commissioned to address the backlog in criminal courts. The report makes a number of proposals to reduce the Crown Court caseload, most significantly:
Reducing the number of cases sent up from the Magistrates Court (by removing right of election for offences punishable by under two years’ imprisonment, and reclassifying offences from triable either way to summary only);
Introducing a new branch of the Crown Court, the ‘Crown Court (Bench Division)’, consisting of a judge and two magistrates. This court would handle offences punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years;
Allowing trial by judge alone in cases of exceptional length or complexity, such as serious and complex fraud;
Allowing defendants in the Crown Court to request judge-only trial.
The report stated that, while juries trials were seen as the ‘gold standard’, there was no ‘right’ to a jury and it was not always the most proportionate mode of trial. Other proposals include: investing in rehabilitation programmes and Out of Court Resolutions to divert people from courts; requiring permission to appeal from the Magistrates’ Court; match-funding criminal pupillages; raising the cap on Crown Court sitting days.
A number of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill have been made. These include softening the fire-and-rehire ban; banning NDAs which prevent workers from talking about discrimination or harassment; and extending bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.
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