Category: BLOG POSTS

Cheshire West rides again: no power for a local authority with parental responsibility to consent to detention

20 May 2025 by Anogika Souresh

J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & M [2025] EWCA Civ 478 concerns an appeal of a decision by Mrs Justice Lieven. Lieven J had held that there was no need for the High Court to make an order authorising the deprivation of J’s liberty in circumstances where both J’s parents and the local authority consented to the deprivation of liberty.

J is a 14-year-old boy with a number of diagnoses, including autism, ADHD, and Pica. J lives in a specialist children’s home. J is subject to a final care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”). The Court of Appeal spelled out that the “major consequence of any care order is that it gives parental responsibility to the local authority, which is shared with the child’s parent(s), but with the local authority having control over the manner in which parental responsibility is exercised [CA 1989, s 33(3)]”.

Weekly Round-Up: Immigration, Assisted Dying, Ukraine, Gabon, and Two Tweet Appeals

19 May 2025 by Jennifer Zhou

In UK News:

The Prime Minister vowed to stop Britain from becoming an “island of strangers” as the government released its immigration White Paper. Key measures include: increasing the threshold for skilled worker visas; only allowing a narrow list of occupations onto the Temporary Shortage List; ending the social care visa route; restricting the ability to bring dependants to Britain; and increasing English language requirements for visa holders and dependants.

The Assisted Dying Bill has returned to Parliament; if approved, it would allow terminally ill adults with less than 6 months to live to commit medically assisted suicide. In the committee stage, over 500 amendments to the Bill were considered and about a third approved. The changes include removing the need for High Court approval and increasing the commencement period from 2 years to 4. A second debate is scheduled for 13 June. If you want to hear more about the AD bill, particularly its “six month” clause and what that will mean in practice, tune in to Law Pod UK Episode 218 and Episode 219.

The Weekly Round Up: UK climate policy challenged in ECtHR, US threatens suspension of habeas corpus, Privy Council holds Cayman Islands Immigration System not incompatible with Bill of Rights

14 May 2025 by Georgia Bowen

In UK News

Environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth, a disability rights activist, and a victim of coastal erosion are challenging the UK government’s climate adaptation programme (‘NAP3’) in the European Court of Human Rights. Published under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, NAP3 outlines the government’s objectives and policies for adapting to climate change. The claimants argue that its failings—particularly with regards to vulnerable individuals—violate their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Norfolk resident Kevin Jordan’s coastal home was demolished following damage caused by Storm Ciaran and rising sea levels, and had to be housed elsewhere by the local authority. Doug Paulley, a wheelchair user whose long-term health conditions are severely worsened by extreme heat, was concerned about NAP3’s lack of planning and funding across health and social sectors to alleviate the impact of heatwaves. 

Their application for judicial review was dismissed by the High Court in October last year and they have since been refused permission to appeal. Chamberlain J rejected arguments that the policy was insufficiently specific or ambitious, holding that s.58 merely required NAP3 to ‘address’ identified climate risks not to eliminate or minimise them. The court was not obliged under s.3 of the Human Rights Act to construe the statute in a way that better promoted the interests protected by the ECHR, over an interpretation that promoted those interests less effectively. Applying Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland, the court found the UK’s approach fell within its margin of appreciation. For similar reasons, the judge rejected the substantive claims that the inadequacies of NAP3 were sufficient to breach their human rights to life (Article 2), private life (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of possessions (A1P1), nor were they discriminated against on account of their vulnerable situations (Article 14). Chamberlain J considered the Secretary of State had breached the Public Sector Equality Duty in failing to assess the impacts of NAP3 on disabled and elderly people, but declined to quash the decision on this basis. A retrospective assessment in response to the legal challenge was sufficient to discharge the obligation, because the conclusion was that the programme should remain unchanged. It remains for the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the UK courts’ stance complies with the Convention’s principles.

Roll up roll up? Human rights group’s challenge to Israeli arms supply proceeds at speed

14 May 2025 by Leo Kirby

Chamberlain J has provided new guidance on when the court may order a rolled-up hearing. The procedural point arose in the context of an ongoing piece of strategic litigation, and resulted in an interlocutory judgment in R (Al-Haq) v SSBT [2025] EWHC 173 (Admin).

Al-Haq is an independent Palestinian human rights organisation. It brought a judicial review claim to challenge various decisions of the UK government in the licensing of exports of military and dual-use goods destined for Israel for potential use in Gaza. The decisions were taken by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were granted permission to intervene.

The Weekly Round Up: Challenge to SC ruling on biological sex, sex offenders banned from claiming asylum, challenge to Israel’s legal duties in the ICJ, and anti-protest Regulations found to be unlawful

6 May 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy

In UK News

The UK’s first transgender judge, Victoria McCloud, is bringing an action against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Lord Hodge, in this case, determined that the “unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. McCloud – one of at least two individuals who had unsuccessfully sought leave to intervene in the proceedings – is bringing the action on grounds that her Article 6 rights, which guarantee the right to a fair trial, have been infringed. She argues that the Supreme Court refused to hear her evidence about the “impact of those trans people affected by the judgement” and failed to “give any reasons” for doing so. Further, in her submission, the court had not considered human rights arguments that “would have been put by trans people” leaving her with the “nonsense” of being “two sexes at once”. In contrast, the court had heard from “protest groups speaking on behalf of women” in the case. McCloud is now seeking a declaration that “the actions of the UK government and the Supreme court judgement violate her fundamental human rights”. 

In an amendment to the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which is being considered by Parliament, the Home Office seeks to ban foreign sex offenders from claiming asylum in the UK. The amendment would affect anyone who qualifies for sex offender status. Under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention 1951 countries are entitled to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a particularly serious crime who present a danger to the community. Where a conviction qualifies a foreign national for the sex offenders’ register – regardless of the length of sentence they receive – that will lead to their refugee status being denied, on the basis that they will be presumed to have been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” . The Government has said that they are “toughening [their] approach to border security through stricter enforcement of the rules”, in an attempt to make “Britain’s streets safer”. Specifically, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has argued the amendment would ensure these “appalling crimes are taken seriously”. Steve Valdez-Symonds, at Amnesty International UK, however, has raised concerns that the Government is “rushing through late-stage amendments” to major legislations meaning that “laws are made without the full scrutiny and care they demand”. In his opinion this is an “irresponsible approach” to lawmaking.

The Weekly Round Up: ‘Sex’ defined by Supreme Court, Trump administration contempt proceedings, Hungarian constitutional amendments, clinicians’ right to privacy, and Nicholas Prosper’s sentence

25 April 2025 by Jennifer Zhou

In UK News:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The appeal in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 concerned revised statutory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The revised guidance defines ‘woman’ as including a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate. These Certificates are issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) and change the recipient’s gender ‘for all purposes’ (section 9(1)); however, the GRA 2004 also provides that s9(1) can be disapplied by other legislation. This was termed a ‘carve out’ power in the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court held that the carve out applies to the EA 2010. In interpreting EA 2010, the Court looked to which definition of sex would make its provisions coherent and workable. A certificated-sex approach would create two sub-groups within the transgender community: those with a GRC would be entitled to greater rights than those without. The Court saw ‘no good reason’ why Parliament would intend this inequality of status. The Court also anticipated that parties seeking to fulfil their bifurcated duties under the EA 2010 would also face practical difficulties: there is no obvious outward difference between trans people with and without a GRC, and duty-bearers cannot ask whether a GRC has been obtained because it is confidential information.

The Weekly Round Up: Asylum centre legal actions, Supreme Court rule on homeless housing, Trump’s ICC sanctions challenged, ECtHR decision on parliamentary privilege

14 April 2025 by Georgia Bowen

In UK News

Asylum seekers held at the Manston holding facility in Kent are bringing legal action against the government for unlawful detention and other rights violations. The claims stem from a period between June and November 2022 in which the centre meant for a maximum of 1,600 people was holding more than 3,000 in unsanitary, overcrowded conditions. Described as a ‘humanitarian crisis on British soil’ by one union official as well as a solicitor for the claimants, detainees suffered outbreaks of infectious disease such as norovirus, scabies and even diphtheria, from which one man died. The conditions left the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration ‘speechless’. The claimants include a Syrian woman who, having arrived at the centre with her husband and five young children, suffered a miscarriage while unable to access medical care at the centre. Another is a 19-year-old Sudanese victim of trafficking and torture. He was left regularly hungry and only allowed one shower during his 33 day detention, during which no attention was paid to his particular vulnerabilities. A 17-year old Kurdish teenager from Iraq was detained for 12 days, with his age recorded as five years older despite his protestations, also joins the action. The government has faced many legal challenges of a similar nature, such as the recent High Court ruling that three vulnerable asylum seekers were unlawfully housed at former RAF base Wethersfield. 

The UK Supreme Court ruled last week on the scope of a local authority’s duty to secure temporary accommodation for qualifying homeless people in Scotland. Giving the court’s unanimous judgment, Lady Simler distinguished between the local authority’s duties relating to interim as opposed to permanent housing. These duties are respectively imposed by section 29 and section 31 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. At the interim stage, the local authority is under a duty to take a household’s needs into account but is not required to meet all those specific needs. The latter requirement only applies at the permanent stage. This reasoning led to the dismissal of the appeal, in which the appellant contended that the four-room temporary housing provided by Glasgow City Council was ‘unsuitable’ for the needs of her family of six considering her son’s autism and special needs, relying on s.39(3) of the 1987 Act and article 4(b) of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014. Lady Simler explained that the obligation to secure permanent accommodation is necessarily more onerous and outcome-specific than the duties at the interim stage.

The Weekly Round Up: Sentencing Council’s guidelines suspended, Civil Legal Aid and ECHR rights, and Hungary’s departure from the ICC

7 April 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy

In UK News

The Sentencing Council has suspended plans for new guidelines which could have led to different sentences depending on someone’s age, sex and ethnicity. The Sentencing Council’s decision to suspend plans comes in the wake of ministers preparing to “disapply” wording in the revised sentencing guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, through primary legislation. Justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had aimed to pass a bill through Parliament to halt the guidelines within 24 hours but was informed that it would be impossible before the Easter recess. Given that the revised sentencing guidelines were due to take effect in England and Wales last Tuesday, there would have been a “confusing period” during which time the guidelines would be enforced before being declared illegal.

These guidelines had specified a list of 10 groups for whom pre-sentence reports would “normally be necessary”. The groups in question included “those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.” In other words, the guidelines would have required magistrates and judges to consult a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to imprison someone of an ethnic and religious minority, in addition to other groups like young adults, abuse survivors and mothers. In doing so, the system would have “taken into account structural disparities in sentencing outcomes” and would have introduced measures targeted at combating racism in the courts. Senior legal figures, and the Society of Black Lawyers, have emphasised that the guidelines were an attempt to achieve “equal treatment” after “racist two-tier policing for 500 years”, specifically through attempting to address disparities in sentencing between white and non-white offenders.

After a meeting on Monday, the Sentencing Council confirmed it would not be introducing the guidelines when “there is a draft bill due for imminent introduction that would make it unlawful”. This follows the Sentencing Council having previously rejected a request from Mahmood to remove the ten specified groups as she said they would “single out specific cohorts for differential treatment”. In making this request, Mahmood had sought to demonstrate to the public that “Parliament is sovereign” and “everyone is treated equally by the criminal justice system”.

This matter has created tension between the executive and the judiciary, who make up the majority of the Sentencing Council.  Mahmood has told MPs that the Sentencing Council’s role will be subject to review. In the Commons on Tuesday, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary called for Lord Justice Davis, the head of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to be sacked over the row. Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General, speaking to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, has since emphasised that political attacks on judges are a “huge threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary”.

In International News

Hungary is due to leave the International Criminal Court on grounds that it has become “political”. This was announced during a visit to Hungary by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, who is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant which was issued on 21^st November 2024. Prior to this visit, Human Rights Watch had urged Hungary to deny entry to Netanyahu or to arrest him upon entry, in light of the arrest warrant. Specifically, Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch outlined how Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s invitation to Netanyahu was an “affront to victims of serious crimes” and urged Hungary to “comply with its legal obligations as a party to the ICC.”

As a member of the ICC, Hungary was in theory obliged to arrest Netanyahu in line with the ICC warrant. However, Orbán had previously said the ruling would have no effect in Hungary. Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó had notably criticised the warrants as “shameful and absurd” and “unacceptable”. Hungary has aligned itself with other European countries including France, Italy, Poland, Romania and Germany who have emphasised their non-committal to enforcement of the ICC’s warrant to arrest Netanyahu.

In announcing Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC this week, Orbán proclaimed that the ICC had “diminished into a political forum”, something that had “become the clearest in light of its decisions on Israel”. Netanyahu has thanked Orbán for taking a “bold and principled” position against the ICC.

The Weekly Round Up: Contested free speech at Sussex, Columbia and Cambridge, increased UK police powers, extradition to Romania blocked

31 March 2025 by Benjamin Savill

In the news

The University of Sussex has received a record fine of £585,000 from the UK Office for Students (OfS) for what it has called a “fail[ure] to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom”. The fine follows an investigation into the circumstances behind the resignation of the philosopher Kathleen Stock, who left the University in 2019 after becoming the object of student protests for her “gender critical views”. The OfS’s investigation focussed primarily on the University’s ‘Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement’, which it claims created a “chilling effect”, giving rise to “the potential for staff and students to self-censor and not speak about or express certain lawful views.” The OfS states that the University may not have complied with section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (duty relating to freedom of speech); Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (the right to freedom of expression); Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 (indirect discrimination); and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The BIOT Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers  Detained Unlawfully

27 March 2025 by Tehreem Sultan

The Supreme Court in British Indian Ocean Territory ruled in December on an important issue concerning the detention of asylum seekers in Diego Garcia. While their cause has progressed (including in a settlement reached on behalf of many, and in this judgment).

Ms Justice Obi, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory, determined that the Claimants had been unlawfully detained since their arrival in October 2021.

The Weekly Round Up: Criminal Bar in crisis, Turkish democracy under threat, Israel-Gaza ceasefire collapses, asylum seekers unlawfully accommodated

24 March 2025 by Georgia Bowen

UK news

One in three criminal barristers actively intend to quit the profession, a national survey by the Criminal Bar Association has revealed. A further third is actively considering moving to a new discipline. The survey received 1,717 responses, which the association has stated is ‘well above that of nationally representative surveys which are relied upon by Government’. Only 44% remain committed to a practice of primarily publicly funded work. Further, the Judicial Attitudes Survey has indicated that 35% of Circuit Judges sitting in criminal courts intend to leave in the next five years. The reasons behind the collapse in commitment to the profession are familiar, stemming from longstanding underfunding to the justice system. 92% answered that adequate and fair remuneration was necessary to reverse the trend. The implications for the access to justice for defendants, as well as redress for victims of crime, are clear, as the criminal court backlog continues to reach record highs. 

International news

The largest protests in over a decade have erupted in Turkey following the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul and the President’s main political rival, Ekrem Imamoglu. His detention on corruption charges occurred just days before he was expected to be announced as a candidate for the 2028 Presidential Election. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has denied the allegations of his opponents that the arrest is politically motivated. In defiance of a ban on gatherings, protestors have clashed with police as a primary ballot was held across Turkey to choose the opposition candidate for the Republican People’s Party. Further, social media platform X has released a statement identifying multiple court orders from Turkish authorities to block more than 700 accounts belonging to news organisations, journalists, political figures and students. The statement reads “We believe this decision from the Turkish government is not only unlawful, it hinders millions of Turkish users from news and political discourse in their country” and they “will always defend freedom of speech everywhere we operate”. Imamoglu’s arrest took place a few days after US President Trump and Erdogan’s telephone conversation, which commentators have suggested has likely emboldened the Turkish President’s actions. However, despite domestic outrage, international condemnation have thus far been muted. With the second largest army in NATO, Turkish forces may be an essential component of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine. The response of European and world leaders remains to be seen. 

Law Pod new episode: Animals as Legal Subjects

24 March 2025 by Rosalind English

Non-human animals lack agency. They’re not legal entities. They’re mere possessions, like furniture. Of course, there are laws around to stop us trashing them like furniture. How well those laws are enforced is a big question. Another challenge is the purpose for which these animals are kept. Companion animals enjoy much better protection under the law than animals kept for commercial purposes such as food. When this country left the EU the recognition of animal sentience under Article 13 of the EU Treaty was not kept as part of retained EU law. The government at the time made it clear that the reason that they didn’t want to retain it is because they wanted to do something different. And that is the recognition of animal consciousness in the Animal Welfare (Sentience Act) 2022 with a committee that is dedicated to looking at policy and deciding whether ministers have had due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings in formulating that policy.

Has this legislation made any difference to the animals hidden from sight in the farming industry? In Episode 217 of Law Pod UK Rosalind English talks to Edie Bowles of the Animal Law Foundation and Dr Rachel Dunn from Leeds Beckett University, both experts in this area, about the difficulties of compliance and enforcement of animal welfare legislation and the general hoodwinking of the purchasing public by misleading labelling and misinformation about farmed animals in the media.

Here is a short animation from the German studio Kurzgesagt which is rich in information on the subject of food animals: This is not an anti-meat video

Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.

The Weekly Round Up: Benefit Cuts, US Tariffs, a Ceasefire Proposal and Care Home Sponsor Licences in the Court of Appeal

17 March 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy

In UK News

Keir Starmer announced plans to cut billions of pounds from the welfare system, specifically working-age health and disability benefits. This week, Starmer called Britain’s benefits system the “worst of all worlds” and has said that the Government could not just “shrug its shoulders and look away” given that the number of people who are out of work or training is “indefensible and unfair”. Ahead of the Spring Statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has been getting ready to announce changes to the welfare system and reduce the benefits bill. Changes would likely include restrictions on eligibility for the Personal Independent Payment (“PIP”) and cuts to incapacity benefits for those unable to work and receiving Universal Credit.

The Government’s core rationale for making these cuts is that welfare spending has increased dramatically in recent years. Total welfare spending is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to reach almost £378bn by the end of the decade because of the ageing and increasingly unwell population, the Government’s triple lock, and rising caseloads for health and disability benefits.

As a result of the proposed cuts, Starmer is facing the most significant rebellion among Labour MPs to date. Rachel Maskell, who previously called on her party to reverse its decision to end universal winter fuel payments, has expressed concern about “draconian cuts”, whilst  Neil Duncan-Jordan expressed fear that the move signals a “re-run of austerity”. Reports suggest that dozens of other MPs have expressed concerns in private that Rachel Reeves could make even deeper cuts to working-age benefits than Conservative Chancellor George Osborne. As would be expected, the Government is also facing backlash from charities and campaigners who argue that benefit cuts would affect the poorest and most vulnerable people in British society the hardest. In contrast, the Get Britain Working group of 36 Labour MPs has come out in support of the cuts. They believe the Government has a “moral duty” to help long-term sick and disabled people through making “hard choices” to overcome the “crisis of economic activity”.

Liz Kendall was expected to set out plans in more detail in the House of Commons early next week. However, as of Saturday, Downing Street may now be considering a U-turn on the cuts to benefits in light of the backlash from within the party and following a tense cabinet meeting.

In International News

In the wake of a turbulent Tuesday on Wall Street, Donald Trump’s tariffs came into effect on Wednesday. The United States introduced a 25% tariff on global steel and aluminium imports. These tariffs will cover household goods like tin foil, stainless steel cooking ware, electrical appliances, window frames, among other products.  This follows the 25% tariffs that have already been imposed on other imports from Mexico and Canada (with exceptions) and a 20% levy on Chinese goods. Trump, on Tuesday, threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium after Canada threatened to increase electricity prices for US customers, but subsequently backed down later that day. Germany, Ireland and Italy – countries which operate a good trade surplus with the US – are likely to be worst hit by the tariffs.

The European Union has said that it will be imposing counter measures on €26bn (£21.9bn, $28.3bn) worth of US goods in response to Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium. The tariffs, which will be brought in gradually between 1^st – 13^th April to leave time for negotiations with Washington, have been described by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen as “strong but proportionate”. The US has threatened a 200% tariff on wine and champagne from European Union countries in response. Canada, meanwhile, has announced it will be placing retaliatory tariffs on more than $20bn of goods imported from the US. Keir Starmer, in turn, has said that he is “disappointed” about the imposition of US tariffs on British steel and aluminium imports without announcing retaliatory measures.

Turning to the ongoing negotiations around the war in Ukraine, which have been taking place in Saudi Arabia, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, whilst Donald Trump announced the US would lift its restrictions on military aid and intelligence.  At the same time, Zelenskyy has emphasised that support from other countries would be needed to monitor the ceasefire along the frontline. Russia has not committed to the ceasefire proposal in its current form, saying that the proposal would give Ukrainian forces a reprieve. The Kremlin has said there are “reasons to be cautiously optimistic” but that there is “still much to be done”. In a virtual meeting with world leaders held on Saturday, Keir Starmer said that Putin’s response to the ceasefire is “not good enough”, and agreed for military planners to meet in the UK on Thursday to “progress practical plans for how our militaries can support Ukraine’s future security”. Meanwhile, in recent days Russia has intensified efforts to push Ukrainian forces out of the Russian region of Kursk, making major advances, including the recapture of Sudzha, the largest town held by Ukrainian forces.

In the Courts

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgement in Prestwick Care Limited, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184. This case relates to the circumstances in which the Home Office can revoke a care home’s sponsor licence. The main question in the two joined appeals was whether the Secretary of State is required to assess how revoking a sponsor licence would affect the sponsor, its employees, service users, and wider community care needs before making a decision. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Secretary of State, finding no legal basis in statute or guidance for the additional requirements proposed by the two care homes. The Court held that sponsors should not assume they will receive special consideration solely because revoking their licence could disrupt social care services. It determined that imposing these requirements would be “contrary to the principles established in case law” and would undermine “the regime contained in the Guidance”. Baker LJ emphasised that obtaining a sponsor licence is a choice made by providers for their own benefit but comes with strict conditions set out in the guidance. In applying for a licence, sponsors “know that, if they fail to meet the requirements of the Guidance, the consequences provided for in the Guidance will apply”.

The appeal by Prestwick Care was dismissed on this basis. In the Supporting Care Limited case, the Court ruled that the Secretary of State had succeeded in establishing that the judge at first instance was wrong to allow Supporting Care Limited’s claim for judicial review to succeed on the ground that the Secretary of State had failed to conduct an “adequately reasoned” global assessment of the impact of revocation. However, the Court upheld the first-instance order quashing the revocation on different grounds, namely that the Secretary of State had shown procedural unfairness on the facts in concluding that Supporting Care Limited had “deliberately exaggerated” an employee’s role to facilitate her stay in the UK.

International Women’s Day series part 3: community and belonging at the Bar

12 March 2025 by Lucy McCann

In this episode Lucy and Kiran explore the themes of belonging and community at the Bar. How does imposter syndrome manifest itself? Why are role models important? How can we strengthen networks to encourage other women?

Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.

Supreme Court rules Appellants were British all along

12 March 2025 by Shaheen Rahman

N3 & ZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6 concerned orders depriving two British people of their citizenship on national security grounds. The Defendant (initially) contended that to do so would not render them stateless, because they were dual British Bangladeshi nationals.

The use of deprivation orders in this context has been controversial, with critics across the political spectrum. Notably, writing in the Spectator, Jacob Rees-Mogg said of the Shamima Begum case:

“The ability to deprive people, who have a claim to another citizenship, of their British passport, creates two categories of Briton. Those with no right to another nationality are in the first-class carriage. Whatever they do, they cannot be made an exile or outlaw and expelled from the country. On the other hand, those who themselves came to the UK or whose parents did so are in the second-class carriage. They may be stripped of their citizenship even if they have never claimed another foreign nationality or even visited the country. This is a fundamentally racist policy as it denies the absolute Britishness of all those who are either recent immigrants themselves or their children.”

In the instant case, the deprivation orders were subsequently withdrawn. The Supreme Court has held that the effect of that withdrawal is that the Appellants are to be treated as having been British Citizens throughout.