Category: Politics / Public Order


New independent legal think-tank Halsbury’s Law Exchange launched

7 September 2010 by

This week sees the launch of the Halsbury’s Law Exchange, a new independent legal think-tank funded by LexisNexis.

The new organisation describes itself as “an independent and politically neutral think tank which contributes to the development of law and the legal sector“, aiming to “promote debate through papers, reports, events and media pieces.” The think-tank is chaired by legal journalist Joshua Rozenberg, who is joined by a number of eminent barristers and solicitors.

Continue reading →

Rooney, Coulson and Hague scandals reveal the need for more, not less, press protection

6 September 2010 by

What does Wayne Rooney’s alleged philandering have to do with human rights? In itself, not very much. But a recent spate of exposés in and of the press has exposed more than a footballer’s indiscretions.

The starting point from a human rights perspective is the fragile relationship between two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights; namely, the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. Article 8 provides that everyone has the “right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” This right is qualified, in the sense that it is possible for a state authority to breach privacy rights if it is (amongst other things) necessary in a democratic society.

Continue reading →

Do foreign policy and human rights mix?

31 August 2010 by

The Foreign Secretary William Hague has sought in today’s Daily Telegraph to re-emphasise the “centrality of human rights in the core values” of UK foreign policy. On the face of it, this is a laudable aim. But does it really mean anything? And may it in fact amount to an unrealisable promise?

The editorial evokes Mr Hague’s early commitment to put human rights at the “irreducible core” of UK foreign policy. This pledge has been questioned recently due to the potential reduction in scope of the Foreign Office’s annual human rights report. Mr Hague addresses this directly, although with little new detail:

Continue reading →

Increasing prison numbers could save money, says report

31 August 2010 by

A new report from the think-tank Civitas argues that increasing community sentences and cutting prison numbers will lead to more crime and add to costs too.

This is contrary to the the view of the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, who has argued recently that there is no link between the rising level of imprisonment and falling crime.

The report, Prison, Community Sentencing and Crime, is by Ken Pease, a professor at the Manchester Business School and a former Home Office criminologist. It does not present any significant new research; rather, it seeks to put the other side of the debate on prison numbers, in light of the “apparently concerted attempt to justify an increasing use of community sanctions in place of custody for convicted criminals”.

Continue reading →

Goodbye to the public sector equality duty?

26 August 2010 by

The government is moving away from the wide-ranging public sector equality duty which was due to come into force in April 2011.

The Equalities Office has announced a consultation on the public sector equality duty imposed by the Equality Act 2010. Reading the consultation document, it is clear that the government intends to delegate the equalities duty to the general public, rather than imposing top-down standards from Whitehall:

We do not intend to prescribe how public bodies go about their business, but we will ensure that we put in place the right framework which empowers citizens to scrutinise the data and evidence on how their public services perform.

Continue reading →

Can political asylum seekers be expected to hide their political opinions?

13 August 2010 by

Expected to show him support?

TM (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916 – Read judgment

Is it reasonable to expect an asylum seeker on their return to their home country to lie about their political beliefs and thereby avoid persecution? This question was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in light of a potentially wide-ranging decision of the Supreme Court relating to gay refugees.

Last month the Supreme Court held in HJ (Iran ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 that to compel a homosexual person to pretend that their sexuality does not exist is to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is (see our post). When an applicant applies for asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of persecution because he is gay, if the tribunal concludes that a material reason for his living discreetly on his return would be a fear of the persecution which would follow if he were to live openly as a gay man, then his application should be accepted [para 82].

Continue reading →

Where will £2bn of Ministry of Justice cuts come from? [Updated]

11 August 2010 by

Ken Clarke

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is to cut £2bn from its £9bn or so budget. But where will this 20% cut come from?

Kenneth Clarke’s MoJ are said to have got in early in agreeing spending reduction targets with the Treasury, and yesterday it was reported by the Public and Commercial Services Union that senior staff were informed by email that the cuts will amount to around £2bn of the overall budget. The Union suspect that around 15,000 of the MoJ’s 80,000 staff may have to be axed.

However the MoJ makes the cuts, a reduction of around 20% is likely to have severe effects on access to and provision of justice in the United Kingdom. Various MoJ-funded bodies have already been lining up to explain why their departments could not survive on much less. The criminal legal aid system has long been said to be in crisis, the President of the Family Division indicated last week that the child protection system is in grave danger of imploding, and the Chief Executive of the Supreme Court has said the cuts could cripple the new court.

Continue reading →

Increasingly muscular Supreme Court good for human rights

3 August 2010 by

Happy birthday!

The UK’s new Supreme Court has reached the end of its first term, leading to some interesting discussions about its future from both practical and philosophical perspectives. From a human rights angle, a well-tooled and robust Supreme Court which acts to keep the government in check is good for everyone.

On a practical level, the UK Supreme Court Blog has posted on the stark warning from the UKSC’s chief executive, Jenny Rowe, to the effect that the Government’s proposed budget cuts could cripple the new court after only a year in operation. The UKSC Blog reports that Jenny Rowe, the court’s Chief Executive, has said she is not sure where the axe will fall but that “since casework (i.e. the hearing and determination of appeals) was the Court’s “priority“, it would be the Court’s public education and outreach programmes that would be most vulnerable.

Continue reading →

End of the age of terrorism for human rights campaigners [updated]

2 August 2010 by

Updated (4 Aug 2010)

Army generals are notorious for fighting the last war instead of the current one. Human rights campaigners may be in danger of the same mistake if they get their strategy wrong for the new coalition government.

The great civil liberties fight of the last decade centered on New Labour’s anti-terrorism measures. Keystone issues such as stop and search, 42-day detention without charge and control orders caught the public imagination and have been the subject of bitterly fought and largely successful campaigns by rights groups.

The other significant fights have been over the so-called surveillance state; for example CCTV, the DNA database and ASBOs, all of which are now being considered for reform by the new government.

Continue reading →

New legislation website launched, updated to 2002

2 August 2010 by

The government has launched a sparkly looking but as yet scantily featured new legislation website, legislation.gov.uk, to replace the two websites which previously did the same job, OPSI and the Statute Law Database.

One notable absence from the National Archives-run site is any guarantee that the statutes will be up to date after 2002. This was also a limitation of its predecessors, which is why lawyers generally avoided them for fear of unknowingly using an out-of-date statute. “About half” of the legislation is now up to date, according to the frequently asked questions section. This is surprising given the amount of money which is spent on Government IT; the new website asking what laws people want scrapped will apparently alone cost £20,000.

Continue reading →

UKIP Supreme Court judgment analysis

2 August 2010 by

For those of you looking for more information on last week’s Supreme Court judgment on UKIP party funding (see our previous post), we have been sent an interesting analysis of the judgment from Lucy Colter at Four New Square Chambers.

Patrick Lawrence Q.C. and Can Yeginsu, also of Four New Square, appeared for UKIP. The judgment was only of tangential importance in respect of human rights, but Coulter addresses this towards the end of her article. The main point was that a court in future would have leeway as to how much it could order a party to forfeit. As such, the court was satisfied that the party funding legislation is sufficiently flexible so as not to contravene human rights law:

Continue reading →

Expenses scandal four lose parliamentary privilege appeal

30 July 2010 by

Morley & Ors v. R [2010] EWCA Crim 1910 – Read judgment

Four former Members of Parliament have failed in their appeal of a Crown Court ruling preventing them from claiming parliamentary privilege in criminal proceedings arising from the parliamentary expenses scandal.

The appeal was of Mr Justice Saunders’ ruling in the Southwark Crown Court that the parliamentary privilege enshrined in the 1688 Bill of Rights does not extend to protecting the four ex-MPs, Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, James Devine and Lord Hanningfield, from prosecutions for claiming inflated expenses. He had said that he could “see no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege; and I can see no legal justification for it either.”

The Lord Chief Justice gave the judgment of the court, and made clear that Parliamentary privilege was simply not designed to protect these four men from the allegations currently against them:

Continue reading →

UKIP can keep donation despite breach of party funding rules

29 July 2010 by

An appropriate logo

The Supreme Court has narrowly held that the UK Independence Party (UKIP) can keep nearly all of a £349,216 donation despite the donor not being a permissible donor at the time of receipt, contrary to party funding rules under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The Supreme Court upheld an order originally made at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court to the effect that the party only had to give back a small proportion of the money. UKIP will now only have to forfeit £14,481, rather than the full amount. According to the BBC, this will save the party from financial ruin. We will have more detail on the decision, which was by a narrow 4-3 majority, soon. In the meantime, the Supreme Court press summary can be found here, and is reproduced below.

Control orders quashed, compensation claims may follow

29 July 2010 by

AN v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 869 (28 July 2010) – Read judgment

The Court of Appeal has held that control orders of three men suspected of terrorism revoked by the Government should in fact be quashed altogether. The decision opens the door for the men to claim compensation, and deals another blow to the controversial control order scheme.

This is the latest in a long and tortuous series of court judgments which have chipped away at the controversial control order scheme. This latest decision arises from a 2009 House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) decision that it was a breach of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) to hold someone under a control order without sufficient information about the allegations against him, even where the case against the “controlee” was based on closed materials, the disclosure of which would compromise the country’s national security (see our summary).

Continue reading →

Strong reaction to universal jurisdiction rule change

29 July 2010 by

He can come now

The proposed change to the rules for bringing on who can apply for international war crimes arrest warrants has predictably generated some strong reactions

The changes will make it necessary to get the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be granted. The Ministry of Justice say they are changing the rules in order to prevent arrests happening after the presentation of “flimsy” evidence. Those who fear arrest under the current system range from Israeli ministers to the Pope.

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:
Jasper Gold

Assistant Editor:
Allyna Ng

Editors:
Rosalind English
Angus McCullough KC
David Hart KC
Martin Downs

Jim Duffy
Jonathan Metzer

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


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.

Tags


A2P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Arrest Article 1 Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 protocol 1 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assisted Dying assisted suicide asylum Attorney General Australia autism benefits Best Interest Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Business care orders Caster Semenya Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Closed Material Proceedings Closed proceedings Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Arbitration for Sport Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability discipline disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence DPA DSD Regulations duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment environmental rights Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice euthanasia evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Extraterritoriality Fair Trials Family family law Fertility FGM Finance findings of fact football foreign criminals foreign office Foster France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gambling Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Hate Speech Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration immunity India Indonesia information injunction injunctions inquest Inquests international law internet interview Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland NRPF nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary open justice ouster clauses PACE parental rights Parliament parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Data Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness procedural safeguards Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Protocols Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law reasons regulatory Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion Religious Freedom RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die Right to Education right to family life Right to life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia sanctions Saudi Arabia school Schools Scotland secrecy secret justice Section 55 separation of powers Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Sports Law Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Strategic litigation Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK UK Constitutional Law Blog Ukraine UK Supreme Court Ullah unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability voting Wales war War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw World Athletics YearInReview Zimbabwe

Tags


A2P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Arrest Article 1 Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 protocol 1 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assisted Dying assisted suicide asylum Attorney General Australia autism benefits Best Interest Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Business care orders Caster Semenya Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Closed Material Proceedings Closed proceedings Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Arbitration for Sport Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability discipline disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence DPA DSD Regulations duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment environmental rights Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice euthanasia evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Extraterritoriality Fair Trials Family family law Fertility FGM Finance findings of fact football foreign criminals foreign office Foster France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gambling Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Hate Speech Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration immunity India Indonesia information injunction injunctions inquest Inquests international law internet interview Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland NRPF nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary open justice ouster clauses PACE parental rights Parliament parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Data Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness procedural safeguards Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Protocols Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law reasons regulatory Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion Religious Freedom RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die Right to Education right to family life Right to life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia sanctions Saudi Arabia school Schools Scotland secrecy secret justice Section 55 separation of powers Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Sports Law Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Strategic litigation Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK UK Constitutional Law Blog Ukraine UK Supreme Court Ullah unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability voting Wales war War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw World Athletics YearInReview Zimbabwe