23 July 2024 by Shaheen Rahman
R (World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715
This landmark decision was a successful appeal from the judgment of Dove J ([2023] EWHC 88 (Admin)) on the single issue of whether the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) misdirected itself when reaching the decision (i) not to investigate alleged offences under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) and (ii) not to commence a civil recovery investigation under Part 5, in respect of certain cotton products brought into the UK alleged to be the product of forced labour and other human rights abuses.
The Appellant contended that when taking those decisions the Defendant had laboured under two fundamental misapprehensions, namely (i) that it is necessary to identify specific product as criminal property before commencing an investigation; and (ii) that the presence within the supply chain of a person who can rely on the exemption under section 329(2)(c) of POCA has the effect of “cleansing” criminal property so as to preclude its recovery, or the recovery of the proceeds of sale.
The court noted that it was well established that the decisions of an independent prosecutor or investigator would only be disturbed in highly exceptional circumstances: see R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office (2008) UKHL 60 at paragraphs 30-32. However, the discretion of decision makers was not unfettered; they must direct themselves correctly in law.
The challenge in this case was not advanced on Wednesbury principals. Rather, it was based on the alleged errors and misdirection in law. The Appellant contended that the Judge had nonetheless proceeded to deal with the matter on the basis that it was a rationality challenge. It was also contended that the Judge had reached the wrong conclusions insofar as he did address the substance of the challenge.
The NCA contended that it did not make the first error of law alleged, on a proper reading of the decision letter. It accepted the second error had been made but contended that it was immaterial and did not affect the substance or validity of its reasoning, namely that there was insufficient evidence from which to develop an investigation which had any prospect of bearing fruit. The Appellant accepted if that was the NCA’s reasoning, they would have been entitled to take that view.
Accordingly, this appeal turned on close analysis and the correct interpretation of the decision letter.
Sir James Eadie KC on behalf of the NCA frankly accepted that as a matter of law it would be wrong to refuse to commence an investigation under POCA because criminal property could not be identified at that time. Indeed, he contended that it would have been so obviously absurd to approach matters on the basis that that you needed to know the outcome of the investigation before taking a decision to commence it, it was highly improbable that the NCA had taken that approach.
Whilst recognising this as a powerful forensic point, the Court nonetheless concluded that, on the face of the decision letter, that was indeed the approach that was taken, and it was a clear misdirection in law.
Moreover, the Court did not agree that the second error within the decision letter was immaterial. That was the identification of a hypothetical individual within the supply chain who could rely on the exemption under section 329(2)(c) of POCA, which provides that a person will not commit an offence under section 329(1) “if he acquired or used or had possession of the property for adequate consideration”. In their view, this error appeared to play an important part in the decision-maker’s line of reasoning.
The judgment also noted that it was common ground there was a “diverse, substantial and growing body of evidence that serious human rights abuses are occurring in the XUAR cotton industry on a large scale”. Further that products derived from forced labour of the proceeds of sale could amount to “criminal property” for the purposes of Part 5 of POCA and “recoverable property” for the purposes of Part 7.
The Court agreed, and it seemed to be accepted by the parties, that the Judge had never directly identified the question whether the position expressed by the NCA in correspondence amount to an error of law.
It held that there was legitimate concern that the judgment endorsed the proposition that there is a need to establish criminal conduct or criminal property before an investigation under POCA can begin. In particular, the Court noted the submissions of the Intervenor “Spotlight on Corruption” that the judgment, if left undisturbed, would discourage the NCA, the police and other UK investigative bodies from commencing investigations into corruption, particularly where it occurs overseas, in the absence of concrete evidence of particular crimes carried out by particular persons. Spotlight also raised concerns at the suggestion that criminal liability or civil recovery was precluded where the proceeds of crime passed through several hands where adequate consideration was paid.
The Court confirmed that the proposition that, where the importer pays market value, they will not be tainted, was wrong in law. To the extent that the Judge accepted that at any point in a supply chain stretching many thousands of miles, the chain could be broken merely by using adequate consideration in any of the transactions involved, he was wrong to do so.
The Court held that there was force in the Appellant’s submission that the Judge had treated the challenge as if it were on the grounds of irrationality. More importantly, it was clear that the NCA had misdirected itself based on the two errors of law identified by the Appellant. The question of whether to carry out an investigation under Part 7 or part 5 of POCA was accordingly remitted to the NCA for reconsideration.
This judgment has significant implications for those trading in goods known or suspected to have been produced using forced labour or other human rights abuses, who may face investigation and prosecution even where adequate consideration has been paid. It has been hailed as a victory for those subjected to forced labour and human rights abuses.
Shaheen Rahman KC is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row Chambers
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 July 2024 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
The King’s Speech on Wednesday opened the first session of the new parliament, announcing 40 bills – the highest number announced in a King’s Speech since 2005. The bills announced included several relating to human rights, such as a Victims Bill, Mental Health Bill, and two draft bills – one on Race and Disability, predominantly concerning the right to equal pay, and another on Conversion Practices, seeking to ban conversion therapy. Several bills make provisions to combat violence against women and girls. A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission responded to the announcements, welcoming the ‘positive developments for equality and human rights’, emphasising that the watchdog ‘stands ready to provide government and Parliament with advice as the detail of all the proposed legislation is developed’. In contrast, the organisation Human Rights Watch have suggested that the new Government’s vision ‘falls short’ in key areas, calling for ‘bolder action’ to secure better living standards for British citizens.
Last Tuesday, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act came into force, making Scotland the first UK country to incorporate the children’s rights charter into national law. While the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that certain provisions of the original bill passed by the Scottish Parliament exceeded its legislative competence, subsequent amendments to the bill enabled a revised version to pass last December. Now that the Act is in force, all Scottish public authorities are under a direct legal duty to consider and promote children’s rights in policy decisions. The Act also improves children’s ability to enforce their rights in the courts. An announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice reads: “The Act is a landmark piece of legislation that incorporates the UNCRC into Scots law, empowers our children and young people to claim their rights and will help to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up”.
Following the new Government’s statement that the Rwanda Plan is ‘dead and buried’, £84 million of funding has been announced to ‘address the reasons for illegal migration’. The funding package will support projects in Africa and the Middle East in an attempt to ‘tackle illegal migration at source’. The announcement acknowledges the roots of illegal migration in conflict, climate change, and more, emphasising that the funding will be utilised to build resilience against such events. Initiatives are targeted towards skill-building, education, and employment. The funding will also support refugees hosted in countries within their home region with the aim of allowing their return home when conditions improve, as well as supporting reintegration of refugees in their home nations. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “Our package of up to £84 million will improve education, boost employment and build resilience to conflict and climate change across the Middle East and North Africa – to help bring down migration figures whilst improving lives for the world’s most vulnerable people.”
In Other News
As the Paris Olympics approach, the conversation regarding France’s hijab ban has resurfaced. Though originally announced in September 2023, the ban, prohibiting France’s athletes from sporting any form of religious headwear, has received fresh criticism in the form of a report published last week by Amnesty International. While Amélie Oudéa-Castéra – France’s Minister for Sport – stated that the ban has been imposed in line with the country’s principle of secularism, Amnesty have claimed the ban makes a ‘mockery’ of claims by the International Olympic Committee that Paris 2024 is the ‘first gender-equal Olympics’. The human rights organisation noted that the official Olympic Charter states that “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement”, a sentiment they claim is in manifest contradiction with the hijab ban. “Amnesty International believes that when the world will be watching its athletes compete for medals and exercising their right to practice sport without discrimination, it should also cast a critical eye on the Olympics host country, which does not apply Olympic values to everyone”.
In the Courts
On Friday, the International Court of Justice published its Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court made several seminal conclusions, finding that:
- Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories is unlawful;
- That Israel is under an obligation to therefore end its unlawful presence as soon as is possible;
- That Israel is obliged cease all settlement activities and evacuate all settlers;
- That Israel is obliged to make reparations for any damage eventuating from its unlawful presence;
- And that all other States, alongside international organisations, are obliged not to assist the ongoing presence of Israel in the Occupied Territories, nor recognise it as legal.
The Court recalled its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which found that Israeli settlements were established and maintained in breach of Israel’s international legal obligations. The Court expressed grave concerns that in the years since, the Israeli settlement policy has continued to expand. The Court noted that a variety of Israeli legislation and administrative measures relating to its occupation treated Palestinians differently without justification or legitimate aim. This finding led the Court to conclude that the Israeli regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories constituted ‘systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin’ in violation of a variety of international conventions. Vital to the Court’s determination was the finding of the ‘prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination’, a right the Court viewed as ‘fundamental’. However, Judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu issued a joint opinion stating that they could see ‘no legal connection whatsoever’ between the Palestinian right to self-determination over the territories and the extension of the illegality of Israel’s occupation. Judge Sebutinde’s dissenting opinion was the subject of discussion by legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, who has expressed the view that litigation ‘will not bring peace to the Middle East’.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that the failure of Latvian authorities to bring charges for a homophobic hate crime constituted a breach of ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Given that the assailant had admitted to police the use of homophobic slurs and personal homophobic beliefs that ‘clearly’ motivated the attack, the Court found that the proceedings brought against him, culminating only in a ‘manifestly lenient fine’, breached Mr Hanov’s human rights. The Court expressed the view that the actions of the Latvian authorities ‘fostered a sense of impunity for hate-motivated offences. […] Failure to address such incidents can normalise hostility towards LGBTI individuals, perpetuate a culture of intolerance and discrimination and encourage further acts of a similar nature’.
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 July 2024 by Guest Contributor
The ECHR’s Additional Protocols 4, 7 and 12 have never been ratified by the UK and are not included in the schedule to the Human Rights Act 1998. This post suggests that the new government remedy this. It also sets out part of the history to the Additional Protocols, what the rights in those Protocols include, a summary of the relevant jurisprudence and a brief note of what effect they might have in the UK.
In the run up to the 1997 general election and during the drafting of the Labour Party’s policy on what was to become the Human Rights Bill there were discussions within the Shadow Cabinet about whether or not the remaining Protocols 4, 6 and 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights that, were not currently binding on the UK as a matter of international law, should be signed and ratified and, as a result, bind the UK at an international level.
At the time the Labour Government said ‘It will be possible to ratify Protocol 4 only if the potential conflicts with our domestic laws can be resolved. This remains under consideration but we do not propose to ratify Protocol 4 at present.’[1] The then government had concerns that Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol 4 may confer rights in relation to passports and a right of abode on categories of British nationals who do not currently have a right to reside in the UK.[2] In a subsequent Joint Committee on Human Rights report, the Committee noted that the terms of Article 2 of Protocol 4 are ‘substantially similar to those of Article 12 ICCPR, which the UK has ratified subject to reservations regarding disciplinary procedures for members of the armed forces, and regarding nationals of dependent territories and the right to enter and remain in the UK and each of the dependent territories.’[3]
In contrast, it was eventually agreed by the new Labour Government that Protocol 7 should be ratified and added to Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act:
“4.15 In general, the provisions of Protocol 7 reflect principles already inherent in our law. In view of concerns in some of these areas in recent years, the Government believes that it would be particularly helpful to give these important principles the same legal status as other rights in the Convention by ratifying and incorporating Protocol 7. There is, however, a difficulty with this because a few provisions of our domestic law, for example in relation to the property rights of spouses, could not be interpreted in a way which is compatible with Protocol 7. The Government intends to legislate to remove these inconsistencies, when a suitable opportunity occurs, and then to sign and ratify the Protocol.
4.16 The Secretary of State will be able to amend the Human Rights Act by Order so as to insert into it the rights contained in any Protocols to the Convention which the United Kingdom ratifies in future. The Order will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. The Bill also enables any reservation to a Protocol to be added, but as with the existing reservation it will have to be reviewed every five years if not withdrawn earlier.”[4]
Changes which resulted in the ability to comply with the provision of equality between spouses in Article 5 of Protocol 7, were only made in 2010.[5] However, once these changes were made, the 2010 election came along and Labour was out of office. Protocol 7 remains unratified.
The Additional Rights in these Protocols
The rights in Protocol 4:
- Prohibition of imprisonment for debt
- Freedom of movement within a territory
- Freedom to leave the territory
- Prohibition of expulsion of nationals
- Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens[6]
The rights in Protocol 7:
- Procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens
- Right of appeal in criminal matters
- Compensation for wrongful conviction
- Right not to be tried or punished twice
- Equality between spouses
The right in Protocol 12
Any right set out in law shall be secured without discrimination
Protocol 4 and 7 add rights to the ECHR, at least in part, to make up for deficiencies in the ECHR itself when compared to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – the UN’s equivalent of the ECHR. The UK ratified the ICCPR in 1976 (and now 172 countries across the World have ratified it).
The right to free movement and the prohibition on the collective expulsion of aliens contained in Protocol 4 are also set out in Articles 19 and 45 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The prohibition against double jeopardy and the equivalence between men and women contained in Protocol 7 are set out in Articles 23 and 50 of the Charter and the general prohibition against discrimination in Protocol 12 is contained in Articles 20 and 21.
Currently, Protocol 4 of the ECHR has been signed and ratified by all bar four of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe (Greece, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK have not ratified the Protocol). Protocol 7 has been signed and ratified by every one of the 46 Member States except for Germany, Netherlands and UK. If ratified, art.4 of Protocol 4 could be an important tool in challenging the effects of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and Illegal Migration Act 2023 domestically and in Strasbourg. Despite inconsistent applications of art.4 of Protocol 4, the Court’s jurisprudence is one of the few legal protections against European externalisation policies and a way for those affected to challenge domestic decisions.
Protocol 12, the general anti-discrimination provision, is also a right already contained in the ICCPR[7] but is missing from the main body of the ECHR itself. Article 14, in the main Convention, only prohibits discrimination where this relates directly to the other rights in the Convention. Protocol 12 is, however, a ‘stand-alone’ provision and has a much wider remit. Protocol 12 has been ratified by twenty Member States although it only came into force in 2005. It is accepted that it would have been more difficult for the UK to ratify in 2005. Concerns were raised regarding its potential breadth, though the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that these concerns were unwarranted.[8] In addition, the Labour Government’s Equality Act of 2010 has now resolved many of any remaining difficulties with compliance. As a signatory to a wide variety of international human rights instruments concerning equality and non-discrimination, the United Kingdom has already accepted the main principles enshrined in Protocol 12.
As with all the Convention Rights, these rights come with protections and caveats to protect the wider public interest and the interests of society more generally. This is already clear from the fact that they are all tried and tested by being part of the ICCPR, ratified across the World and by the fact that so many countries in Europe have agreed to be bound by them.
It is also clear that, all these rights are all already largely protected by provisions of domestic law. Further, to assuage concerns regarding overreach, many of the rights in these Protocols are subject to limitations or restriction. For example, restrictions which:
“are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“may … be … imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.”
“[are] necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.”
“shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.”
Many of the provisions impose important but relatively restricted ‘due process’ rights – rights to a fair procedure which is already largely set out in UK law or provided by the common law created, in large measure, by judicial review.
In relation to Protocol 12, the prohibition of discrimination, consistently with the Equality Act 2010, “distinctions for which an objective and reasonable justification exist do not constitute discrimination.”
Conclusion
The focus of protecting human rights in the UK must, at the very least, be the preservation of the Human Rights Act without any erosion of either the rights or the remedies it provides. Nevertheless, the threat to the Act will hopefully disappear now that the Labour Party is in government. It is, therefore, an important step to consider adding the further protections that are set out in Protocols 4, 7 and 12 and to bring the UK in line with most of the rest of 46 countries of the Council of Europe and the 172 countries that have ratified the ICCPR.
In the context of more the authoritarian rhetoric in politics[9] and, particularly, the regressive steps taken by the previous Government towards those seeking asylum and refuge in the UK and increasing isolation from Europe, the new Government should, at least, send a clear signal that there is a new approach being developed and indicate this by ratifying Protocols 4, 7 and 12. This will hopefully provide a way to rectify some of the damage done by recent legislation and pre-empt further attacks on human rights.
John Wadham is Human Rights Advisor to the Northern Ireland Policing Board
Fiona Byrne is an Independent Human Rights Consultant and previously Human Rights Officer at the Northern Ireland Policing Board
The views expressed are those of the authors alone.
[1] Rights Brought Home, October 1997, CM 3782, para 4.11
[2] Department of Constitutional Affairs, Report of the Outcome of an Interdepartmental Review Conducted by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, July 2004, p. 40
[3] Joint Committee on Human Rights, Review of International Human Rights Instruments, Seventeenth Report of Session 2004-05, para 38
[4] Rights Brought Home, October 1997, CM 3782, paras 4.15 and 4.16
[5] By sections 198 to 201 of the Equality Act 2010.
[6] For more detailed analysis of this provision and the applicability on legislation such as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, see John Wadham, Fiona Byrne, More Human Rights: Protocols 4, 7 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, European Human Rights Law Review 2023, Issue 6.
[7] Article 26.
[8] Joint Committee on Human Rights, 17th Report (2005–2006), HL 99, para 33
[9] For example, in 2023, the UK has been downgraded from ‘narrowed’ to ‘obstructed’ civic freedoms in a new report by the CIVICUS Monitor, a global research collaboration that rates and tracks fundamental freedoms in 197 countries and territories: https://monitor.civicus.org/country-rating-changes/uk/
Like this:
Like Loading...
15 July 2024 by Jim Duffy
As a new Chief Coroner takes up the reins, Jim Duffy is joined by 1COR colleagues Richard Mumford and Lance Baynham to discuss the challenges facing the coronial system today. They look at recent cases on Article 2 ECHR and the ordering of fresh inquests, before reflecting on how the process works for those who come into contact with it.
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
15 July 2024 by Emilia Cieslak
In UK news
Since coming into power in the recent general election, PM Keir Starmer has announced that the Rwanda asylum scheme is “dead and buried”. The announcement was made as three claimants, known only as SM, SY and YXY, were challenging their imminent removal to Rwanda on a flight scheduled for 24 July. On 09 July, the High Court held a case management hearing in which barristers acting for the government confirmed that no removal flights to Rwanda were planned and the three individuals’ asylum claims would be processed in the UK. However, the barristers did not confirm the government’s wider position on the Rwanda policy, and the impact on asylum seekers whose claims were classified as inadmissible for processing in the UK under the Rwanda policy. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has sent a list of recommendations to the new government. These include repealing the Illegal Migration Act 2023, resisting the “externalisation” of asylum processing to third countries, and streamlining the asylum process to tackle the backlog of asylum claims.
Despite media speculation and the urging of leading lawyers, the new government has not announced whether or not it will continue the UK government’s intervention in the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s decision regarding arrest warrants against Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant. The UK government seeks to argue that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israeli individuals because the Oslo Accords state that Palestine does not have criminal jurisdiction over Israeli individuals and so cannot delegate criminal jurisdiction over Israeli individuals to the ICC. The UK government does not recognise the State of Palestine. The ICC has given the UK government until 26 July to provide their full submissions.
In international news
Amnesty International has published a report analysing what it argues is a decline in protest rights in 21 European countries. The report argues that many European countries have been cracking down on protest rights through “the passing of repressive laws, establishment of onerous procedural obligations, imposition of arbitrary or discriminatory restrictions, racist policing and the use of unnecessary or excessive force against peaceful protestors, arbitrary interferences including the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of protesters, as well as increasing use of invasive surveillance technology”. Amnesty International comments that those most impacted by these measures are groups already facing discrimination in society due to, among other things, race, religion or immigration status.
In the courts
The High Court has allowed University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham to evict Palestine solidarity protesters who had set up camps on university campuses. The court held that the protesters have no real prospect of establishing discrimination on the grounds of their beliefs, a breach of the public sector equality duty, a breach of section 43 Education (No.2) Act 1986 (which ensures freedom of speech in universities), or European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights. The court held that there were many other ways in which the students could have chosen to protest and so the severity of the impact on their rights by removing the encampment “does not (by a significant margin) come anywhere close to outweighing the importance of the objective of the University being able to regain possession of its own land”. The court therefore gave the universities a summary possession order, which allows them to evict the protest camps without a full trial.
In W.W. v Poland, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the refusal to allow a transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison amounted to a violation of her Article 8 right to a private life. Ms W.W. is a trans woman who was undergoing a gender reassignment procedure since 2019 while detained in prison. When she was transferred to a different prison in 2020, the head of the prison’s medical unit refused to allow her to continue hormone therapy without additional medical tests and failed to organise prompt appointments with specialist doctors. The ECtHR held that the freedom to define one’s gender identity is “one of the most basic essentials of self-determination” and the prison official’s requirement that Ms W.W. should undergo further consultations, after she had already started a beneficial course of treatment, was disproportionate in the circumstances. In the UK, the advocacy group TransActual is currently challenging the emergency ban on the use of puberty blockers as medication for trans children, arguing that the ban was based on the Secretary of State’s personal view rather than expert or medical evidence.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council & Ors is already being felt. In ongoing litigation regarding the approval of a coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government conceded the legal challenges. The Secretary of State admitted that an error was made as the downstream emissions caused by the inevitable burning of the extracted coal were not factored into the Environmental Impact Assessment. However, litigation may continue as the other defendant in the case, West Cumbria Mining, does not agree with the Secretary of State’s position.
Like this:
Like Loading...
11 July 2024 by Guest Contributor
Introduction
The applicant in the ECtHR case of Karsai v Hungary, Mr Karsai, a 47-year-old human-rights lawyer who lives in Budapest, was diagnosed in 2022 with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) – a neurodegenerative disease that causes a progressive loss of motor neuron function leaving the patient completely paralysed, while preserving intellectual function. Mr Karsai maintains that “he will be “imprisoned in his own body without any prospect of release apart from death” and his existence will consist almost exclusively of pain and suffering” (§14). Mr Karsai applied to the ECtHR arguing that the prohibition on assisted dying under Hungarian law violated his right to private life (art. 8 ECHR); the applicant also complained the violation of his right to private life in conjunction of his right not to be discriminated against (art. 14 ECHR) because the Hungarian law offers the option of withdrawal of invasive medical treatments (and, hence, hasten their death) only to terminally ill patients who are dependent on them.
Article 8
Regarding the potential violation of the applicant’s right to privacy, his primary argument centres on his desire to control the timing of his death. Due to his medical condition, he is condemned to a life of physical incapacity, pain, and existential dread. The applicant dismisses palliative care as a viable option: “While palliative care could provide relief with respect to certain aspects of his physical suffering, it could not provide relief from the experience of existential dread” (§91). Instead, he focuses on the fact that he cannot avail himself of assisted suicide provisions either in Hungary or abroad. Hungarian law prohibits assisting a patient in procuring their death, and even those aiding with arrangements for this purpose can face prosecution (§§135; 159).
The Court observed that, due to the lack of a uniform consensus among member states on assisted dying practices, each state is granted a considerable margin of appreciation in implementing policies on such sensitive issues. The court also noted, as the recent case of Mortier v. Belgium held, that the right to life (art. 2 ECHR) does not inherently exclude the decriminalisation of assisted dying. However, this decriminalisation must be accompanied by safeguards to prevent abuses of the right to life (§§126-128; 145).
The Court, finding no violation of art. 8, held that Mr Kasai’s suffering could not dismissed lightly. It noted that the applicant’s complaint mainly focused on “existential suffering” that “although it amounts to genuine and severe anguish, existential suffering relates essentially to a personal experience, which may be susceptible to change and does not lend itself to a straightforward objective assessment” (§158). Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that “existential suffering may be refractory to medical treatment […] and that the use of sedation to alleviate it might be contested or unwarranted in certain situations […]” (§157). Professor Aubry, one of the experts consulted by the Court, emphasised two key points. First, he noted that patients suffering from the same condition as the applicant often exhibit ambivalence about their desire to die as the disease progresses. Second, he underscored the importance of palliative care for individuals affected by ALS, particularly in advanced stages, when they are typically permitted to receive palliative deep sedation and can die peacefully (§46).
Article 14
Regarding the violation of art. 8 ECHR and art. 14 ECHR the Mr Karsai argued that “Hungarian law accorded different treatment to those terminally ill persons with mental capacity who suffered from refractory symptoms but could hasten their death only by means of PAD [physician assisted dying], and those who could do so by having recourse to RWI [refusal or withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions” (§170).
In this case the Court held that the applicant’s clinical picture could not be compared to that of terminally ill patients who depend on life-sustaining medical treatments (§174). In fact, Mr Kasai’s diagnosis might lead to invasive life-sustaining interventions only towards the latest stages of his degenerative illness. Furthermore, the withholding or withdrawing of unwanted medical treatments falls within the right to informed medical consent and it is subjected to specific guidelines and safeguards in order to protect the patient’s autonomy (§175).
According to Professor Sandor, who produced an expert opinion for the Court, the right to informed consent is paramount in bioethics. On the other hand, “patients could refuse care, but could not ask for something specific” (§56). For these reasons the Court held that there has been no violation of art. 14 in conjunction with art. 8 of the Convention.
Separate opinions
Two judges’ separate opinions provide an opportunity to delve deeper into the reasoning of the Court’s majority, as they both address the fundamental principles underlying the final decision. Judge Wojtyczek in his separate concurring opinion disagreed with the majority that the applicant’s request to have access to physician assisted dying would fall under his right to respect his private life. The judge emphasised how the right to life – as the practical and effective basis for the enjoyment of all other rights – may hardly “encompass decisions about one’s own life and death” and for this reason, the right to private life, should not extend to the choice of death (§4, Judge Wojtyczek partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion). He noted that the suffering stemming from a personal feeling in relation to the absence of meaning of life may be exacerbated (or not properly tackled) if people can choose their own death.
Judge Felici, dissenting on both accounts with the Court’s majority, firstly emphasised his impression that “the applicant’s legitimate concerns were not taken into account, and that his legitimate request for help fell on deaf ears” (§7, Judge Felici dissenting opinion). In fact, according to Judge Felici, palliative care could not be considered a feasible option to ease the applicant’s suffering since “the expert consulted have indicated that there is currently no medical treatment capable of alleviating existential suffering” (§9, Judge Felici dissenting opinion, my emphasis). In other words, the dissenting Judge stressed an evident reality: so far medicine has not been able to offer a cure to the sentiment that life has lost its meaning. And, for this reason, assisted dying is envisaged as the only possible answer to the applicant existential cry for help. Consequently, the dissenting judge finds that the impossibility for the applicant to avail himself of assisted dying provisions both in his country and abroad would breach his right to privacy enshrined by art. 8 of the Convention.
Specifically, Hungary – compared to other member states which permit assisted dying or are paying great attention on the matter – would have failed to address the severe suffering of the applicant (§5, Judge Felici dissenting opinion). Therefore, Judge Felici dissented that in this instance the margin of appreciation doctrine (which applies on sensitive matters where there is no uniform agreement) should not be invoked. Giving that, “there are no insurmountable legal obstacles to affirming a positive obligation on the part of the State, having regard to all the characteristics of this case, in relation to the application of Article 8 of the Convention” (§6, Judge Felici dissenting opinion).
Secondly, the Judge disagreed with the Court majority’s decision according to which the applicant’s medical condition should be considered similar to the one endured by terminally-ill patients subjected to invasive life-sustaining medical treatments since Mr Kasai’s condition has made him dependant on others for all his personal needs. Hence Judge Felici argued that “the subordination of the decision to take one’s life to whether one is dependent on life-saving treatment represents an unnecessary reduction of the protection of the right to life and an interference in private life, understood as the individual’s capacity for self-determination” (§13, Judge Felici dissenting opinion).
Dr Ilaria Bertini is a Research Fellow at BIOS Centre
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 July 2024 by Kate Litman
In UK news
An investigation by Liberty Investigates and Metro found that a number of UK universities have been providing intelligence on pro-Palestine student protesters to the police. The investigation described “varying degrees of cooperation and intelligence sharing” in correspondence between universities and police forces. A manager at Queen Mary University of London wrote to the police that “[w]e are monitoring closely the plans of the students in the encampment and will provide you with the details when they are known”. Universities named in the investigation said they were committed to protecting and encouraging free speech.
Student protesters are also facing challenges in the courts, with multiple universities seeking possession orders in order to evict pro-Palestine encampments from campus grounds. The University of Birmingham sought a possession order on Thursday. The defendant student argued that granting the University possession would be unlawful because it would discriminate against her protected philosophical beliefs and interfere with her rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The University argued that the occupation is not a mere expression of opinion, but is designed to interfere with the University’s activities, citing over £250,000 of costs incurred as a consequence of the encampment. Judgment has been reserved until a later date.
In other news, The Undercover Policing Inquiry started ‘Tranche 2’ hearings on Monday, entering a phase of the inquiry which covers the conduct and management of the Special Demonstration Squad between 1983 and 1992. The Metropolitan Police Service acknowledged wrongdoing during this period in its opening statement. The MPS described the fact that at least nine undercover officers engaged in “deceitful sexual relationships” during their deployments as “completely unacceptable” and apologised “for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen”. The MPS also acknowledged that there was “unnecessary reporting” on groups which “did not present any risk of serious public disorder and were not engaged in any criminal or subversive activity”, including groups which were campaigning for police accountability.
In international news
On Tuesday the President of Sierra Leone, Julius Maada Bio, signed the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act into law, banning marriage with a child under 18. In 2021 UNICEF reported that 30% of women and girls in Sierra Leone married in childhood. Sierra Leone’s First Lady Fatima Bio, who was a victim of child marriage and championed the bill, described how child marriage “destroys [children] before they even know who they are”. She said there was no excuse not to comply with the law. The law has been welcomed by human rights campaigners as a historic step forward for the rights of the child inthe country.
In the courts
The US Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority on Monday that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” when carrying out their constitutional powers. They remain liable for private conduct. Justice Roberts delivered the majority judgment, writing that the President must be able to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly” without the threat of prosecution. In a strong dissenting judgment Justice Sotomayor wrote that the president “is now a king above the law”. US President Joe Biden described the decision as setting a “dangerous precedent” which undermined the rule of law.
The Supreme Court of Kansas ruled on Friday that a state law banning the most common second-trimester abortion procedure violated the state’s constitution. Delivering the decision for the majority, Justice Eric Rosen wrote that the court stood by its 2019 decision that “the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy”. Several nearby states including Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri banned abortion following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the historic ruling in Roe v Wade, removing a right to abortion under the US Constitution. Kansas has become a destination where women living in those states can travel to obtain an abortion.
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 July 2024 by Angus McCullough KC
One of the most striking appointments to Sir Keir Starmer’s administration has been that of Richard Hermer KC to the office of Attorney General. In that capacity, as the Government’s senior Law Officer, Hermer will attend Cabinet. He is a hugely respected senior barrister, who has never been a member of Parliament having spent his professional life in independent practice with a formidable and distinguished legal career. He is extremely well placed to give the Government independent legal advice of the highest quality, as one would hope for from the AG.
Hermer’s appointment has been widely applauded, giving tangible reassurance of the new Prime Minister’s genuine commitment to the rule of law. These plaudits include the following generous tribute from Lord Wolfson KC, a Conservative peer and former Justice Minster (as well as an eminent and respected barrister himself).
Hermer’s experience at the Bar includes many cases involving closed material procedures – CMPs, the controversial system of “secret justice” about which I have written extensively on this blog, from my perspective a Special Advocate operating within that system. For readers with the stomach for it, the dismal story of their neglect can be charted through these articles.
The new AG therefore knows at first hand the importance, challenges, and frustrations of cases that are subject to CMPs. As Attorney General he is now responsible for the recruitment and formal appointment of Special Advocates, whilst the Secretary of State for Justice has the duty to provide an effective system in which we operate, to minimise the unfairness that is inherent in CMPs.
Together with other Special Advocates I had some positive – but ultimately unproductive – engagement with Hermer’s immediate predecessor as Attorney, Victoria Prentis, and her colleague as Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk. It was disappointing that between them they failed to implement any concrete steps to address the long-standing issues around CMPs, including since the Ouseley review was published in November 2022. This has driven me, and many other Special Advocate colleagues, to decline to take any new appointments – a hard decision which we have each come to with reluctance.
On 1 July 2024 (a few days before the General Election) almost every individual on the current list of Special Advocates, including in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Attorney General to express our disappointment at the Government’s response to the Ouseley review, published on the last day before the dissolution of Parliament, in continuing failure to address these issues, including proper support for Special Advocates (most urgently in Northern Ireland) and a closed judgment database. The Government did not consult the Special Advocates in formulating its response, despite repeated encouragement to do so. They rejected 4 out of 20 recommendations from the Ouseley report, including a significant one in relation to the attendance of Special Advocates at mediation and other ADR procedures, without which Ouseley indicated there was “potential for unfairness”. The Government’s rejection is on a basis that seems wrong and unjustifiable. Our recent letter to the AG concluded:
“All those of us who had felt driven to decline new appointments remain of that position and will keep that under review. Those of us who had not reached the point of refusing new appointments are also keeping our positions under close review in the light of further developments, including action or inaction by you and the Lord Chancellor (or your successors in Government) following the General Election. Only one of us signing this letter is not planning to keep their position under review, while fully sharing the concerns of all of us that are set out above.“
Our letter should be on the new Attorney’s desk. Facing the new Government are many larger-scale and more intractable problems with the justice system than CMPs. The proper support for these procedures. and the Special Advocates that are components essential to their functioning, should be one of the easiest issues, in both practical and financial terms, for the incoming regime to address without further delay.
I enthusiastically join in the warm congratulations to Hermer and his colleague in Cabinet, Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmood MP, on their appointments. I hope that they will re-visit their predecessors’ (long-delayed) response to the (long-delayed) Ouseley review to ensure that effective action is now taken urgently. I stand ready with other Special Advocates to help them to achieve that.
Angus McCulllough KC is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row Chambers.
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 July 2024 by Emma-Louise Fenelon
His Honor Judge Mark Lucraft KC, Chief Coroner of England & Wales from 2016-2020 endorsed the guide saying the following:
“This important guide equips practitioners and coroners to recognise, raise and investigate issues of race or racism when they arise, sensitively and without reticence. It is an invaluable resource, not only for promoting racial justice, but for improving fact finding, increasing racial awareness, and providing better representation to families.”
Emma Snell is a Senior Legal Fellow at JUSTICE.
Christian Weaver is a barrister at Garden Court North Chambers and the author of The Law in 60 seconds: A Pocket Guide to Your Rights, and of the upcoming Your Right to Protest: Understand It, Use It. For those interested in other publications from INQUEST, see here
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 July 2024 by Rosalind English
R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County
Council and others (Respondents)
A detailed summary of the issues and the facts in this case can be found in the Supreme Court’s Press Release. The report below gives a very short account of these followed by a focus on the majority and dissenting judgments. I quote Lord Sales in some detail as the concerns expressed in his dissent will only prevail if Parliament were to legislate for them to do so.
Legal and factual background
In December 2018, the second respondent, Horse Hill Developments Ltd, sought planning permission from the first respondent, Surrey County Council (“the Council”), to retain and expand an existing onshore oil well site and to drill for four new wells, enabling the production of hydrocarbons from six wells over a period of 25 years. The environmental impact assessment for the project had to be carried out under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (which implemented the Directive 2011/92 EU).
The Council considered the environmental impacts of “the direct releases of greenhouse gases from with the well site boundary resulting from the site’s construction, production, decommissioning and subsequent restoration over the lifetime of the proposed development.” However, it did not assess the environmental impacts of the downstream greenhouse gas emissions that would inevitably result when the oil extracted from the development site was later refined and then used, for example, as fuel. The developer argued that, as regards the impact of the project on climate, the scope of the EIA should be confined to the direct releases of greenhouse gases from within the well site boundary during the lifetime of the project; and that the EIA need not include an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions that would occur when the oil extracted from the wells was ultimately burnt elsewhere as fuel. The council accepted this approach and granted planning permission for the development on 27 September 2019. The appellant, acting on behalf of a local action group, applied for judicial review of the Council’s decision. Her claim was unsuccessful before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This was her appeal to the Supreme Court
The question that the Court had to decide was this. Was it unlawful for the Council not to require the environmental impact assessment for a project of crude oil extraction for commercial purposes to include an assessment of the impacts of downstream greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the eventual use of the refined products of the extracted oil?
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
1 July 2024 by Emilia Cieslak
In UK news
Julian Assange has been released from HM Prison Belmarsh after accepting a plea deal with American prosecutors. Assange pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, for communicating with whistleblower Chelsea Manning and receiving and publishing classified information regarding Guantanamo Bay, the Afghan and Iraq war, and US diplomatic cables. After being released from Belmarsh, he travelled to the North Mariana Islands to enter his plea, before travelling on to Australia now a free man. NGOs and media figures have voiced concerns that Assange’s guilty plea will have a chilling effect on journalists.
The Grantham Research Institute based at LSE has published a report charting the rise of climate litigation. The report found that in 2023, 230 new cases were filed against governments and companies challenging their response to the climate crisis. The report describes how these cases are reaching new domestic jurisdictions and anticipates that more cases are likely to be filed after the success of KlimaSeniorinnen and ors v. Switzerland at the ECtHR. In the UK, the Supreme Court recently held that the grant of planning permission for oil production in Surrey was unlawful as it failed to assess the greenhouse gas emissions that would inevitably arise after the oil was burnt. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making, leading some to speculate that the judgment could spur on new legal challenges to climate policy. See Rosalind English’s post on this ruling in the UKHRB here.
In international news
This week saw multiple international courts react to Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine. International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have issued arrest warrants against Russian officials Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu (former Minister of Defence) and Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov (Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of Defence). The ICC judges found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they bear individual criminal responsibility for crimes including directing attacks at civilian objectives, causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects and inhumane acts. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia is responsible for a wide variety of human rights abuses in Crimea, a Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia in 2014. The judgment deals with events that took place before the full scale invasion in 2022, and chronicles a systematic campaign of repression against Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar civil society. This includes the transfer of political prisoners to Russia and restrictions on Ukrainian language and culture. The ECtHR unanimously found breaches of articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 1, articles 2 of Protocol 4, and articles 14 and 18.
The ICC has allowed the UK government to present legal arguments that it does not have jurisdiction over Israeli nationals, likely delaying the court’s decision whether or not to issue arrest warrants against PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant (Minister of Defence). The NGO Forbidden Stories has collaborated with Israeli +972 magazine to document the alleged targeting of journalists within Gaza, as over 100 journalists have been killed since October 2023. The UN has published another famine alert for Gaza stating that 96% of the population faces acute food insecurity at “crisis” level or higher.
In the courts
The Court of Appeal has held that the National Crime Agency (NCA) misdirected itself in law when deciding not to investigate whether imported cotton products from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) were the product of forced labour or other human rights abuses committed by China. The Uyghurs are a Turkic Muslim minority subject to intense repression in China, which some argue amounts to a genocide (this is disputed by the UK government). The court recognised that there is a consensus regarding widespread exploitation and abuse within China’s cotton production and that 85% of Chinese cotton comes from XUAR. The court held that the NCA was wrong to state that it could not start an investigation unless a specific consignment of cotton produced through human rights abuses was identified. Furthermore, the NCA was wrong to state that providing “adequate consideration” for goods could prevent goods imported into the UK from constituting criminal property.
The US Supreme Court has struck down the Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most influential precedents in US administrative law. The “Chevron doctrine” was a rule of statutory interpretation; it stated that where Congress did not directly address the meaning of a statute, a court was required to defer to the administrative agencies’ interpretation as long as it was reasonable. In the leading judgment, Judge Roberts stated that it is the role of the courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says”. Therefore, this case represents a big shift in the balance of power from the executive to the judiciary.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 June 2024 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
On Thursday, representatives from Liberty, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Inclusion London addressed journalists at a briefing in Westminster to call for politicians and the public to stay alert to human rights issues over the election campaign period. Warnings were given about the diminution in worker’s and migrant’s rights, among others, in recent years. Calls were made by multiple representatives for closer scrutiny of the potential implications of challenges to human rights frameworks such as the HRA and ECHR. “Human rights in the UK have too long been cast in political debate as an obstacle”, said Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive of Amnesty International. “In reality, they can provide solutions to the problems we face here, at home, and on the global stage”.
Several anti-racism campaigning groups, led by Action for Race Equality, published a manifesto last Friday in anticipation of Windrush Day calling for immediate reform to the Windrush Generation documentation scheme, claiming that the ongoing backlog is worsening the ‘unconscionable’ trauma inflicted upon the Windrush Generation. Government figures suggest over 50,000 individuals remain eligible for the scheme. Saturday saw the sixth annual celebration of Windrush Day, marking 76 years since the arrival of the HMT Empire Windrush in 1948 which carried hundreds of passengers arriving to the UK from the Caribbean. The Windrush Generation had been invited to Britain in an attempt to help rebuild the post-war economy. In April 2018, the ‘Windrush scandal’ begun when it emerged that the Home Office had kept no formal records of Commonwealth individuals living in the UK with indefinite leave to remain granted under the Immigration Act 1971. This had resulted in those affected being unable to prove their legal migration status, thus unable to access healthcare, housing, employment and more. Many were deported or threatened with deportation. Windrush Day celebrates the legacy of these individuals in the UK and the contributions they have made to British society. The event was marked on Saturday with exhibitions, block parties, and other festivities.
In Other News
Last Wednesday, the UN Office for Human Rights published a thematic report finding that Israeli airstrikes in Gaza might have ‘systematically violated’ several of the ‘fundamental principles of international humanitarian law on the conduct of hostilities’. ‘When committed intentionally’, the report states, ‘such violations may amount to war crimes’. Six events were investigated as emblematic incidents of attack since October 7th. The events were assessed across the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, finding breaches of all. ‘The scale of human death and destruction wrought by Israel’s bombing of Gaza since 7 October has been immense’, the report states. The report calls for immediate, thorough, and transparent investigations into all allegations of violations of international human rights law, noting that the time already elapsed since several of the incidents assessed ‘calls into serious question the compliance of [Israeli Government] processes with international obligations to ensure prompt and effective accountability’. Israeli representatives have condemned the report. Israel’s mission to the UN have stated they believe “the only objective of this thematic report is to lambast and single-out Israel, while further shielding Hamas terrorists in Gaza”.
Last Tuesday, Thailand’s Senate passed a marriage equality bill by an overwhelming majority during an ad-hoc parliamentary session, the bill garnering the approval of 130 out of 152 members. The country will become the first in Southeast Asia to recognise same-sex marriage and the third Asian jurisdiction after Taiwan and Nepal. The bill will become effective following royal assent and 120 days after publication in the Government Gazette. The bill will amend Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code to replace gendered words like ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with gender neutral alternatives such as ‘individual’. Mookdapa Yangyuenpradorn, representative for the human rights organisation Fortify Rights, has called the bill’s passage a “triumph for justice and human rights”. She added that “marriage equality is fundamental to human dignity, and it is essential that Thailand protects these rights without delay or discrimination.”
In the Courts
The Namibia High Court has held that the common law offences of sodomy and unnatural sexual offences are unconstitutional as they amount to unjustified discrimination against the LGBT community. As such, the impugned laws have been declared invalid. In June 2022, Namibian LGBT+ activist Friedel Dausab launched a legal challenge to the constitutionality of Namibia’s anti-homosexuality laws. The laws criminalise same-sex sexual activity – the campaign sought to see the laws held unconstitutional and to overturn the convictions made under them. In May 2023, the Namibian Supreme Court recognised same-sex marriages lawfully entered abroad, after which the parliament passed bills restricting marriage to those of opposite sex. Support or promotion of same-sex unions was criminalised with up to 6 years imprisonment. Dausab has celebrated the judgment, stating: “I feel elated. I’m so happy. This really is a landmark judgment, not just for me, but for our democracy.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 June 2024 by Lucy McCann
Our 200th episode is the second of our International Women’s Day series exploring gender at the Bar.
In this series, Lucy McCann and Rajkiran Arhestey speak to Lady Justice Whipple, Sally Smith KC, Clodagh Bradley KC, Cara Guthrie, Judith Rogerson, Isabel McArdle, Emma-Louise Fenelon and Chloe Turvill about their experiences, in the hope of drawing out some key reflections and continuing the conversation about gender and the profession.
In this episode, Lucy and Kiran discuss a number of issues relating to parenthood, including pregnancy, maternity and paternity leave, childcare, gendered assumptions about caring and family life.
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on here on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 June 2024 by Kate Litman
In UK News
A report published by the Runnymede Trust on Monday found that black people, and especially black children, are subject to disproportionate rates of strip search across all police forces in England and Wales. The report analysed Home Office data and concluded that black children are 6.5 times more likely to be subject to a strip search than white children, and black adults 4.7 times more likely than white adults. The report described how strip searching “can be severely traumatic and humiliating, particularly for children, with long lasting effects such as anxiety, depression and lower educational attainment”. The Home Office recently a conducted a consultation on proposed reforms to police codes of practice which would create additional protections for children subjected to strip searches, noting that “too often… safeguarding and child protection have not been sufficiently prioritised”. The government’s response is due to be published later this year.
It was the seventh anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire on Friday. Campaigners from the Infected Blood scandal and the COVID-19 Bereaved Families group joined Grenfell United to call for a national body to scrutinise the implementation of recommendations made following inquests and inquiries. Campaigners said that the lack of oversight prevents lessons being learnt that could prevent future deaths, and argued that if recommendations made by a coroner following the 2009 Lakanal House fire had been implemented, the Grenfell Tower fire might have been avoided. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 Report will be published on 4 September.
In international news
Lord Sumption warned that Hong Kong is “slowly becoming a totalitarian state” in an opinion piece explaining his decision to resign from the territory’s final court of appeal. Lord Sumption explained that the “oppressive atmosphere” and challenges such as the “illiberal” national security legislation meant he felt it was no longer realistic to hope that he could help sustain the rule of law as an overseas judge. The government of Hong Kong issued a statement refuting Lord Summation’s comments, stating that any claims of political pressure on judges were “totally baseless”.
In the courts
On Tuesday the European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in Nealon and Hallam v United Kingdom. Nealon and Hallam spent 17 and 7 years in prison respectively before their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal. The two were denied compensation for the time they had spent in prison because they could not prove their innocence beyond all reasonable doubt. The pair argued that once their convictions had been overturned, they should be presumed innocent and that the compensation scheme therefore violated their Article 6 rights. The Court found that Article 6 was engaged, but a majority of 12 found that that the UK’s compensation rules did not breach the presumption of innocence in practice. The Court held that requiring an applicant to show beyond all reasonable doubt that they did not commit an offence was not tantamount to a positive finding that they did the commit the offence. Further, the majority commented that it was not the Court’s role to “determine how States should translate into material terms the moral obligation they might owe to persons who had been wrongfully convicted”. A dissenting judgment of five judges noted that the test in the UK was “virtually insurmountable” and revealed a “highly undesirable attitude towards the presumption of innocence”.
Like this:
Like Loading...
11 June 2024 by Rosalind English
This article was first published in Edition 33 of the Journal of Environmental Law and Management. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of the editors at Lawtext Publishing Limited
On Monday 9 April 2024 the Strasbourg Court handed down judgment in three cases involving climate change: Carême v France (ECHR no 7189/21), Duarte Agostinho v Portugal and 32 others ( ECHR no 39371/20), and Verein Klimaseniorinnen v Switzerland [2024] ECHR 304, no 53600/20.
Interestingly, shortly before the Strasbourg judges had reached their decision in these three cases, the New Zealand Supreme Court considered an application for strike-out of a challenge to a number of carbon-emitting businesses based on the tort of public nuisance as well as a new form of action, that involved a duty to cease materially contributing damage to the climate system: Michael John Smith (appellant) v Fronterra Co-operative group Ltd and Others [2024] NZSC 5. I will come back to this judgment later in this article.
First, we turn to the more recent Strasbourg cases. Each of these cases was examined by the same composition of the Grand Chamber, and each raised unprecedented issues before the Court.The particular nature of the problems arising from climate change in terms of the Convention issues has not so far been addressed in the Court’s case law. I will concentrate on the one successful application, Verein Klimaseniorinnen v Switzerland. Both Carême and Duarte Agostinho failed with their applications on procedural grounds; most notably, the Duarte Agostinho application was dismissed due to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
In Verein Klimaseniorinnen, some female senior citizens and a representative organisation (Klimaseniorinnen) argued that the impact of global warming on their health breached a number of Articles of the ECHR. The Strasbourg Court was satisfied in this instance that they had exhausted their local remedies, although it found that the individual applicants had not satisfied ‘victim status’ for the purposes of Article 34 ECHR; they had failed to demonstrate the existence of a sufficient link between the harm they had allegedly suffered (or would suffer in the future) and climate change. But the Court held, by 16 votes to one, that the applicant association did have locus standi in the present proceedings and that its com- plaint should be examined under Article 8 of the Convention.
Having admitted the association’s complaint, the Grand Chamber found that states are under a positive obligation under Article 8 to provide effective protection from ‘serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life’. In order to achieve this, states must enforce regulations that are capable of mitigating current and future impacts of climate change by having in place a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions and achieving carbon neutrality over the decades leading to 2050. Switzerland had failed in this in that it had not quantified a carbon budget, nor had it set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It had also exceeded its previous GHG emission reduction targets, which resulted in a violation of Article 8. There was ‘no doubt’, said the Court, that climate change-induced heatwaves had caused, were causing and would cause further deaths and illnesses to older people and particularly women (represented by the Klimaseniorinnen association).
There was one sole dissent from the majority’s findings on admissibility and the merits. Further on in this article I will explore the different opinion of the British representative on the panel, Judge Eicke. Before that, we will look at the main arguments before the Court.
The Swiss Government argued that global warming had not reached the necessary level to create a tangible effect on the private and family life of the individual applicants under Article 8, including on their mental well-being.
The respondent state party also maintained that the Court should not allow the applicant association to circumvent the mechanism established under the Paris Agreement by seeking to establish, under the Convention, an international judicial control mechanism to review the measures to limit GHG emissions.
Various other governments intervened in this application to say, in effect, that the response to climate change should be an effective global response and that the Court should not, indeed could not, engage in a form of law- making and regulation which would bypass the role of the democratic process and institutions in the response to climate change.
The Swiss Federation also had quite a forceful argument on the in limine question of jurisdiction: it submitted that GHG emissions generated abroad could not be considered as attracting the responsibility of Switzerland as those emissions could not be directly linked to any alleged omissions on the part of Switzerland, whose authorities did not have direct control over the sources of emissions. Moreover, the whole system established by the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement was based on the principle of territoriality and the responsibility of states for emissions on their territory.Thus, said the respondent, the applicants could not complain about certain imports containing ‘embedded emissions’ from other jurisdictions. The Court did not agree. Although ‘embedded emissions’ contained an extraterritorial aspect, it did not raise an issue of Switzerland’s jurisdiction in respect of the applicants, but rather one of Switzerland’s responsibility for the alleged effects of the ‘embedded emissions’ on the applicants’ Convention rights.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments