We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
Conor Monighan brings us the latest updates in human rights law
Credit: The Guardian
In the News:
The High Court has granted a without-notice injunction which bans protesters from gathering outside a primary school’s gates.
Protesters have been campaigning for weeks against Anderton Park Primary School’s decision to teach its pupils about LGBT issues. The activists argue that the children are ‘too young’ to understand the relationships. Some have also stated that it conflicts with Islamic teaching.
The Headteacher, Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, told the media that she has received a number of threatening messages. The school had to close early for half-term due to the protests.
Birmingham City Council applied for the injunction last week on the basis that the protests were beginning to jeopardise the safety of staff, pupils and parents. The injunction will last until the 10th June.
The Christmas decorations at Middle Temple. Photo by the author.
This time last year I wrote that 2019 had been “perhaps the most tumultuous period in British politics for decades”. Little did I know what 2020 would have in store.
The Covid-19 pandemic has caused loss, suffering and anxiety across not only the UK but almost all of the globe. At the UK Human Rights Blog, we feel deep gratitude to the doctors, nurses, carers and essential workers who have kept society going in what has been a deeply difficult year for so many of us.
In light of this, it is perhaps harder to summon the usual festive spirit that graces the approach of the holiday period — particularly as so many of us will be separated from our loved ones. And yet, perhaps it makes holding onto some spirit of joy all the more necessary.
Writing the article summing up the legal developments of the year is one of the highlights for me as commissioning editor of this blog. Let us embark together on a tour of what the courts had to say over the last 12 months. As ever, it has been a very interesting year.
Women’s rights and gender equality issues have been at the forefront of the news this week. The appalling murder of Sarah Everard, abducted when walking home in London, has elicited a huge social media response. In particular, it has highlighted the problematic phenomenon of victim-blaming directed at women, with advice focusing on teaching woman how to avoid being sexually harassed, rather than educating men about how to be better allies in calling out the misogynistic behaviour that enables harassment. These events coincided with statistics published by the World Health Organisation on Tuesday, which found that one in three women have been physically or sexually assaulted by their male partner across the world, and a survey conducted by UN Women UK published on Wednesday, which showed that 97% of women between the ages of 18 and 24 had been sexually harassed. The latter study also revealed that the majority of women don’t report these incidents because they don’t have confidence that the abuse will be dealt with effectively by the police or the legal system. On Tuesday the government unveiled the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which, among other changes, has amended the sentencing laws for sexual offenders, enabling them to be put behind bars for longer. The government stated the new legislation was aimed at ‘restoring confidence in the criminal justice system’. However, given current statistics indicating a diminished number of successful rape prosecutions in the last year, it seems unlikely that the mere possibility of tougher sentences for sexual offenders once convicted is going to improve women’s confidence in the justice system. In fact, the new Bill has been substantially criticised by equality and civil liberties campaigners because it will increase the powers of the police to shut down public protest. Under the new law, the Home Secretary would be able to label particular protests as a ‘serious disruption’, enabling the police to then impose stringent conditions on the demonstration. The first detailed discussion of the Bill in Parliament today comes after accusations that the police were ‘too heavy-handed’ in dealing with demonstrators at the Sarah Everard vigil on Saturday evening. However, the Conservative majority in the Commons will almost certainly ensure that the Bill passes.
A white supremacist murdered 50 worshippers and injured 50 more in two consecutive terrorist attacks at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand during Friday Prayer on 15 March 2019. The victims’ ages ranged from 3 to 77. Immediately prior to the attacks, the perpetrator emailed a 73-page manifesto to more than 30 recipients, including several media outlets and the office of Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. It expressed anti-immigrant hate speech, white supremacist rhetoric, and an unequivocal statement that the motive behind the attacks was to accelerate anti-Muslim and anti-migrant sentiment across majority white nations.
On Monday 23rd November, a self-isolating Boris Johnson announced a new system of restrictions to replace the UK’s second month-long lockdown, due to come into effect on Wednesday 2nd December. The new set of rules represents a stricter and no less confusing version of the old three-tiered system.
Non-essential shops, gyms, and hairdressers will be allowed to reopen across the country. People are still encouraged to minimise travel and to work from home where possible. The following additional tiered restrictions will apply:
Tier 1 (Medium Risk):
The ‘Rule of Six’ will apply for both indoor and outdoor gatherings
Pubs and restaurants must shut at 11pm
Limited numbers of spectators may be permitted at sports and music events
Tier 2 (High Risk):
People from different households may not meet indoors
The ‘Rule of Six’ will apply for outdoor gatherings
Pubs and restaurants must shut at 11pm
Alcohol can be served only alongside a substantial meal
Tier 3 (Very High Risk):
People from different households may not mix indoors or outdoors in hospitality venues or private gardens
People from different households may only mix in public spaces like parks, where the ‘Rule of Six’ will apply
Pubs and restaurants must close except for takeaway and delivery services
Travelling into and out of the area is discouraged
(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
There is no directly corresponding provision in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 20 – the right to equality before the law – is more related to ECHR Art.14, and Article 47, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial is based on Art. 13 ECHR which guarantees the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations. However, it has been argued before the European Court of Justice that Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 contain effectively the same fair trial rights (see David Hart’s post on this issue).
The protection of Article 6 ECHR only extends to those disputes that concern a “civil right” (as well of course to the determination of any criminal charge against an individual). The jurisprudence on what does or does not constitute a “civil right” is complex and lengthy but a general rule is that the characterisation of the matter in domestic law is not determinative – Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium (1981) 4 EHRR 1 – and while such civil rights could be brought into play either by direct challenge or by administrative action, it was the nature and purpose of the administrative action that determined whether its impact on private law rights was such that a legal challenge involved a determination of civil rights. In R(Begum) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2003] 2 AC 430 the House of Lords was prepared to assume that a decision as to housing for a homeless person did involve a “civil right” but in the more recent case of Ali v Birmingham City Council [2010] 2 AC 39 the Supreme Court confronted that question and decided that it did not.
A parent’s rights to contact with, and custody of, a child constitute “civil rights” for the purposes of Art.6. This means that they must have a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. When a mother was refused access to her child by the local authority, and she was unable to challenge that refusal in court, there was found to be a breach of her Art. 6 rights (although the case was settled after it was declared admissible in Strasbourg: Application no. 11468/85, 15 December 1986). A more recent case against Croatia indicated that exclusion of a mother from the adoption (X v Croatia, 17 July 2008).
It is hardly surprising that domestic courts encounter some confusion when they come to determine whether a matter involves a “civil right” or not; Strasbourg case law on the point is far from clear. In trying to determine whether a freezing order on a claimant’s assets affected his civil rights, Sedley LJ observed that the Strasbourg Court is very clear about the concept having an autonomous meaning, but “What is neither certain nor clear is what that meaning is.” (Maftah v FCO [2011] EWCA Civ 350, and see our post on this case here)
Particular difficulties have been caused by the fast-changing Strasbourg case law on employment disputes involving public servants, which until recently have been excluded from the purview of Article 6. The Court decided in Pellegrin v France (2001) 31 EHRR not to allow administrative servants the guarantees of Article 6 because their employment involves important state imperatives, but defining this kind of employment is far from easy, as was demonstrated by the case of an army chaplain who sought redress for alleged unfairness; after considering the authorities Nichol J found that the claimant fell within the Pellegrin exception under the test laid down in Eskelinen v Finland (2007). See our discussion on this judgment here.
The requirements of fairness imposed on Member States by this Article apply to civil and criminal litigation. Art.6 , taken as a whole, has been held to ensure not only a fair trial once litigation is under way but to impose an obligation on States to ensure access to justice (Golder v United Kingdom (1975) 1 EHRR 524: interference with a prisoner’s correspondence with a solicitor constituted a breach of his right of access to court under Art.6 , even though litigation was not pending). Most recent litigation has concerned the matter of costs; whilst the right of access to justice is implied in Article 6(1), the original case on costs, Airey v Ireland (1979), has not been interpreted to impose on states an obligation to provide a legal aid scheme. Legal aid constitutes one avenue to justice but there are others, such as the availability of representation under a contingent or conditional fee agreement. Legal representation is not considered indispensable in all cases. Where there are no particularly complicated points of law, the state is not compelled to provide a publicly funded lawyer (HH (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 504 ). In environmental challenges, on the other hand, the right of access to (affordable) access coincides with the obligation on states imposed by the Aarhus Convention to avoid prohibitive expense where individuals or groups ask the courts to enforce environmental law. The Aarhus Convention is part of EU law therefore may be relied upon in UK courts, until such time as the UK’s departure from the EU is finalised.
The requirement that the trial be conducted by an “independent and impartial tribunal” is satisfied if an internal disciplinary appeals board consists equally of members of the relevant profession and members of the judiciary: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium (1981)4 EHRR 1.
At the Strasbourg level the most litigated requirement in Art.6 is the obligation on States to ensure that proceedings do not exceed a “reasonable time”. The circumstances of the case may determine the importance of expedition; in AIDS cases the Court’s approach has been stricter than in other areas, since the rapid dispatch of compensation claims is essential in respect to terminally ill patients (X v France (1992)14 EHRR 483). The Court has also take a strict approach to delay in child care cases where the child may have bonded with its new carers: H v United Kingdom (1987) 10 EHRR 95.
The requirement of a public hearing relates to proceedings in courts of first and only instance. The failure to provide a public hearing will not be cured by making the appeal proceedings public where the case is not reheard on its merits: Le Compte .
If the initial hearing (eg by a regulator) does not fulfil the requirements of independence and impartiality, appeal may cure the defect: Bryan v United Kingdom (1996). In any event if the matter is essentially one of policy, the detailed requirements of Art.6 do not necessarily apply: see the House of Lords ruling in Alconbury (2001) and the line of cases preceding the House of Lords’ analysis in R(Begum) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council .In many administrative fields, such as planning, an administrator may be decision-maker, and not “an independent..tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6(1), but the process will be Article 6(1) compliant, if an aggrieved party has a right of appeal or review from that decision before such a tribunal.
And the law? Well, rather a lot has happened really. As the festive season draws near, what better way is there to celebrate than to rewind the clock and relive the 10 cases which have defined 2019?
Sudesh Amman, the perpetrator of the Streatham knife attack (Credit: The Guardian)
The Government has announced that it will introduce emergency legislation to prevent terrorists from being automatically released after they have served half their sentence. Under the proposals, the parole board would have to authorise offenders’ release from prison. Individuals will need to have served two thirds of their sentence before being eligible.
The changes come after a knife attack in Streatham, London, in which a number of people were stabbed. The police and parole board were not able to prevent the automatic release of Sudesh Amman, the perpetrator of the attack.
Robert Buckland MP (the Justice Secretary) has confirmed that the proposals relate to current and previous offenders. There is also the possibility that further punishments may be proposed.
The changes have already been sharply criticised by some. Liberty has questioned whether the proposals are legal, because it means retrospectively altering people’s sentences. The BBC reports that Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has suggested that the plans may be illegal.
Mr Buckland responded by arguing that the proposals relate to the ‘administration’ of the sentence, rather than altering its fundamental features (such as its length or type).
The government will try to pass the required legislation in six weeks in order to prevent the release of Mohammed Zahir Khan. Mr Khan, who is due to be released on the 28th February, was convicted after sharing extremist material and calling for the death of Shia Muslims.
The measures are designed to complement recent announcements. These have included making inmates undergo lie detector tests before they are released and recruiting probation officers that specialise in counter-terrorism.
It seems likely that a legal challenge will be forthcoming. Continue reading →
Opinion has been divided this week after a landmark High Court ruling on Friday declared that the government’s right to rent scheme is breaching human rights laws and actively creating racial discrimination in the housing market.
The scheme requires landlords in England check the immigration status of tenants, with fines of up to £3,000 and a potential prison term if they fail to do so. Introduced by sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, right to rent is a cornerstone of the government’s hostile environment policy, which aims to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the UK. The High Court said that it would be illegal to roll the scheme out out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without further evaluation. Mr Justice Spencer noted that the scheme had ‘little or no effect’ on immigration control, and that independent evidence ‘strongly showed’ the scheme was ‘indirectly’ discriminatory, causing landlords to turn down potential tenants because of their nationality or ethnicity.
The Prime Minister and Secretary of State are right to give their backing to schools and other institutions which insist on removing face coverings when it makes sense to do so.
I am concerned that some heads and principals who are trying to restrict the wearing of the full veil in certain circumstances are coming under pressure from others to relax their policy. I want to assure these leaders that they can rely on my full backing for the stance they are taking.
I have also made clear to my inspectors that where leaders are condoning the wearing of the face veil by staff members or by pupils when this is clearly hindering communication and effective teaching, they should give consideration to judging the school as inadequate.
I am determined to ensure that discrimination, including on the grounds of gender, has no place in our classrooms. We want our schools, whether faith schools or non-faith schools, to prepare their pupils equally for life in 21st century Britain. We need to be confident our children’s education and future prospects are not being harmed in any way.
The High Court will hear a case brought by a mother and her 11-month-old baby, who are arguing that they should not be excluded from the UK government’s ‘Healthy Start’ scheme. The scheme provides vouchers for healthy food, nutritional advice, and vitamins to low-income families, but currently excludes many migrant families, including those who have a right to live and work in the UK, have British children, and earn well below the threshold needed to obtain welfare benefits. The judicial review will challenge the eligibility criteria of the scheme on several grounds: it is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the scheme to benefit those in greatest need, it breaches human rights, and it indirectly discriminates against families from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.
Campaigners have welcomed a government announcement that it will introduce several key amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill currently being debated in Parliament. In particular, the Bill will make non-fatal strangulation a specific offence, with an attached maximum sentence of five years. This is a significant shift from the previous maximum six months’ sentence if tried in the Magistrates Court under the crime of common assault. The Bill will also expand the definition of coercive behaviour by removing the requirement that the victim co-habit with their abuser, and broaden the scope of the laws on revenge porn by enabling those who threaten to share indecent images to be prosecuted.
The European Court of Justice has ruled this week that air pollution in 75% of the United Kingdom’s urban areas has exceeded legal levels for over ten years. Nitrogen dioxide, which is emitted largely by diesel vehicles, significantly contributes to pollution, and was found by a scathing coroner’s report to have contributed to the death of a nine-year-old girl last year. Imposing charges in urban centres to deter polluting vehicles (‘clean air zones’) is thought to be the most effective means of combating the problem. However, the government has only established one such area, in London, in the four years since research was published. The legal proceedings in the CJEU began before Brexit was concluded, and the pollution limits are still part of UK law. The UK could therefore face financial penalties if it fails to remedy the situation within a reasonable period.
In the courts:
A And B (Minors: placement, faith) [2021] EWHC 455 (Admin): In this judicial review case, the Claimants, two brothers with complex medical and behavioural conditions from a strict Orthodox Haredi Jewish community, argued that the decision of Manchester City Council to offer them respite accommodation in a secular residential home in Manchester, rather than an exclusively Orthodox Jewish home in London, was unreasonable. In particular, it was contended that placement in the Manchester accommodation would prevent the boys from fully manifesting their religious faith, for example, in following kosher dietary rules and observing holy days, contrary to Part III of the Children Act (1989), and possibly Articles 8, 9, and 14 of the European Convention for Human Rights, and the Equality Act (2010). There was an important difference between the two brothers: it was agreed that A should undertake a 12-week assessment placement at one of the homes, whereas B would only stay at the home once a fortnight and during school holidays. Accordingly, His Honour Judge Stephen Davies held that the decision of the council to offer only A a place at the Manchester home was unlawful and in breach of his Article 8 and 9 rights under the ECHR, because he would not be able to cook kosher meals nor perform the required prayers by himself, and so the placement would not allow him to manifest his religion. However, the council’s proposal was not unlawful in relation to B, because the limitations imposed by a fortnightly short overnight stay were not significant enough to breach his rights under the ECHR.
Turner, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] EWHC 465 (Admin): The High Court rejected the Claimant’s case that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions acted unlawfully in withdrawing Errol Graham’s disability benefit, who tragically was found to have starved to death in his flat in 2018. It was contended that the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) policy for assessing Employment Support Allowance eligibility was unlawful on two grounds. First, the policy placed the onus on the applicant to show ‘good cause’ for failing to attend appointments, which was incompatible with the objectives of the legislation; and, second, the DWP has an implied duty to inquire as to why the applicant had withdrawn their engagement where they are known to have mental health difficulties, under s.149 of the Equality Act (EA) (2010). Justice Bourne held that the reference to ‘good cause’ did not create an unlawful burden of proof, because it was clear from the policy that the Defendant must also utilise information that they could reasonably obtain, rather than just relying entirely on the applicant to demonstrate their eligibility. In addition, s.149 of the EA did not impose a duty to inquire after individuals, but rather a broad obligation to give due regard to the advancement of opportunity for disabled people generally, which the Defendants satisfied. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was given intervenor status, but the judge considered their submissions to be outside the scope of the ground of challenge.
Joanna Curtis reports on the ECtHR’s recent imposition of further interim measures against Russia as a result of the continued imprisonment of opposition figure Alexei Navalny.
Marina Wheeler considers Shamima Begum’s latest loss in the Supreme Court last week in Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (Begum) [2021] UKSC 7.
Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea S [2017] UKSC 36, 10 May 2017 – read judgment
For the last 15 years, whether the right of the homeless to suitable council accommodation is an Art.6(1) ECHR civil right has been argued over in the courts. And the question arose again in today’s judgment of the Supreme Court.
Ms Poshteh had been imprisoned and tortured in Iran, and asked her local council in London to house her as she was homeless in the UK. She then rejected the offer of a flat because she said its windows reminded her of those in her Iranian prison cell. This rejection was held fatal to her housing claim, as we shall see.
To understand the Art.6 point, we need to have a quick look at the council’s housing duties for the homeless.
On Friday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson
set down his stance on law and order in three major announcements, fulfilling
his promise to ‘come down hard on crime’. This follows the announcement of
20,000 ‘extra’ police officers a few weeks ago.
Firstly, Home Secretary Priti Patel announced
enhanced stop-and-search powers for police officers under s.60 Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act, on the basis of a ‘knife-crime epidemic’. Under the new rules,
an officer need only believe that a violent incident ‘may occur’, not that it ‘will’,
and a lower level of authorisation will be required to exercise the power.
Secondly and thirdly, Mr Johnson has
promised penal reforms. The Ministry of Justice has allocated
£2.5bn to create ‘modern, efficient prisons’, including 10,000 new prison
places. Alongside this, Mr Johnson has announced a sentencing review, by which
he hopes to increase sentences for violent and sexual offenders, and reduce the
use of ‘early release’ on licence – currently available to most offenders after
they served half of their sentence, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The resources of this crackdown are
welcome, especially with an extra £85m for the chronically underfunded CPS. However,
the approach is controversial. Stop-and-search in particular has been heavily
criticised in the past. Some say that it is ineffective – a study released by
the Home Office in 2016 found that enhanced stop-and-search had not decreased crime
when used in key London boroughs. Others say that the policy is discriminatory
in its application, and worsens the relationship between the public and the
police, drawing links to the 2011 London riots.
The review of the Prevent counter-terrorism initiative is expected to begin today, following the appointment of the independent reviewer. However, the process of appointing the reviewer has been criticised for its opacity – Ed Davey MP has spoken of a ‘whitewash’, while Liberty director Martha Spurrier has suggested that the government are ‘[shielding] Prevent from the scrutiny it desperately needs’.
In further unwelcome news, a report found that
a chartered deportation flight lacked ‘common decency’ towards passengers. Passengers
were subjected to excessive restraint (up to 14 hours at a time); not allowed
appropriate privacy when using the toilet; not appropriately supervised; and
subject to long delays. This was followed by revelations that the Home Office
used restraint against deportees in 447 cases between April 2018 and March
2019, as
reported by Guardian.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has dominated the news since the conflict began. The human rights implications of the conflict will be far reaching and devastating, and this Weekly Round-Up will no doubt examine the impact of events as they unfold. This week, our focus is on the UK government’s approach to Ukrainian refugees. The Home Office is still insisting that only those refugees with family ties to the UK will be able to satisfy visa requirements to enter through the ‘Ukraine Family Scheme’. Those who successfully use this route will have the right to work and to claim benefits. However, they will not be able to access other assistance, such as accommodation, as was offered to refugees from Afghanistan, for example, because the Home Office assumes they will be offered support by UK relatives. This approach has been widely criticised as unduly restrictive, given that many European countries have dropped their visa requirements altogether so as to enable a greater number of Ukrainians quickly to reach safety. The Home Secretary rejected this more permissive policy earlier this week, arguing that security and biometric checks imposed by the visa system were essential to prevent extremists and Russian agents entering the UK. But with one million refugees reportedly having fled their homes already, and four million more predicted, many campaigners have pointed out that a fast route to safety is urgently needed. On Friday, the Home Office stated that they were working on an ‘unlimited sponsorship route’ which would not be dependant on family ties, but it remains unclear when this will be launched, or what support it will offer.
In other news:
The House of Lords has defeated the controversial Nationality and Borders Bill for the fourth time, removing clause 11. This measure would have divided refugees into two groups depending on how they arrived in the UK, potentially excluding those who took a route outside the law. For example, those who arrived on small boats through the Channel could have their asylum application automatically ruled inadmissible, face up to four years in prison, be banned from accessing public funds, and have family members banned from joining them. Peers had previously struck out a clause allowing the government to strip individuals of their British citizenship without warning. The changes made by the Lords will now be sent back to the Commons, who can either accept or amend them.
A leaked report has suggested that the Environment Agency has only prosecuted 7% of the serious incidents of pollution investigated between 2016 and 2020. Agents within the organisation prepared case papers for 495 serious incidents in the period, all of which they recommended for prosecution. However, only 35 cases actually reached court after managers intervened. The others were either dropped entirely, or dealt with using less serious sanctions such as a warning letter. These were all incidents of the most serious form of waste pollution, for example, those involving illegal discharges of raw sewage, and some incidents were known to be perpetrated by organised crime groups. Workers within the Agency have linked the lack of action to the severe cuts to the Agency’s resources. The Environment Agency responded to the report by stating that they follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which states that prosecution should only be pursued where there is a realistic prospect of a successful conviction, and when it is in the public interest.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has been sent a letter before action by the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) and non-profit legal group Foxglove, who claim that the department’s use of a computer algorithm to decide who should be investigated for fraud unlawfully discriminates against disabled people. The two groups claim that there is a lack of transparency about how the algorithm works, and called on the DWP to explain how it prevents discrimination in its use of the algorithm. The DWP responded by saying that human agents always review cases of suspected fraud, and thus the effects of the algorithm were being carefully monitored. The government’s statement on Transparency in Automated Decision making can be found here.
In the courts:
U3 v The Secretary Of State for the Home Department [2022]: The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) dismissed an appeal by U3, a joint British-Moroccan citizen, against the decision of the Home Secretary to remove her British citizenship in 2017, and prevent her entry clearance in 2019. U3’s citizenship was withdrawn because the Home Office determined that her links with ISIL in Syria implied that she posed a national security risk. In 2019, U3’s children were repatriated to the UK, and U3 sought entry clearance to be reunited with her children, relying on her Article 8 right to respect for her private and family life. Entry clearance was denied, with the Home Secretary claiming that her Article 8 rights were not engaged, and even if they were, her separation from her children was proportionate to the risk she presented to national security. The key issues in this appeal were as follows. First, on what grounds could the SIAC interfere with the SSHD’s decision; Second, whether U3 in fact posed a risk to national security, given that if she did, precedent established that the separation from her children was likely to be proportionate. Concerning the first issue, the court found, following Begum, the SIAC can interfere with the SSHD’s decision even where it concerns national security on the usual grounds available for judicial review. Thus if it was shown that the decision was flawed according to the public law standard of review, and the outcome, but for the error, would have been different, the SIAC could reverse the decision. On the second issue, counsel for the Claimant argued that given the accepted factual evidence of the coercive and abusive relationship U3 had with her husband, with whom she travelled to Syria in 2014, her decision to live in an ISIL-controlled part of Syria did not demonstrate that she was ideologically aligned with ISIL, nor that she had become radicalised. However, the court found that the SSHD could rationally find that U3 herself was aligned with ISIL in light of evidence that she left for Turkey of her own accord, and that she had a good knowledge of the ideology of the group and of the atrocities it had committed. Given this finding, the SSDH’s decision was proportionate, and the appeal was dismissed.
On the UKHRB:
David Burrows discusses the new Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act.
On Monday the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 came into force, allowing the Attorney General, Suella Braverman QC, to be the first minister to take maternity leave. The Act grants cabinet ministers six months’ maternity leave whilst retaining their government post, whereas in the past MPs would have to resign to take time off to give birth. The Act is not without its critics, including those saying it should apply to MPs outside the Cabinet, and include provisions for paternity, adoption and shared parental leave. There was also heated debate in the Lords on the gender-neutral phrasing of the original Bill, with the Lords voting to replace ‘person’ with ‘mother’ in the final Act, despite its potential exclusion of trans and non-binary people.
A new offence of non-fatal strangulation has been included in the Domestic Abuse Bill following a campaign by the Centre for Women’s Justice, other organisations and the Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners. The Bill is passing through the House of Lords and now includes the offence of intentionally strangling another person or otherwise affecting their ability to breathe. Currently perpetrators are usually charged with common assault, with a maximum of just six months in jail. The Bill also includes amendments strengthening the laws on ‘revenge porn’, making it an offence to threaten to share intimate images of a person with the intention to cause distress, and extends the coercive control offence to situations where perpetrators and victims do not live together. The Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners welcomed the amendments but urged the Government to go further in creating a defence for people who commit offences due to domestic abuse.
On Friday the Women and Equalities Committee published the Government’s response to its report on the impact of coronavirus on BAME people, in relation to inequalities in health, employment, universal credit, housing, and the no recourse to public funds policy. The Committee’s inquiry found that comorbidities in BAME people place them at risk of experiencing coronavirus more severely and with graver health outcomes. Specific risks to BAME people include difficulty in accessing Government guidance, the disproportionate impact on BAME people of zero-hour contracts and being denied furlough, difficulties in applying for Universal Credit, and overcrowded housing due to housing inequality.
The Department of Health and Social Care on Friday published new guidance for care homes and visitors, to take effect on 8 March. This is not a change in the law, as visits to care homes have never been unlawful, but the new guidance sets out the government’s advice on safe visiting practices. This is that:
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.
Last week the Prime Minister 
This blog is run by
Recent comments