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]
In a judgment (currently availably as a summary only) handed down this afternoon, the Court of Appeal have reversed that decision and granted the Home Office permission to intervene in the judicial review to come.
In this episode, Lucy McCann is joined by Professor Steven Gunn, historian at Merton College, Oxford to discuss his recent book, An Accidental History of Tudor England (co-authored with Tomasz Gromelski). They explore the world of the sixteenth century Coroners’ Court, examine what records of inquest reveal, and consider about how people died and what this can tell us about everyday life at the time, to draw comparisons with modern day inquest proceedings and coronial statistics.
This judgment was handed down to parties via email at 3pm on 31st July 2025. A transparency order is in force. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of Patricia must be strictly preserved.
This application was brought by the parents and aunt of a woman who has previously been anonymised to “Patricia”. Patricia, aged 25, had lived with anorexia nervosa since childhood, and was extremely malnourished with a BMI as low as 7, unable to walk unaided, and suffering severe complications like bed sores and osteoporosis. Diagnosed also with autism and pathological demand avoidance (PDA), Patricia’s condition was refractory despite years of efforts; she persistently refused to eat enough to sustain herself, though she voiced a desire to live and to travel. In 2023, the Court (Moor J) had ordered—after hearing her strongly expressed wishes—that Patricia should not be force-fed or receive medical treatment against her will, emphasising her autonomy in treatment decisions.
Throughout these proceedings Patricia was an in-patient at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. She had said she wanted to go to a Specialist Eating Disorder Unit (SEDU) but when this case started she was not medically fit enough to go to one because of her low BMI and her lack of medical stability.
In Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB), the High Court granted Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction preventing Home Office contractors, CTM, from using the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, to accommodate asylum seekers. The Court’s ruling has temporarily halted the government’s repurposing of the Bell, on the basis that the Council had a strong arguable case of unlawful change of use. The injunction requires occupation of the Bell by asylum seekers to cease by 12 September 2025.
Factual Background
The Bell Hotel, an 80-bed premises on the outskirts of Epping’s market town, had been commercially struggling since the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bell had a history of fluctuating uses since 2020, including temporary accommodation for the homeless and asylum seekers.
The planning enforcement team of Epping Forest District Council had repeatedly contacted the Bell from 2020–2022 to make it known that housing asylum seekers was seen as a change of use by the Council, and as such, required planning permission. Without applying for permission, Somani Hotels entered into a contract with CTM in 2025 to accommodate up to 138 asylum seekers. In April 2025, the asylum seekers occupied all hotel rooms, with security and welfare staff present on site. The premises were no longer functioning as a conventional hotel with public dining and event facilities.
The Council drew the Court’s attention to the wider impacts on the local area: protests, pressure on local services and fear of crime among residents. These fears were substantiated by a series of reported crimes involving some of the occupants at the Bell, including arrests for alleged arson, sexual assault, common assault and battery (at [20]).
The Court found that the Bell’s owners, Somani Hotels, had acted deliberately in continuing to house asylum seekers despite being aware of the Council’s view that planning permission was required (at [57]–[58]). Eyre J stressed the Defendant’s conduct was not “flagrant” or “surreptitious”; Somani Hotels had acted openly and in good faith, though with knowledge of the planning risk (at [59]–[60]). In those circumstances, the Court accepted that the Council’s pursuit of injunctive relief under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘TCPA’) was an appropriate enforcement response.
Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The application is challenging the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Dr. McCloud is seeking a re-hearing of the case, arguing that the initial trial infringed her Article 6 right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr. McCloud sought leave to join the case before the courts in For Women Scotland in light of the impact the ruling could have on transgender individuals with gender recognition certificates (GRCs), but her application was rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, no evidence or representations from the estimated 8,500 individuals who hold GRCs was entered in the original hearing.
Dr. McCloud will be represented by a trans-led legal team in partnership with London’s Trans Legal Clinic.
Facial Recognition Technology and the London Metropolitan Police
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been granted leave to intervene in a judicial review examining whether the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by police complies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ECHR argued that the case of R (Thompson and Carlo) v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis raises important questions of public interest and that the current policy related to the technology is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.
LFRT captures and analyses the faces of individuals walking in front of real-time close- circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Biometric data that is unique to those individuals is then compared to a ‘watchlist’ of persons the police are seeking. The EHRC is concerned with the expansion and development of LFRT in light of the lack of domestic legislation that regulates its use. The Commission will make submissions that the technology is intrusive and will highlight the development of international policy on LFRT and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation.
Parole Futures
A new anthology on the future of parole systems, Parole Futures: Rationalities, Institutions and Practices has been published by the Onati International Series in Law and Society, edited by Harry Annison, Nicola Carr and Thomas Guiney. The book includes insights from 27 world-leading experts on the pressing issues about parole systems around the world, including: Asia; Australia, North and South America, and Europe. The objectives of the anthology is to encourage a ‘systematic and critical reflection’ on parole systems, and to introduce ambitious ‘what if’ thinking ‘about the futures of parole and prison release’.
International News
A United Nations (UN) panel of 11 experts—including six Special Rapporteurs—released a statement expressing concerns over escalating intimidation and censorship of Iran International journalists globally. According to the UN statement, 45 Iran International journalists and staff and 315 of their family members have received credible threats to life or safety. Individuals are located across seven countries: the UK, USA, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and Türkiye. The increase in threats to journalists over the last year coincided with the Iran-Israel conflict of June 2025, with Iranian officials alleging that journalists were acting as spies for Israel.
UK-based journalists have required police protection or re-location within the UK or abroad. Women have also faced additional threats of sexual violence; while family members have been interrogated, surveyed, and threatened with death or arrest.
The UN argues this is a campaign to ‘silence and censor critical reporting and courageous public interest journalism’, and that such intimidation violates the freedom of expression, media and ‘deprives the public of their right to information’.
The UN is urging Iran to immediately cease the threatening and intimidation of journalists and their families, and to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.
In the Courts
The High Court has granted the Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction which will prevent Somani Hotels Limited from continuing to accommodate asylum seeks at the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited ([2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)). The Council argued that the use of the Bell Hotel constituted a material change of use from its classification as a hotel, requiring planning permission, which the Somani Hotels Limited had not obtained.
The High Court acknowledged that the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to provide accommodation, and that this need is growing. However, the ‘balance of convenience’ and the strength of the Council’s case ultimately outweighed the considerations raised by Somani and an interim injunction was granted. Somani Hotels Limited has until September 12, 2025, to comply with the order. There are concerns that other councils may now seek interim injunctions for hotels utilized in their areas. As of March 2025, there were approximately 30K asylum seekers living in hotels.
In EBB and others v The Gorse Academies Trust [2025] EWHC 1983 (Admin), the Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice gave judgment in a multi-faceted, rolled-up permission and judicial review hearing concerning three high school students’ experiences of being disciplined within their school (“the School”).
These appeals – Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Dalston Projects Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport – were a test case for the operation of the UK’s sanctions regime introduced in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court confirmed that while the court’s task is to assess proportionality for itself, a wide margin of appreciation will be afforded to the executive in judging how best to respond to and restrain Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, urging ‘proportionate policing and protection of protest rights’ in the ongoing controversy over the Government’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. In her letter of 15 August, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner raised concerns over recent ‘reports of police engagement in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation’, ‘heavy handed policing’, and ‘blanket approaches [which] risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences.’ Baroness Falkner stressed that any ‘restrictions on the exercise of… fundamental freedoms’ imposed by the police must be subject to an ‘established’ three-stage proportionality test, and that ‘all police officers should receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations in relation to protest.’ On the same day as the EHRC’s intervention, it was reported that Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Global Witness and the Quakers had written to the Attorney General, urging him to suspend the prosecution of protestors detained under the Terrorist Act until the judicial review of the Government’s ban on Palestine Action (due to be heard in November). Over 700 protestors have been arrested under the Terrorist Act since its amendment last month.
The Court of Protection has refused to let a hospital trust in north-west London withdraw life support from a 60-year-old man described as being in a permanent vegetative state after his two partners spoke about his strong belief in the power of spiritual healing.
Background facts and law
The patient, referred to as YD, suffered a bleed to the brain last October resulting in what’s now called a prolonged disorder of consciousness and leaving him in what his clinicians describe as a permanent vegetative state. YD was being provided with clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) at a specialist neuro-rehabilitation centre in north-west London.
The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, responsible for his care, applied to the Court of Protection seeking permission to withdraw CANH, which would lead to YD’s death. The Trust argued that continuing such treatment was not in YD’s best interests, given the medical prognosis and burdens of ongoing care. The application was opposed by YD’s two partners, JG and MB, who were both closely involved in his daily care and attuned to his needs, and by the Official Solicitor, who represented YD’s interests. Notably, YD’s partners spoke of his strong faith in spiritual healing, his value for life, and his belief in perseverance through adversity.
Best Interests Test:
Central to the Court of Protection’s task was the determination of YD’s best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The statute requires the court to take into account a range of views, including medical evidence, the patient’s own beliefs and values (as far as they can be discerned), the perspectives of family, and the overall balance between burdens and benefits of ongoing treatment.
There is a strong legal presumption in favour of preserving life, which may only be displaced by countervailing factors such as “the very profound brain damage,” absence of pleasure or awareness, and the absence of any prospect for improvement.
Role of Advance Decisions and Family Views
The Court examined whether YD had made any valid advance decision to refuse treatment (which would be binding under sections 24–26 MCA 2005). No such advance directive existed in YD’s case. The views of his partners were consequently given considerable weight—they described YD as someone who valued life strongly, believed in spiritual recovery, and would have wanted to persevere even in adverse circumstances.
Medical Evidence
Treating clinicians and an independent expert testified that YD’s prognosis was bleak: there was no realistic prospect of meaningful recovery or awareness, and he would not regain consciousness. The medical consensus was that continuing CANH would only prolong biological life, with no benefit or possibility of improvement in consciousness or quality of life.
The Official Solicitor’s Submission
Representing YD’s interests, the Official Solicitor argued that the dignity and meaning of YD’s current existence derived from the love and care provided by his partners, and that YD would wish to continue living in this way until a natural death occurred through another medical event (e.g., infection or heart attack).
The Court’s Decision
Mrs Justice Theis, Vice-President of the Court of Protection, refused the Trust’s application to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. In a detailed judgment delivered on 12 August 2025, the court emphasized the following:
• Presumption in Favour of Life: The court found that, despite the medical evidence of permanent vegetative state and the bleak prognosis, the presumption in favour of life had not been displaced by the Trust. The evidence from family and the Official Solicitor about YD’s values and perceptions of his dignity was compelling.
• Best Interests Not Demonstrated: The court concluded that withdrawal of CANH was not proven to be in YD’s best interests. The strong and heartfelt testimony of YD’s partners, coupled with their daily engagement with him, supported the continuation of care. The court was persuaded that YD’s sense of dignity and the meaning of his life could not be presumed to be absent or negative.
• No Valid Advance Decision: In the absence of a legally binding advance decision to refuse treatment, continued life-sustaining treatment was favored
Conclusion
The Court of Protection’s refusal to permit withdrawal of treatment in this case signals the ongoing primacy of the best interests test, fortifies the presumption in favor of life even against a grim prognosis, and puts significant weight on the genuine beliefs and wishes of those closest to the patient. Unless and until a court is satisfied, based on all the evidence, that ongoing treatment is not in the patient’s best interests, life-sustaining treatment will continue.
Comment
This is a surprising and unusual decision. Following the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, where the House of Lords ruled that it was lawful to discontinue life support when it serves no useful therapeutic purpose and does not benefit the patient, the tendency has been to go along with the medical evidence that mere life without consciousness is of no benefit to the patient.
Here the Court of Protection upheld the continuation of artificial nutrition and hydration because of the evidence advanced by the patient’s partners, who cited his spiritual beliefs and the view that he would want to continue receiving treatment to try to “heal himself”. The evidence included declarations of spiritual communication, which led to the Court deciding that withdrawal of ANH would not be in line with the patient’s perceived best wishes and spiritual beliefs.
This is all very well, but as we know, the NHS is running out of money.
The average annual NHS cost to care for a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) in a specialist nursing home is about £85,000–£91,000, which covers nursing care, medication, feeding (such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy), and, for some, tracheotomy. Occasionally, additional costs from emergency hospital admissions (“blue light events”) for infections or other complications add roughly £5,000 per year, bringing the typical annual cost close to £91,600.
Not now, or even in the near future, but one day it will occur to cancer patients being denied treatment or sufferers from severe cardiac conditions on never ending waiting lists for surgery that perhaps public money should be spent on them, rather than keeping PVS patients alive for years if not decades.
This will require a root and branch review of the “best interests” test and promote the absence of an Advance Decision to the same level as an Advance Decision not to prolong life. Simply saying that these decisions “should never be driven by resource allocation or staff burdens, but solely by robust best interests assessments” is no answer to the profound and continuing financial burden on the public purse for prolonging unconscious life at all costs.
For a nuanced discussion of the cost consequences of this case, read Alex Ruck-Keene KC’s post on the Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog.
David Wolfson KC, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Shadow Attorney General, and Michael Ellis KC, Attorney General from 2021 – 2022, have written to Labour’s Attorney General Richard Hermer KC regarding the government’s decision to recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly meeting in September. We highlight this here because Lord Wolfson has recently given an interview on Law Pod UK setting out some of the differences between him and Richard Hermer on what they deem to be the proper boundaries of international law.
They commence their letter with the following statement:
“The recognition of a foreign state is a prerogative act, exercised by the Government. The long-standing position of the UK Government has been that the UK will recognise a state if four criteria are met, often referred to as the Montevideo criteria: ” it should have, and seem likely to continue to have, a clearly defined territory with a population, a government who are able of themselves to exercise effective control of that territory, and independence in their external relations”.
In their view, the position taken by successive UK governments until 2025 was that the Palestinian Authority has been both factually and legally unable to exercise a range of governmental functions in the West Bank,
The PA, they point out, has also, “of course, lost control of Gaza to Hamas”.
They therefore pose a number of questions, as to whether the government is applying a different basis of statehood and recognition, and on what basis.
“If the new policy is that protracted frustration of self-determination justifies recognition of statehood regardless of facts on the ground, why is the UK refusing, for example, to recognise Western Sahara as a state?”
They urge the Attorney General to explain how, as a matter of international law, steps taken by Israel can themselves lead to the non-recognition of Palestine. In this case it would seem to be that by declaring a ceasefire, Israel could avoid the “punishment” of Palestine being recognised as a state. This, in the authors’ view, is an incoherent interpretation of international law – “the Government, so vocal when it comes to public pronouncements of general legal principle, appears to lose its voice.”
They conclude their letter with the following paragraph:
“The position of the UK government in recognising Palestine while hostages remain in dungeons in Gaza is shameful. That is a matter for your private conscience. But we believe that the Government’s policy on this issue is also a significant change from the UK’s policy as long stated and understood. That is something which you ought to explain, in public, to Parliament.”
Whatever your position on the conflict, it is worth reading the letter in full, to understand the UK’s policy on statehood recognition as set out by a written answer in the House of Commons in 1986, and in several subsequent communications.
The response to the points raised in this communication will no doubt add to the warp and weft of international law and its varying interpretations in Westminster. There can be no doubt that policy on this issue is governed not by law, but by politics.
A debate in the House of Lords on this issue would be of considerable utility to all lawyers interested in this area.
The UK Human Rights Blog is now available on Substack – see our profile and subscribe here.
In Searson v Chief Constable of Nottingham Constabulary [2025] EWHC 1982 (KB), the Appellants successfully appealed against the dismissal of their claim for damages against the Respondent’s police force. The claim arose out of the circumstances of the Second Appellant’s unlawful detention contrary to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”). Wall J’s judgment emphasises the need for strict compliance with the spirit of the procedural safeguard of regular reviews of detention in s 40 PACE, which serves to protect the fundamental right of freedom of movement.
The first migrants were detained under the new ‘one-in, one-out’ deal with France. The ‘Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys’ came into force on 6 August; detentions began at lunchtime that day. Under the scheme, anyone crossing the Channel in a small boat can be returned to France. An equal number of migrants will be eligible under a new legal route to come to the UK. The Agreement, which governs the pilot scheme, will remain in force until June 2026.
The government announced ‘restriction zones’ curbing freedom of movement for serious violent and sexual offenders. Under the new plans, offenders will be confined to agreed areas — a step beyond existing ‘exclusion zone’ measures which simply prevent them entering a location where the victim lives. Restriction zones will be technologically monitored, with prison time as a possible sanction.
The Home Secretary called for police to disclose the nationality and asylum status of criminal suspects. This follows the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Warwickshire in July. Police refused to reveal the immigration status of the two men charged, prompting accusations of a ‘cover-up’ from Reform leader Nigel Farage. Current guidance by the College of Policing is silent on whether this information should be released. The College has said that this guidance is already under review.
Most of our subscribers will have received a “Welcome to Substack” email regarding the UKHRB. To avoid any confusiong we wanted to assure you that this does not mean that we have moved the content of the blog from WordPress to Substack. Those of you who read the blog on WordPress will find it there as usual, completely unchanged. However, as Substack has become a popular platform for authoritative writing we decided that we should have a presence there as well, so the posts as they appear on the blog will also be on Substack, although there might be a slight time lag between the two.
Two prominent human rights organisations in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), released reports contending Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by targeting Palestinians because of their identity.
The organisations have been monitoring events in the region for years, preceding the current conflict; however, the reports specifically focus on human rights and international law violations over the last two years. The 88-page report from B’Tselem outlines crimes of killing (elderly, women, children), starvation, the prison system, forced displacement and the depravation of healthcare and education. PHR’s report outlines the assault on the Palestinian health care system over the last two years, as well as the impact that the lack of medical care, the destruction of health infrastructure and killing of medical personnel is having.
These reports were released at the same time that Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), are reporting critically low food supplies in Gaza as concerns of a famine mount.
In the Courts
This week, the High Court determined that Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, may proceed with an unprecedented legal challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to ban the direct-action group under proscription laws. This is the first time a group or organisation has been permitted to challenge a proscription order at a trial. The three-day hearing will take place in November.
In HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB), the Divisional Court (the Lady Chief Justice,the President of the King’s Bench Division, and Chamberlain J) gave judgment in relation to the deployment of evidence by MI5 in proceedings concerning the BBC’s reporting on a covert human intelligence source (CHIS), referred to as “X”. The judgment is quite extraordinary, including substantial criticism of the approach taken by MI5 in this case and specific guidance as to the way that evidence from an agency such as MI5 should be presented in future.
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.
Recent comments