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]
The world is reckoning this week with the human rights consequences of governmental efforts across the world to address the coronavirus pandemic. UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierres has released a report on how the pandemic is becoming a ‘human rights crisis’. He highlights the disproportionate impact on minority communities, urging that national states of emergency must be proportionate, limited in scope, and alert to the risks of undue censorship and privacy violations. The report is available here.
Within the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been urging that more reasonable adjustments be made for the disabled and vulnerable in the handling of the pandemic.
In the sphere of criminal justice, the EHRC warns in an interim report that video hearings risk serious discrimination for people with learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, and mental health conditions. The report’s recommendations include ensuring disabled defendants have accessible information explaining their right to raise issues to do with participation, ensuring frontline professionals consider identifying people for whom video hearings may be unsuitable, and using registered intermediaries to support disabled defendants in video hearings. The report is available here.
Notably, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s view that the scheme does result in landlords discriminating against tenants without British passports on the basis of their actual or perceived nationality. However, the Court held that this discrimination was justified.
The Fisheries Bill 2020, part of the government’s core legislative program on post-Brexit environmental policy, is currently in the House of Lords at committee stage, and is expected to receive royal assent in the coming months (although exactly when is subject to how successfully the House of Lords can adapt to meeting via Microsoft Teams). It would establish Britain’s departure from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) on January 1st 2021, and sets out how fishing rights would work post transition period and CFP.
Given the passion that fishing rights raise, you might be forgiven for thinking that they were absolutely essential to the functioning of the UK and EU economies. In fact, fishing accounts for around 0.1% of both. A joke going around environmental blogs is that green bills are like buses – none come when you need them, then they all arrive at once. Perhaps for the Environment and Agriculture Bills – discussed by me here and here. But the Fisheries Bill feels more like the Brexit Bus than a local routemaster. It promises the repatriation of sovereign powers and gains in the millions by taking back control of our waters, while hiding potential losses in the billions, if issues with fishing rights derail trade negotiations – a slim but real possibility.
Even the most entrenched remainer, however, would have to recognise the multiple failures of the CFP. It has been plagued by mismanaged quotas and outsized lobbying interests since its inception, and it has clearly favoured certain member states over others. The Fisheries Bill has as such been largely well received by environmental groups, such as Greener UK, who comment that the “focus on climate change and sustainability is very helpful”. I’ll start with what the bill actually says, then discuss the EU negotiation position and conclude with a few comments about what the legislation may mean for the future relations.
This is a summary of an article published here and inevitably simplifies the detailed arguments and considerations within it. The article represents the views of the author alone.
Note: This article involves examination of the legal provisions that accompany the restrictions on movement of individuals announced by the Government. The current Government guidance setting out these and other restrictions can be found here. Legal scrutiny is important but should not be taken to question the requirement to follow the Regulations.
The ‘lockdown’ imposed by the government to contain the coronavirus and Covid 19, the disease it causes has been enforced mainly through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’), imposed under powers delegated by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’).
Recently Lord Anderson QC, Robert Craig, Tom Hickman QC and others and Benet Brandreth QC and Lord Sandhurst QC have argued that the Regulations were or may have been ultra vires as secondary legislation beyond the delegated powers under Pt 2A of the 1984 Act. In turn, Prof Jeff King has argued that the delegated powers were exercised lawfully. It is the view of the author that the arguments against the vires of the legislation on that ground are more convincing.
This article argues that the Regulations are also a disproportionate interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’); and that, were they challenged by judicial review, should be disapplied if necessary to avoid a breach of s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
In this latest episode we consider the probable attitude of the judiciary to any challenges regarding the government’s responsibility for providing sufficient PPE, the risk imposed on individuals, such as prisoners and mental health patients in detention during lockdown, their obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 11. How are we as a society, and the government, going to regard the question of “judicial activism” in this unprecedented situation in a post-pandemic UK?
Here are the statutes, statutory instruments and cases referred to in the course of my interview with Dominic Ruck-Keene and Darragh Coffey:
COVID-19 continues to dominate the news this week. The death toll in Europe has now risen to over 100,000, with the UK accounting for more than 16,000 of those. Although there appear to be signs that the infection curve is slowing elsewhere in Europe, and vaccine trials are now underway, it seems likely that we are in this for the long haul. UK government chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance has written in the Guardian this week, explaining the challenges of ensuring any proposed vaccine is safe, and of scaling it up as required.
Pressure is building for the government to publish the findings of ‘Exercise Cygnus’, a three-day flu pandemic readiness exercise conducted in October 2016, as critics note the government’s apparent ill-preparedness for the coronavirus outbreak. According to the Observer, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) recommended that the government:
Develop a ‘pandemic influenza concept of operations’ to improve coordination between the ‘complex network of partners’ involved;
Plan for ‘legislative easements’ to deal with the pandemic;
Work on ‘better understanding of the public reaction to a reasonable worst-case pandemic’; and
Strengthen ‘surge capability and capacity in operational resources in certain areas’, especially in respect of excess deaths, social care, and the NHS.
Lib Dem MP Philip Lee has urged Matt Hancock and Michael Gove to answer “when did they read the Cygnus report that has not been published and, having read that report, why did they conclude not to increase testing, PPE, and ventilator capacity in January?”. The Department of Health has insisted that the UK is “one of the most prepared countries in the world for pandemics.”
Concerns about criminal justice during the coronavirus pandemic continue. As the backlog builds up, DPP Max Hill QC has instructed the CPS to seek out-of-court solutions where possible, so as to limit the ‘expanding pipeline’ of cases waiting to be heard. Mr Hill and other voices such as James Mulholland, vice-chair of the Criminal Bar Association, have stressed the importance of deterrent sentences for offences related to COVID-19 and deliberate infection. However, ex-DPP Ken MacDonald QC has urged the courts not to mete out excessive jail term, arguing that prison is not the place for ‘nuisances’.
Lockdown is causing serious damage to family life too. There has been a surge in urgent care proceedings in the family courts, as increased drinking, money worries, and domestic violence put vulnerable children at risk. Unicef has released guidance for authorities on the protection of children during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the rise in domestic violence, Home Secretary Priti Patel this week launched an urgent awareness campaign, pledging £2m for domestic violence charities and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.
Note: This article involves examination of thelegal provisions that accompany some of the restrictions on movement of individuals announced by the Government. The movement restrictions themselves are vital to the protection of life in the current crisis and must be adhered to by all persons. The current Government guidance setting out these and other restrictions can be found here. Legal scrutiny is important but should not be taken to question the undeniable imperative to follow that guidance.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 were made by the Health Secretary on 26 March 2020. Understandably, given the speed with which the crisis was and still is developing, the Regulations were made using a statutory emergency procedure, meaning that they were not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. They have yet to be challenged in the courts. In the meantime, a lively and important debate has developed about whether those regulations are lawful.
This post aims to provide an overview of the key contributions thus far, and to provide a starting point for newcomers to the debate. The summaries below are necessarily incomplete, and each of the pieces referred to is well worth reading in full.
On UKHRB we’ve considered a number of the potential human rights implications of the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures put in place to combat it (Alethea Redfern’s round up is the best place to start, there have been a number of posts since, and there will be a podcast coming up on the subject next week on Law Pod UK). It was only a matter of time before some of these issues started to come before the European Court of Human Rights and, on Wednesday, a case involving the UK Government concerning the impact of Covid-19 on conditions of detention in prison was communicated: Hafeez v the United Kingdom (application no. 14198/20).
Communication of a case takes place where an issue is considered to require further examination and the respondent state is invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It is also an indication that the Court does not consider the case, on its face, inadmissible.
The latest episode of Law Pod UK features energy expert Thomas Muinzer of Aberdeen University and David Hart QC of 1 Crown Office Row. They discuss the complex provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008, the extent to which the UK has reached its own goals for carbon emission reduction, and two recent challenges in the courts to projects involving GHG emissions:
In a paper published today Lord Sandhurst QC and Benet Brandret QC follow up on the previous paper co-authored by Lord Sandhurst QC by making concrete proposals for addressing the issues identified previously (see the previous paper here and our post on it here). It sets out a more concluded position on the doubts as to the vires for SI 2020/350 by explaining why the Statutory Instrument is, indeed, ultra vires, and the need for new legislation. It also sets out routes to put legislation and Guidance on a sound footing.
Derogation under the Convention is governed by Article 15 which states:
In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under [the] Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.
A “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” is defined as “an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the State is composed” (Lawless v Ireland (No 3) App no 332/57 (A/3), [1961] ECHR 2).
To what extent can the government be held liable for facilitating the imposition of the death penalty in a foreign state?
Since signing the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention in 1999, the UK has refused to extradite or deport persons to countries where they are facing criminal charges that carry the death penalty.
There is no judicial precedent, however, which prohibits the sharing of information relevant to a criminal prosecution in a non-abolitionist country. Therefore, in Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 10, there were two questions before the Supreme Court:
1. Whether it is unlawful at common law for the Secretary of State to provide mutual legal assistance (in the form of evidence) that will facilitate the death penalty in a foreign state against the individual in respect of whom the evidence is sought; and
2. Whether and in what circumstances it is lawful under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018, as interpreted in light of relevant provisions of European Union data protection law, for law enforcement authorities in the UK to transfer “personal data” to law enforcement authorities abroad for use in capital criminal proceedings.
In a judgment which showed tremendous sensitivity to the primacy of the legislature, a majority of the Supreme Court (with Lord Kerr dissenting) held the provision of mutual legal assistance (MLA) was not unlawful under the common law.
Nonetheless, the Court unanimously allowed the appeal on the second ground under Part 3 of the DPA 2018, overturning the ruling of the Divisional Court.
The Divisional Court has recently handed down a novel decision in R (FNM) v DPP, considering the right of complainants to a fair opportunity to make representations to the Director for Public Prosecutions (“DPP”), and for those representations to be considered, when conducting a review under the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme (“the VRR Scheme”).
The Court held that in circumstances where the DPP had not waited to give the complaint an opportunity to make representations as to whether there should be a criminal prosecution, the decision not to prosecute was materially flawed.
The bandstand on Clapham Common, fenced off while people use the area for daily exercise. Photograph: Guy Bell/REX/Shutterstock. Credit: The Guardian.
Needless to say, the impact of Covid-19 dominated all aspects of life over the past seven days. Given that the week saw the Prime Minister admitted to intensive care with the virus before ultimately being discharged home, this is unlikely to be much of a revelation. The UK Human Rights Blog has published many articles looking in detail at some of the legal challenges posed by Covid-19 and the Government’s response to the pandemic. Of note this week:
Dominic Ruck Keene looks at potential legal challenges to Government policy in respect of coronavirus – here;
Robert Craig considers whether the Coronavirus Regulations might be ultra vires – here;
Darragh Coffey explores the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 – here;
Rosalind English reviews a paper published by the Society of Conservative Lawyers on the consequences of coronavirus for the traditional principle of rule of law – here;
The Royal College of Nurses issued guidance to its members advising them that they could “as a last resort” refuse to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 if they are not given adequate personal protective equipment; and
Police came under increased scrutiny with regards to the exercise of their powers to enforce social distancing measures. The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire had to clarify statements that suggested officers may resort to checking the trolleys of grocery shoppers to determine if items purchased were “essential” or not.
The response to the Covid-19 pandemic by governments across the world has thrown into sharp relief the fact that at a time of crisis the institutions and functions of Nation States are still the key structures responsible for the most basic duty of protecting their citizens’ lives. In the United Kingdom, the recent weeks have seen interventions by the Government in the economy and in the freedom of movement that are commonly seen as unparalleled in the post 1945 era. Continue reading →
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.
The bandstand on Clapham Common, fenced off while people use the area for daily exercise. Photograph: Guy Bell/REX/Shutterstock. Credit: The Guardian.
Recent comments