Schooled on tax and Human Rights: Government successful in private schools VAT challenge

18 June 2025 by Rosalind English

In ALR and others v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2025] EWHC 1467 (Admin), the High Court has dismissed a challenge against the government’s manifesto policy of adding VAT to private school fees. The claimants were a group of students, parents, and schools. Some of the students required specific schooling because of (inter alia) special educational needs and religious convictions; all claimants sought a declaration that the VAT addition was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. Specifically, they argued that imposing VAT was incompatible with Article 2 Protocol 1 (right to education) and 14 (protection from discrimination).

This dismissal of the judicial review challenge represents a significant ruling on the interplay between fiscal policy, human rights law and the allocation of resources for education.

The Weekly Round-Up: Justice spending, assisted dying, rough sleeping, the Madleen yacht, and private schools VAT

16 June 2025 by Jennifer Zhou

In UK News

A modest rise in justice spending was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review. The courts system will receive up to £450m extra a year by 2028-29, helping to increase Crown Court sitting days and implement the recommendations of the forthcoming Leveson review. The probation service will receive up to £700m extra funding by 2028-9. Funding will also be awarded to prison building and the Law Officers’ departments. The average real terms increase in Ministry of Justice funding is of 3.1%.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returned to the House of Commons for debate on Friday 13 June. Among the amendments discussed was a prohibition on registered medical practitioners  or other health practitioners raising assisted dying with a person under 18. Despite opposition by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the Bill’s proposer, it was approved by a vote of 259 to 216. It was the first time Leadbeater had been defeated on the Bill in a Commons vote.

The government announced that rough sleeping will be decriminalised after more than 200 years. The Vagrancy Act 1824, introduced in response to increased homelessness after the Napoleonic Wars and Industrial Revolution, will be scrapped by spring 2026.

First commercial onshore salmon farm given the go ahead despite animal welfare concerns

6 June 2025 by Rosalind English

R (on the application of Animal Equality UK v North East Lincolnshire Borough Council and ASL New Lee Ltd [2025] EWHC 1331 (Admin)

This was an application for judicial review brought by an animal welfare charity challenging North East Lincolnshire Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the UK’s first full commercial scale onshore salmon farm proposed by AquaCultured Seafood Ltd. The farm, to be built in Cleethorpes, is designed to produce 5,000 tonnes of salmon per year.

The High Court had dismissed the application on paper in March 2025. However it was subsequently decided that Animal Equality’s challenge could proceed on the grounds that there was an arguable case that North East Lincolnshire Council’s planning officers had misdirected the Planning Committee by advising that animal welfare concerns could not be considered as material planning considerations under planning law. This potential misdirection raised a legal question about whether the approval of the salmon farm was lawful, warranting a full judicial review of the decision.

Arguments before the court

Animal Equality highlighted risks of welfare issues, such as the pain and suffering felt by animals kept in highly packed units, being eaten alive by sea lice; mass fish deaths including cannibalism and other problems such as high effluent levels in recirculating aquaculture systems. They referred to the deaths of 1.5 million fish at another onshore facility due to electricity supply interruptions. The Claimant did not seek to persuade the Court that the committee were required to take animal welfare concerns into account, rather that they should properly have been advised that it was open for them to do so if they wished to. They maintained that the Council’s planning committee members had been materially misled in relation to animal welfare concerns when the committee was advised that it could not take animal welfare concerns into account.

The Weekly Round Up: BSB drops rewrite of Core Duty 8, Mexico’s judicial election by popular vote, and Tory party leadership election not amenable to judicial review

2 June 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy

In UK News

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) have dropped their plans to require barristers to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion”. The proposed rewrite of Core Duty 8 would have placed barristers under a positive duty – something that had sparked widespread controversy about the BSB imposing its views of “social justice” on practitioners through “social engineering“. Notably, the rewrite was heavily criticised by former chair of the Bar Council who warned against the unintended detrimental consequences of “radical change”. Barbara Mills KC, current chair of the Bar Council has emphasised the continued commitment of the Bar Council to “equality, diversity and inclusion at the Bar”, but explained the concerns the Bar Council had about the positive duty “tak[ing] us backwards” due to the “lack [of] clarity needed for barristers to comply”. Although, director-general of the BSB, Mark Neale had promised that the proposed rewrite was “very genuine”, the BSB have now come out as saying that they will instead adopt a different strategy drawing on “all [their] regulatory tools” to advance equality of opportunity at the Bar.

The Weekly Round Up: Chemical castration, historic deportations, and excommunication

28 May 2025 by Benjamin Savill

In the news

The Ministry of Justice’s plan to roll out the chemical castration of convicted sex offenders has met with academic criticism, legal warnings, and comparisons to controversial schemes in other jurisdictions. The programme, announced this week by justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, is set to be piloted in twenty prisons in England and Wales as one of a number of “radical” reforms proposed in former Lord Chancellor David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review. Professor David Grubin of Newcastle University joined other forensic psychiatry experts expressing scepticism of the measure, saying that, although it was likely to reduce reoffending rates significantly, its “mandatory element” was “very unethical and… most doctors I know would be resistant to it.” Similar ‘Anti-Libidinal Intervention’ (ALI) schemes have been been introduced on a voluntary basis in Denmark and Germany, and mandatorily in Poland and Moldova – in the latter case, lasting for barely one year, before the country’s constitutional court quashed the measure for what it ruled as its fundamental human rights infringements. ALI programmes elsewhere have seen widespread condemnation from human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, citing in particular their violation of European Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading punishment), 8 and 12 (right to private life and to found a family). Marcus Johnstone of PCD Solicitors has said that the current proposals for ALIs in the UK would lead to challenges in the courts.

Cheshire West rides again: no power for a local authority with parental responsibility to consent to detention

20 May 2025 by Anogika Souresh

J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & M [2025] EWCA Civ 478 concerns an appeal of a decision by Mrs Justice Lieven. Lieven J had held that there was no need for the High Court to make an order authorising the deprivation of J’s liberty in circumstances where both J’s parents and the local authority consented to the deprivation of liberty.

J is a 14-year-old boy with a number of diagnoses, including autism, ADHD, and Pica. J lives in a specialist children’s home. J is subject to a final care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”). The Court of Appeal spelled out that the “major consequence of any care order is that it gives parental responsibility to the local authority, which is shared with the child’s parent(s), but with the local authority having control over the manner in which parental responsibility is exercised [CA 1989, s 33(3)]”.

Weekly Round-Up: Immigration, Assisted Dying, Ukraine, Gabon, and Two Tweet Appeals

19 May 2025 by Jennifer Zhou

In UK News:

The Prime Minister vowed to stop Britain from becoming an “island of strangers” as the government released its immigration White Paper. Key measures include: increasing the threshold for skilled worker visas; only allowing a narrow list of occupations onto the Temporary Shortage List; ending the social care visa route; restricting the ability to bring dependants to Britain; and increasing English language requirements for visa holders and dependants.

The Assisted Dying Bill has returned to Parliament; if approved, it would allow terminally ill adults with less than 6 months to live to commit medically assisted suicide. In the committee stage, over 500 amendments to the Bill were considered and about a third approved. The changes include removing the need for High Court approval and increasing the commencement period from 2 years to 4. A second debate is scheduled for 13 June. If you want to hear more about the AD bill, particularly its “six month” clause and what that will mean in practice, tune in to Law Pod UK Episode 218 and Episode 219.

The Weekly Round Up: UK climate policy challenged in ECtHR, US threatens suspension of habeas corpus, Privy Council holds Cayman Islands Immigration System not incompatible with Bill of Rights

14 May 2025 by Georgia Bowen

In UK News

Environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth, a disability rights activist, and a victim of coastal erosion are challenging the UK government’s climate adaptation programme (‘NAP3’) in the European Court of Human Rights. Published under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, NAP3 outlines the government’s objectives and policies for adapting to climate change. The claimants argue that its failings—particularly with regards to vulnerable individuals—violate their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Norfolk resident Kevin Jordan’s coastal home was demolished following damage caused by Storm Ciaran and rising sea levels, and had to be housed elsewhere by the local authority. Doug Paulley, a wheelchair user whose long-term health conditions are severely worsened by extreme heat, was concerned about NAP3’s lack of planning and funding across health and social sectors to alleviate the impact of heatwaves. 

Their application for judicial review was dismissed by the High Court in October last year and they have since been refused permission to appeal. Chamberlain J rejected arguments that the policy was insufficiently specific or ambitious, holding that s.58 merely required NAP3 to ‘address’ identified climate risks not to eliminate or minimise them. The court was not obliged under s.3 of the Human Rights Act to construe the statute in a way that better promoted the interests protected by the ECHR, over an interpretation that promoted those interests less effectively. Applying Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland, the court found the UK’s approach fell within its margin of appreciation. For similar reasons, the judge rejected the substantive claims that the inadequacies of NAP3 were sufficient to breach their human rights to life (Article 2), private life (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of possessions (A1P1), nor were they discriminated against on account of their vulnerable situations (Article 14). Chamberlain J considered the Secretary of State had breached the Public Sector Equality Duty in failing to assess the impacts of NAP3 on disabled and elderly people, but declined to quash the decision on this basis. A retrospective assessment in response to the legal challenge was sufficient to discharge the obligation, because the conclusion was that the programme should remain unchanged. It remains for the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the UK courts’ stance complies with the Convention’s principles.

Roll up roll up? Human rights group’s challenge to Israeli arms supply proceeds at speed

14 May 2025 by Leo Kirby

Chamberlain J has provided new guidance on when the court may order a rolled-up hearing. The procedural point arose in the context of an ongoing piece of strategic litigation, and resulted in an interlocutory judgment in R (Al-Haq) v SSBT [2025] EWHC 173 (Admin).

Al-Haq is an independent Palestinian human rights organisation. It brought a judicial review claim to challenge various decisions of the UK government in the licensing of exports of military and dual-use goods destined for Israel for potential use in Gaza. The decisions were taken by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were granted permission to intervene.

The Weekly Round Up: Challenge to SC ruling on biological sex, sex offenders banned from claiming asylum, challenge to Israel’s legal duties in the ICJ, and anti-protest Regulations found to be unlawful

6 May 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy

In UK News

The UK’s first transgender judge, Victoria McCloud, is bringing an action against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Lord Hodge, in this case, determined that the “unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. McCloud – one of at least two individuals who had unsuccessfully sought leave to intervene in the proceedings – is bringing the action on grounds that her Article 6 rights, which guarantee the right to a fair trial, have been infringed. She argues that the Supreme Court refused to hear her evidence about the “impact of those trans people affected by the judgement” and failed to “give any reasons” for doing so. Further, in her submission, the court had not considered human rights arguments that “would have been put by trans people” leaving her with the “nonsense” of being “two sexes at once”. In contrast, the court had heard from “protest groups speaking on behalf of women” in the case. McCloud is now seeking a declaration that “the actions of the UK government and the Supreme court judgement violate her fundamental human rights”. 

In an amendment to the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which is being considered by Parliament, the Home Office seeks to ban foreign sex offenders from claiming asylum in the UK. The amendment would affect anyone who qualifies for sex offender status. Under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention 1951 countries are entitled to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a particularly serious crime who present a danger to the community. Where a conviction qualifies a foreign national for the sex offenders’ register – regardless of the length of sentence they receive – that will lead to their refugee status being denied, on the basis that they will be presumed to have been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” . The Government has said that they are “toughening [their] approach to border security through stricter enforcement of the rules”, in an attempt to make “Britain’s streets safer”. Specifically, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has argued the amendment would ensure these “appalling crimes are taken seriously”. Steve Valdez-Symonds, at Amnesty International UK, however, has raised concerns that the Government is “rushing through late-stage amendments” to major legislations meaning that “laws are made without the full scrutiny and care they demand”. In his opinion this is an “irresponsible approach” to lawmaking.

The Weekly Round Up: ‘Sex’ defined by Supreme Court, Trump administration contempt proceedings, Hungarian constitutional amendments, clinicians’ right to privacy, and Nicholas Prosper’s sentence

25 April 2025 by Jennifer Zhou

In UK News:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The appeal in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 concerned revised statutory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The revised guidance defines ‘woman’ as including a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate. These Certificates are issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) and change the recipient’s gender ‘for all purposes’ (section 9(1)); however, the GRA 2004 also provides that s9(1) can be disapplied by other legislation. This was termed a ‘carve out’ power in the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court held that the carve out applies to the EA 2010. In interpreting EA 2010, the Court looked to which definition of sex would make its provisions coherent and workable. A certificated-sex approach would create two sub-groups within the transgender community: those with a GRC would be entitled to greater rights than those without. The Court saw ‘no good reason’ why Parliament would intend this inequality of status. The Court also anticipated that parties seeking to fulfil their bifurcated duties under the EA 2010 would also face practical difficulties: there is no obvious outward difference between trans people with and without a GRC, and duty-bearers cannot ask whether a GRC has been obtained because it is confidential information.

The Weekly Round Up: Asylum centre legal actions, Supreme Court rule on homeless housing, Trump’s ICC sanctions challenged, ECtHR decision on parliamentary privilege

14 April 2025 by Georgia Bowen

In UK News

Asylum seekers held at the Manston holding facility in Kent are bringing legal action against the government for unlawful detention and other rights violations. The claims stem from a period between June and November 2022 in which the centre meant for a maximum of 1,600 people was holding more than 3,000 in unsanitary, overcrowded conditions. Described as a ‘humanitarian crisis on British soil’ by one union official as well as a solicitor for the claimants, detainees suffered outbreaks of infectious disease such as norovirus, scabies and even diphtheria, from which one man died. The conditions left the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration ‘speechless’. The claimants include a Syrian woman who, having arrived at the centre with her husband and five young children, suffered a miscarriage while unable to access medical care at the centre. Another is a 19-year-old Sudanese victim of trafficking and torture. He was left regularly hungry and only allowed one shower during his 33 day detention, during which no attention was paid to his particular vulnerabilities. A 17-year old Kurdish teenager from Iraq was detained for 12 days, with his age recorded as five years older despite his protestations, also joins the action. The government has faced many legal challenges of a similar nature, such as the recent High Court ruling that three vulnerable asylum seekers were unlawfully housed at former RAF base Wethersfield. 

The UK Supreme Court ruled last week on the scope of a local authority’s duty to secure temporary accommodation for qualifying homeless people in Scotland. Giving the court’s unanimous judgment, Lady Simler distinguished between the local authority’s duties relating to interim as opposed to permanent housing. These duties are respectively imposed by section 29 and section 31 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. At the interim stage, the local authority is under a duty to take a household’s needs into account but is not required to meet all those specific needs. The latter requirement only applies at the permanent stage. This reasoning led to the dismissal of the appeal, in which the appellant contended that the four-room temporary housing provided by Glasgow City Council was ‘unsuitable’ for the needs of her family of six considering her son’s autism and special needs, relying on s.39(3) of the 1987 Act and article 4(b) of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014. Lady Simler explained that the obligation to secure permanent accommodation is necessarily more onerous and outcome-specific than the duties at the interim stage.

The Weekly Round Up: Sentencing Council’s guidelines suspended, Civil Legal Aid and ECHR rights, and Hungary’s departure from the ICC

7 April 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy

In UK News

The Sentencing Council has suspended plans for new guidelines which could have led to different sentences depending on someone’s age, sex and ethnicity. The Sentencing Council’s decision to suspend plans comes in the wake of ministers preparing to “disapply” wording in the revised sentencing guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, through primary legislation. Justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had aimed to pass a bill through Parliament to halt the guidelines within 24 hours but was informed that it would be impossible before the Easter recess. Given that the revised sentencing guidelines were due to take effect in England and Wales last Tuesday, there would have been a “confusing period” during which time the guidelines would be enforced before being declared illegal.

These guidelines had specified a list of 10 groups for whom pre-sentence reports would “normally be necessary”. The groups in question included “those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.” In other words, the guidelines would have required magistrates and judges to consult a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to imprison someone of an ethnic and religious minority, in addition to other groups like young adults, abuse survivors and mothers. In doing so, the system would have “taken into account structural disparities in sentencing outcomes” and would have introduced measures targeted at combating racism in the courts. Senior legal figures, and the Society of Black Lawyers, have emphasised that the guidelines were an attempt to achieve “equal treatment” after “racist two-tier policing for 500 years”, specifically through attempting to address disparities in sentencing between white and non-white offenders.

After a meeting on Monday, the Sentencing Council confirmed it would not be introducing the guidelines when “there is a draft bill due for imminent introduction that would make it unlawful”. This follows the Sentencing Council having previously rejected a request from Mahmood to remove the ten specified groups as she said they would “single out specific cohorts for differential treatment”. In making this request, Mahmood had sought to demonstrate to the public that “Parliament is sovereign” and “everyone is treated equally by the criminal justice system”.

This matter has created tension between the executive and the judiciary, who make up the majority of the Sentencing Council.  Mahmood has told MPs that the Sentencing Council’s role will be subject to review. In the Commons on Tuesday, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary called for Lord Justice Davis, the head of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to be sacked over the row. Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General, speaking to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, has since emphasised that political attacks on judges are a “huge threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary”.

In International News

Hungary is due to leave the International Criminal Court on grounds that it has become “political”. This was announced during a visit to Hungary by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, who is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant which was issued on 21^st November 2024. Prior to this visit, Human Rights Watch had urged Hungary to deny entry to Netanyahu or to arrest him upon entry, in light of the arrest warrant. Specifically, Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch outlined how Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s invitation to Netanyahu was an “affront to victims of serious crimes” and urged Hungary to “comply with its legal obligations as a party to the ICC.”

As a member of the ICC, Hungary was in theory obliged to arrest Netanyahu in line with the ICC warrant. However, Orbán had previously said the ruling would have no effect in Hungary. Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó had notably criticised the warrants as “shameful and absurd” and “unacceptable”. Hungary has aligned itself with other European countries including France, Italy, Poland, Romania and Germany who have emphasised their non-committal to enforcement of the ICC’s warrant to arrest Netanyahu.

In announcing Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC this week, Orbán proclaimed that the ICC had “diminished into a political forum”, something that had “become the clearest in light of its decisions on Israel”. Netanyahu has thanked Orbán for taking a “bold and principled” position against the ICC.

The Weekly Round Up: Contested free speech at Sussex, Columbia and Cambridge, increased UK police powers, extradition to Romania blocked

31 March 2025 by Benjamin Savill

In the news

The University of Sussex has received a record fine of £585,000 from the UK Office for Students (OfS) for what it has called a “fail[ure] to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom”. The fine follows an investigation into the circumstances behind the resignation of the philosopher Kathleen Stock, who left the University in 2019 after becoming the object of student protests for her “gender critical views”. The OfS’s investigation focussed primarily on the University’s ‘Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement’, which it claims created a “chilling effect”, giving rise to “the potential for staff and students to self-censor and not speak about or express certain lawful views.” The OfS states that the University may not have complied with section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (duty relating to freedom of speech); Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (the right to freedom of expression); Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 (indirect discrimination); and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The BIOT Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers  Detained Unlawfully

27 March 2025 by Tehreem Sultan

The Supreme Court in British Indian Ocean Territory ruled in December on an important issue concerning the detention of asylum seekers in Diego Garcia. While their cause has progressed (including in a settlement reached on behalf of many, and in this judgment).

Ms Justice Obi, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory, determined that the Claimants had been unlawfully detained since their arrival in October 2021.