Law Pod UK new episode: Reintroducing the birds and the bees

29 September 2020 by

Through a collaboration with the Environmental Law Foundation we bring you Episode 126, a panel discussion with environmental experts Mark Avery and Nikki Gammans in discussion with Carol Day, consultant solicitor with Leigh Day. This is the first instalment of two of these panel discussions.

A plethora of reintroductions of various species have been making the news recently, with such charismatic species as White Sea Eagles and Red Kites. Dr Mark Avery from Wild Justice discusses with Carol Day how well these projects are working. They also strike a note of caution about the proposal to reintroduce Hen Harriers in the south. Dr Nikki Gammans of the Bumble Bee Conservation Trust talks about the reintroduction of the Short Tailed Bumble Bee. This species as taken to New Zealand in colonial times, and the population remained there after it went extinct in the UK. The Bumble Bee Trust is running a project to bring them back to this country.

Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple PodcastsAudioboomPlayer FM,  ListenNotesPodbeaniHeartRadio PublicDeezer or wherever you listen to our podcasts.

Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.

The Weekly Round-up: The Coronavirus Act 2020 under review

28 September 2020 by

Harriet Harman MP, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Photo: Chris McAndrew

In the news

This week, 6 months after it was passed, the Coronavirus Act 2020 is due for a review in Parliament. In advance of that review, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report on the human rights implications of the government’s response to COVID-19. In the report, the committee highlights a wide range of failings, including in particular: widespread confusion over what is law and what is guidance; police failing to fully understand their powers under coronavirus legislation; privacy, data protection and discrimination concerns about test & trace; reduced access to justice; disproportionate harm to school children with special educational needs and disabilities; and harms inflicted by blanket bans on visits to people in care homes, prisons, and mental health facilities. The report can be viewed here; the JCHR’s proposed amendments to the coronavirus legislation to be discussed this week are here.  

The JCHR is also due on Monday to scrutinise the government’s Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which proposes a presumption against prosecution for service personnel and veterans. Concerns have been raised about the risks of the UK contravening its international legal obligations, and creating impunity for serious war crimes and torture.

Concerns about surveillance in the UK continue, as it was revealed this week that surveillance cameras manufactured by Chinese company Hikvision are being used across the UK; their use has expanded in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hikvision was blacklisted by the US government for human rights violations in connection with the Uighur concentration camps in Xinjiang. Hikvision says it has been engaging with the UK and US governments to “clarify misunderstandings”, and claims it is “committed to cybersecurity standards which are compliant with the most rigorous certifications and best practices.”


Continue reading →

A Life’s Work: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Ruby Peacock

25 September 2020 by

Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Image: The Guardian

In a career defined as much by powerful dissenting judgments as by winning oral arguments, Ruth Bader Ginsburg blazed a trail particularly for women, but also minorities and the LGBTQI+ community, to receive equal treatment under the law. This article will follow that trail, from her early women’s rights arguments in the 1970s to her powerful dissenting judgments, which earned her the affectionate title of ‘the Notorious RBG’ in later life. 

To commemorate her death last Friday at 87 years of age, this extended article will look at her extraordinary professional life.


Continue reading →

Were the March 2020 lockdown restrictions lawfully imposed? (Part 2) — Emmet Coldrick

25 September 2020 by

The Prime Minister announces the lockdown on 23rd March. Image: The Guardian

Emmet Coldrick is a barrister at Quadrant Chambers, London.  The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of its author. Legal scrutiny of the provisions discussed in this piece is warranted but should not be taken to question the requirement to obey the regulations.

The first article in this two-part analysis examined whether the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 fall within the Minister’s powers under section 45C(4)(d) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to impose “a special restriction or requirement”. It can be found here.

This second article will discuss the proper approach that the court should take where fundamental rights are in issue and argue that the Regulations were in fact ultra vires.

The two articles are a condensed version of a full analysis which may be found here.

This is the second part of a blog post on this topic.  The first part concluded part-way through a discussion of whether the Regulations fall within the Minister’s powers under section 45C(4)(d) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to impose “a special restriction or requirement”.

Proper approach to interpretation where fundamental rights are in issue

A troubling feature of the section of the judgment in Dolan that deals with the ultra vires issue is that it makes no reference to the gravity of the restrictions on liberty imposed by the Regulations or of the fact that, on the Secretary of State’s case, the Act confers powers to impose still graver restrictions on fundamental rights.  Instead, the judgment refers blandly at paragraph 43 to “the adoption of a range of measures”.

It is also regrettable that, while glossing over of the seriousness of the interference with fundamental rights that would be permitted if his interpretation of the Act were correct, the Secretary of State stressed the “threat”, submitting that “… it would be absurd if the provisions were to be read otherwise given the nature of the public health threat …” (judgment para. 36).  That approach to the question of the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers is redolent of the kind reasoning that characterises justifications of rule by diktat and is the antithesis of the rule of law.  A decree that no one may leave her home without reasonable excuse, or gather with more than one other person in a public place, is the sort of restriction that might be imposed by a totalitarian regime or an invading foreign power.

It is welcome that in his Reasons for granting permission to appeal, Hickinbottom LJ noted that “… not only did/do the challenged Regulations impose possibly the most restrictive regime on the public life of persons and businesses ever – certainly outside times of war – but they potentially raise fundamental issues concerning the proper spheres of democratically-accountable Ministers of the Government and judges”.


Continue reading →

Were the March 2020 lockdown restrictions lawfully imposed? (Part 1) — Emmet Coldrick

24 September 2020 by

How the lockdown was reported by the newspapers in March. Image: The Guardian

Emmet Coldrick is a barrister at Quadrant Chambers, London.  The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of its author. Legal scrutiny of the provisions discussed in this piece is warranted but should not be taken to question the requirement to obey the regulations.

This first article will examine whether the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 fall within the Minister’s powers under section 45C(4)(d) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to impose “a special restriction or requirement”. The second article will discuss the proper approach that the court should take where fundamental rights are in issue and argue that the Regulations were in fact ultra vires.

These articles are a condensed version of a full analysis which may be found here.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations”) contained the most draconian restrictions on the liberty of the general population ever imposed in England.  They purported to create several new criminal offences (see reg. 9), including an offence of contravening a regulation that “… no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse” (see reg. 6) and an offence of contravening, without reasonable excuse, a regulation that (subject to limited exceptions) “no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people” (see reg. 7).

These extraordinary new laws were made without prior debate in Parliament.  The published text of the Regulations records that they were made and came into force at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020 and were laid before Parliament only thereafter.

On any view, a power to make – by the stroke of a minister’s pen – such new laws would be an awesome one.  The Secretary of State claims that he had the power to make the Regulations under Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”).  That has been challenged by Mr Simon Dolan, who has brought judicial review proceedings contending that the Regulations were ultra vires.

Mr Dolan’s challenge is pending in the Court of Appeal.  It was dismissed as unarguable by Lewis J at first instance (Dolan v Secretary of State for Health [2020] EWHC 1786 (Admin) (6th July 2020).  But the Act presents difficulties in interpretation that were not grappled with in the judgment.  I make a case below that the Regulations are ultra vires and that Mr Dolan’s appeal should be allowed.


Continue reading →

A bonanza of C-19 challenges

23 September 2020 by

With Baroness Hale’s recent criticism of the emergency measures taken by the government ringing in our ears, the following information from across the Atlantic might be of interest. The New England firm Pierce Atwood LLP has compiled a list of class actions related to COVID-19 in the United States, including all filed and anticipated cases up to 9 September 2020. Although their survey only covers litigation in the US, a similar trend may be predicted in this country, albeit on a smaller scale, even as the pandemic continues to unfold: indeed Alethea Redfern has made reference to such a likelihood in this week’s Round-Up. The authors of the US report observe that, despite “unprecedented court closures and changing procedural rules”,

class actions have steadily increased and are expected to expand across industries, jurisdictions, and areas of law. The impact of COVID-19 on business operations, consumer activity, and economic forecasts has made clear that the filings to date are only an early indication of what is to come.

The report provides a categorised summary of coronavirus-related class action litigation filed to date, highlighting the core allegations of each complaint. You will find the individual case citations in their post on Lexology.


Continue reading →

The common law right to privacy in Scotland

21 September 2020 by

BC & Others v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland & Others [2020] CSIH 61

Last week, the Inner House of the Court of Session refused a reclaiming motion in relation to the use of racist, antisemitic and sexist WhatsApp messages in misconduct proceedings against ten police officers. The judgment discusses several interesting issues, such as the police officers’ reasonable expectation of privacy when exchanging such messages, which can be found here.

However, the focus of this article shall be on an aspect of the case which was not cross appealed: the existence of a common law right to privacy in Scotland. Despite not being an issue of contention, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, took the opportunity to express her views on the matter. These now cast doubt over the existence of such a right – one which Lord Bannatyne, from the Outer House, believed was nascently recognised in case law.


Continue reading →

Latest on Brexit transition: Law Pod UK

21 September 2020 by

In her latest episode Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University comments on the transition period towards Brexit since the Withdrawal Act was implemented by the government in January this year when we formally left the EU. It was this act that the Internal Market Bill was set up to amend, and it’s the Internal Market Bill that’s been debated in Parliament. Listen to Catherine Barnard on the difficult border problems and other issues in our repost of 2903 CB.

Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple PodcastsAudioboomPlayer FM,  ListenNotesPodbeaniHeartRadio PublicDeezer or wherever you listen to our podcasts.

Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.

CJEU Provides First Ruling on Net Neutrality Regulations

20 September 2020 by

Telenor Magyarország Zrt. Jv Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke, Joined Cases  C‑807/18 and C‑39/19

The CJEU has ruled, in a first for that regulation, that the use of “Zero Tariff” contracts are inconsistent with its “Open Internet” regulation (Regulation 2015/2120). The regulation “aims to establish common rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services and end users’ rights”. Its intention is to legally establish the principle of ‘Net Neutrality’, whereby internet access providers are prohibited from giving preferential treatment (for example, limiting access or increasing traffic speeds) to specific websites and users.

The issue in this case was whether zero tariff contracts offered by Telenor, an Hungarian internet access provider, contravened net neutrality regulation. Zero tariff contracts provide data allowances to their users, (1 GB, for instance), which the consumer is allowed to use as they please. On running out of data, typically internet access would be stopped. However, in its two zero tariff contracts, called MyChat and MyMusic, certain websites and applications did not run down the data allowance. Furthermore, even once the data allowance had been used up, the same websites and applications could still be accessed, although otherwise no internet access was provided. 


Continue reading →

Portuguese climate change claim in Strasbourg

18 September 2020 by

For a while, 6 Portuguese citizens, between the ages of 8 and 21, have been on the brink of starting proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights. Now it has happened. On 3 September 2020, they sent their claim to the ECtHR. They have been helped in its preparation by the Global Legal Network, which has helpfully put up here a summary as well as the salient parts of the documents sent to the Court.

The claim is against 33 Council of Europe countries (all the EU 27, plus the UK, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) for failing to take sufficient steps to address climate change. The failures alleged include permitting emissions domestically, permitting the export of fossil fuels extracted from their territories, permitting the import of goods containing embedded carbon, and allowing entities domiciled in those countries to contribute to emissions abroad (via fossil fuel extraction elsewhere or its financing).


Continue reading →

Breaking international law: the UK is biting off its nose to spite its face — Dr Sean Molloy

14 September 2020 by

The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement was signed in January of this year. Image: The Guardian

The UK Internal Market Bill has caused huge controversy. Much has been written about the UK Government’s decision to propose this legislation which, as conveyed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis MP, in Parliament, would openly flout international law (see, for example, Raphael Hogarth’s piece here, Mark Elliot’s here and discussion between Adam Wagner and David Allan Green here).

A major argument offered in defence is the one focused on the supremacy of domestic law over its international counterpart (see HMG Legal Position: UKIM Bill And Northern Ireland Protocol). The argument goes something like this: where domestic law appears to conflict with international law, Parliament reigns supreme and the domestic legislation is to have effect.

Strictly speaking, this is true. In contexts like the UK, with a dualist system requiring international treaties to be incorporated by an Act of Parliament, any international agreement that is not incorporated into domestic law, but which conflicts with an Act of Parliament, must give way.

But when the dust settles and the reality sets in that UK, as a country, must operate alongside other countries, there is likely to be a host of adverse implications to flow from this decision. Primary among these is, of course, that international law is law and the rule of law necessitates that the UK complies with its international obligations. This is obvious and it is a remarkable state of affairs that the point even needs to be made. Nevertheless, beyond the obvious, there are a multitude of other reasons not to flout international law, only a few of which are touched upon below.


Continue reading →

The Weekly Round-up: Brexit and some judgments from the European Court

14 September 2020 by

Photo: Chris McAndrew

In the news

The Prime Minister has courted controversy yet again this week with a new Brexit bill that appears to violate international law. The proposed Internal Markets Bill would give ministers certain powers relating to Northern Ireland in respect of customs rules and state aid. In particular, it would give them powers to modify or “disapply” rules relating to the movement of goods which will come into force from 1st January 2021, if the UK and EU are not able to agree a trade deal. These were key issues under the Northern Ireland Protocol that was negotiated as part of the Withdrawal Agreement concluded on 31 January this year. In a striking admission, Northern Ireland Minister Brandon Lewis stated in Parliament that this breach of the Withdrawal Agreement does indeed breach international law, but only “in a very specific and limited way”. The bill is to be formally debated by MPs today.

In a further move to avoid the UK’s international law obligations, the Government has indicated that it is planning to “opt out” of parts of the European Court of Human Rights. This proposal is apparently made in order to enable the Government to accelerate deportation of asylum-seekers, and to minimise legal action against British forces overseas, which the Government identifies as key areas where the judges of the European Court have “overreached”. The proposals have provoked outrage from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights’ inquiry into racism and human rights in the UK heard evidence this week from ClearView Research. The evidence provided from surveys indicates that black people in the UK overwhelmingly do not think they receive equal human rights protection. According to the data, 75% of black people in the UK do not believe their rights are equally protected compared to white people; 85% are not confident they would be treated the same as a white person by the police; and 60% do not believe their health is equally protected by the NHS compared to white people.  

The British Institute of Human Rights has released a report which raises new concerns about the operation of the care sector during the pandemic. The report states that more than 75% of social care staff were not given proper training to deal with the impact of COVID-19, in particular in relation to human rights law and coronavirus emergency powers – despite the wide-ranging changes made by the government to the legal framework which governs the care sector, including suspending duties under the Care Act, changing vulnerable individuals’ care packages, and banning non-essential visits to care homes. The report also noted that more than 60% of vulnerable individuals with care and support needs were not informed of the legal basis of the drastic changes made to their care packages.

As the school year gets going again, grammar schools will need to be cautious in complying with their duty to make reasonable adjustments, following a legal challenge funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The challenge was brought by a visually impaired student who was unable to sit an 11+ entry exam for a Berkshire grammar school when the school refused to make adjustments specified in his Education Health and Care Plan, on the basis that they were too expensive; the First-tier Tribunal found for the student.

In the courts

With the UK courts in recess, there are very few reported judgments this week. However, there are some noteworthy judgments from the European Court of Human Rights:

  • GL v Italy: a child diagnosed with nonverbal autism was entitled to specialised assistance under Italian law. The local authorities did not provide this for 2 years, while she was in primary school, on the basis of lack of resources. The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 14 read with Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education). In particular, the court noted that the Italian courts had failed to consider whether there was a fair balance between the child’s educational needs and the authorities’ capacity, and did not verify how the effect of budgetary restrictions compared for non-disabled and disabled children. The court further observed that the national authorities had not considered the possibility that they could address their lack of resources by reducing their educational offer accordingly, such that it could be distributed equitably between non-disabled and disabled students. In giving judgment, the court emphasised that budgetary restrictions must impact the education available for disabled and non-disabled pupils the same way; and that discrimination of this kind is all the more serious when taking place in compulsory primary education.
  • NS v Croatia: the applicant’s daughter and partner had died in a tragic car accident, but their daughter survived. In the aftermath of the accident, there was a custody battle between the applicant and the child’s uncle; following confidential court proceedings, the uncle was given custody. The applicant subsequently appeared on a national TV show, where she discussed the proceedings, and expressed criticism of the Croatian child protection system on a TV show; she was convicted of a criminal offence for breach of confidentiality in respect of the court proceedings. The court held that there had been a violation of Article 10. The domestic courts should have considered the fact that most of the information disclosed in the TV report was already known to the public, and that the applicant had been appearing on TV in good faith to raise serious concerns about the malfunctioning of the country’s social welfare services.
  • Yordanovi v Bulgaria: two Turkish-Muslim brothers decided to set up an association for the integration of Turkish-speaking Bulgarians. In pursuit of this aim, they built a monument on private land to commemorate soldiers killed in the 19th Century Russo-Turkish War, and set up the ‘Muslim Democratic Union’ at an assembly in the centre of town. Police told them the assembly was illegal, but it went ahead; criminal proceedings were subsequently brought for setting up a political organisation on a religious basis, and for breach of the peace in setting up the monument. The brothers were given a suspended prison sentence. The court held that this was a violation of Article 11. The authorities had many other options: they could refuse to register the would-be political party, without which registration the party would not be able to engage in any official activity; and they could have dissolved the party if it were declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. A criminal sanction had been a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and freedom of association, and was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’.
  • Timakov and Ooo Id Rubezh v Russia: the applicant and his newspaper had published an article making allegations of corruption against the Governor of the Tula region in Russia. The Governor brought civil and criminal proceedings, and substantial damages awards were made – sufficiently substantial that some of the applicant’s household items were taken to fulfil them. The Governor was ultimately found guilty of bribery and corruption and sent to prison. The court found that there was a violation of Article 10. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted a laundry list of failings in the Russian courts: the courts had not sought to balance the governor’s interest in protecting his reputation against the importance of public transparency and accountability; the courts had not considered the applicant’s role as a journalist, that these were matters of public concern, or that he had acted in good faith; the courts had not attempted to consider whether the statements complained of were statements of fact or value judgements. The court further emphasised the chilling effect of such disproportionately high awards, with the awards from the civil proceedings having been substantially higher than the fine in the criminal proceedings.
  • BG and others v France: Eastern European asylum-seekers with young children were accommodated by the French authorities in a set of tents in a parking lot, for a period of approximately 3 months. They alleged that there had been a violation of Article 3 and 8, insofar as they had not benefited from the material and financial support provided for under national law. The court rejected their claim, noting that the applicants had received constant food aid; medical monitoring, vaccination, and education had been provided for their young children; and their asylum application had been examined under an accelerated process.
  • Shuriyya Zeylanov v Azerbaijan: this case highlights serious failings in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan. The applicant’s son had been charged with treason, having been accused of collaboration with Iranian intelligence forces, and died in custody from an alleged pulmonary embolism. The applicant claimed that the government had violated Articles 2 and 3. The court upheld his claim, under both the substantive and the procedural limbs. The government had failed to convincingly account for the circumstances of the victim’s death, and it appeared likely that injuries visible on video footage of his body had been occasioned by torture. Likewise, the government had failed analyse the causal links between his injuries and his death, or to cooperate with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture or Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and it appeared that the government had attempted to prevent an effective investigation into the matter, by levelling accusations of defamation against the deceased’s family.

On the UKHRB

  • Sapan Maini-Thompson discusses a High Court challenge to conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre  
  • Philippa Collins considers the implications of the new pattern of home working for privacy rights under the European Convention of Human Rights
  • Elliot Gold examines a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 3 ECHR in the context of a rape investigation

High Court dismisses challenge to conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre — an extended look

9 September 2020 by

Brook House IRC. Image: The Guardian

In Soltany and Others v SSHD [2020], the High Court dismissed a challenge to the conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), which at the material times in 2017 and 2018, was run by G4S.

The claim for judicial review, which was brought by three individuals of Afghan origin, principally contended the night-time lockdown regime, pursuant to which detainees were locked in their rooms overnight from 9pm to 8am, was both “unnecessary and unduly harsh” [2].

Additionally, two of the claimants argued that the combination of the night state, which meant that observant Muslims had to perform some of their daily prayers in their rooms, and the conditions of the rooms (especially the proximity of the toilet) amounted to unlawful religious discrimination.

In a complex judgement extending to over 400 paragraphs, Cavanagh J refused the application on each ground. First, the Court held that Brook House’s overnight lock-down regime and room conditions are compatible with both ECHR Articles 5 and 8. Second, the Defendant did not act contrary to either the common law or Article 5 in failing to give reasons for the allocation of detainees to specific removal centres. Third, there was no religious discrimination under ECHR Article 9, either read alone or together with ECHR Article 14. Nor was there any indirect discrimination contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.


Continue reading →

The Right to Privacy, Surveillance-by-Software and the “Home-Workplace” – Philippa Collins

8 September 2020 by

This article was first published on the UK Labour Law Blog ( @labour_blog). We repost it with the kind permission of Dr Philippa Collins (@DrPMCollins at Exeter University) and the editors of the Labour Law Blog

One of the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic upon the world of work is likely to be a move away from the traditional workplace. In some sectors, such as academia, IT, and administration, remote work or home working is an established working pattern, although a rare one given national statistics from 2019 which indicated only 5% of the workforce worked mainly from home. The need to prevent the spread of the coronavirus through contact in the workplace precipitated a rapid and widespread move to homeworking. In an ONS survey in early May, 44% of adults surveyed were working from home. As some businesses begin to transition back into their previous working patterns, several high-profile companies have announced that they will not expect their staff to return to the workplace and will support homeworking as a permanent option in the future.


Continue reading →

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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.

%d bloggers like this: