Search Results for: environmental/page/15/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
28 February 2023 by anuragdeb
Introduction
Two men are in a relationship and want to have a child. They approach a female friend who is happy to be their surrogate. She has previously had a voluntary sterilisation procedure, so she would need in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) using a donor egg (a procedure known as gestational surrogacy), to help her friends realise their wishes. This is where they all encounter a problem: voluntary sterilisation makes the woman ineligible for publicly funded IVF.
In JR176(2)’s application for judicial review [2022] NIKB 21, the two men challenged the eligibility criteria for publicly funded IVF on a number of grounds, among which this post will focus on two: a breach of the right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR and Article 8 taken with the right not to be discriminated against contrary to Article 14 ECHR.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
29 September 2015 by Laura Profumo
Laura Profumo brings you the latest human rights happenings.
In the News:
Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, announced last week that it was “inconceivable” that the SNP would support the Conservative plans to scrap the Human Rights Act. Talking to an audience in Glasgow on Wednesday, Sturgeon pledged her unequivocal commitment to block the HRA-repeal. Sturgeon warned that human rights remained a “devolved issue”, meaning that Scottish opposition might well hamper Gove’s forthcoming efforts. Many find sympathy with Sturgeon’s stance. Sturgeon values the HRA as a “careful model” which incorporates human rights protection into UK law, without upsetting our constitutional bedrock, writes Alex Cisneros in The Justice Gap.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 May 2011 by Melina Padron
Last week’s human rights news received an enormous amount of coverage, which means that we were unable to fit all of them within this humble post. However, we do recommend that you click here to access the full list of some of our favourite articles pertaining to last week’s hotly debated topics.
by Melinda Padron
The week started off with a Twitter account supposedly “outing” a number of individuals who had taken injunctions with anonymity clauses or “superinjunctions”. As we all know, this topic has been the subject of attacks by the press and politicians over the past few weeks. Judith Townend wrote an insightful post on the incident for the Inforrm’s Blog, which contained opinions from media lawyers and experts, and also links to many of the articles featured in newspapers and law blogs alike.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 July 2024 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
The King’s Speech on Wednesday opened the first session of the new parliament, announcing 40 bills – the highest number announced in a King’s Speech since 2005. The bills announced included several relating to human rights, such as a Victims Bill, Mental Health Bill, and two draft bills – one on Race and Disability, predominantly concerning the right to equal pay, and another on Conversion Practices, seeking to ban conversion therapy. Several bills make provisions to combat violence against women and girls. A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission responded to the announcements, welcoming the ‘positive developments for equality and human rights’, emphasising that the watchdog ‘stands ready to provide government and Parliament with advice as the detail of all the proposed legislation is developed’. In contrast, the organisation Human Rights Watch have suggested that the new Government’s vision ‘falls short’ in key areas, calling for ‘bolder action’ to secure better living standards for British citizens.
Last Tuesday, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act came into force, making Scotland the first UK country to incorporate the children’s rights charter into national law. While the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that certain provisions of the original bill passed by the Scottish Parliament exceeded its legislative competence, subsequent amendments to the bill enabled a revised version to pass last December. Now that the Act is in force, all Scottish public authorities are under a direct legal duty to consider and promote children’s rights in policy decisions. The Act also improves children’s ability to enforce their rights in the courts. An announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice reads: “The Act is a landmark piece of legislation that incorporates the UNCRC into Scots law, empowers our children and young people to claim their rights and will help to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up”.
Following the new Government’s statement that the Rwanda Plan is ‘dead and buried’, £84 million of funding has been announced to ‘address the reasons for illegal migration’. The funding package will support projects in Africa and the Middle East in an attempt to ‘tackle illegal migration at source’. The announcement acknowledges the roots of illegal migration in conflict, climate change, and more, emphasising that the funding will be utilised to build resilience against such events. Initiatives are targeted towards skill-building, education, and employment. The funding will also support refugees hosted in countries within their home region with the aim of allowing their return home when conditions improve, as well as supporting reintegration of refugees in their home nations. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “Our package of up to £84 million will improve education, boost employment and build resilience to conflict and climate change across the Middle East and North Africa – to help bring down migration figures whilst improving lives for the world’s most vulnerable people.”
In Other News
As the Paris Olympics approach, the conversation regarding France’s hijab ban has resurfaced. Though originally announced in September 2023, the ban, prohibiting France’s athletes from sporting any form of religious headwear, has received fresh criticism in the form of a report published last week by Amnesty International. While Amélie Oudéa-Castéra – France’s Minister for Sport – stated that the ban has been imposed in line with the country’s principle of secularism, Amnesty have claimed the ban makes a ‘mockery’ of claims by the International Olympic Committee that Paris 2024 is the ‘first gender-equal Olympics’. The human rights organisation noted that the official Olympic Charter states that “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement”, a sentiment they claim is in manifest contradiction with the hijab ban. “Amnesty International believes that when the world will be watching its athletes compete for medals and exercising their right to practice sport without discrimination, it should also cast a critical eye on the Olympics host country, which does not apply Olympic values to everyone”.
In the Courts
On Friday, the International Court of Justice published its Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court made several seminal conclusions, finding that:
- Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories is unlawful;
- That Israel is under an obligation to therefore end its unlawful presence as soon as is possible;
- That Israel is obliged cease all settlement activities and evacuate all settlers;
- That Israel is obliged to make reparations for any damage eventuating from its unlawful presence;
- And that all other States, alongside international organisations, are obliged not to assist the ongoing presence of Israel in the Occupied Territories, nor recognise it as legal.
The Court recalled its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which found that Israeli settlements were established and maintained in breach of Israel’s international legal obligations. The Court expressed grave concerns that in the years since, the Israeli settlement policy has continued to expand. The Court noted that a variety of Israeli legislation and administrative measures relating to its occupation treated Palestinians differently without justification or legitimate aim. This finding led the Court to conclude that the Israeli regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories constituted ‘systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin’ in violation of a variety of international conventions. Vital to the Court’s determination was the finding of the ‘prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination’, a right the Court viewed as ‘fundamental’. However, Judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu issued a joint opinion stating that they could see ‘no legal connection whatsoever’ between the Palestinian right to self-determination over the territories and the extension of the illegality of Israel’s occupation. Judge Sebutinde’s dissenting opinion was the subject of discussion by legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, who has expressed the view that litigation ‘will not bring peace to the Middle East’.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that the failure of Latvian authorities to bring charges for a homophobic hate crime constituted a breach of ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Given that the assailant had admitted to police the use of homophobic slurs and personal homophobic beliefs that ‘clearly’ motivated the attack, the Court found that the proceedings brought against him, culminating only in a ‘manifestly lenient fine’, breached Mr Hanov’s human rights. The Court expressed the view that the actions of the Latvian authorities ‘fostered a sense of impunity for hate-motivated offences. […] Failure to address such incidents can normalise hostility towards LGBTI individuals, perpetuate a culture of intolerance and discrimination and encourage further acts of a similar nature’.
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 September 2011 by Daniel Sokol
W (by her litigation friend, B) v M (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam). Read judgment.
In the first case of its kind, the Court of Protection ruled that withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a minimally conscious state was not, in the circumstances, in that person’s best interests. The Court also made general observations for future cases.
See our earlier posts here and here for a summary of the facts of this case.
The judgment
Since M had left no legally valid advance decision expressing her wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the court had to determine whether it would be in M’s best interests to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
27 September 2018 by Guest Contributor
Raychaudhuri v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2027
On 14th September 2018 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a doctor against a finding that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of dishonesty.
This case concerned professional disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, Dr Hemmay Raychaudhuri. A complaint had been made in relation to how the appellant had filled in a form to record the medical examination of a child patient. This complaint was referred to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT). Assessing the scope for misunderstanding between the appellant and other medical staff, the MPT upheld the charge of ‘misleading actions’ rather than ‘dishonest actions’. As such there was no impairment of his ability to practice as a doctor.
The General Medical Council (GMC), however, alleged dishonesty on the part of the appellant. The GMC appealed to the High Court in reliance on section 40A Medical Act 1983. This stipulates the conditions under which the General Council may challenge a decision of an MPT if it believes a disciplinary decision made under section 35D does not sufficiently protect the public.
In the High Court, Sweeney J followed the decision of the Divisional Court in General Medical Council v Jagjivan [2017] EWHC, which held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the GMC against a ruling by an MPT. He substituted the MPT’s finding to declare that the appellant had in fact behaved dishonestly and that therefore his fitness to practice was impaired.
There were three grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal.
- The High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 40 to hear an appeal by the GMC against a finding by an MPT that a doctor’s fitness to practice is not impaired. This was an invitation to overrule Jagjivan;
- The High Court was wrong to substitute a finding that he had behaved dishonestly, where the MPT had acquitted him of dishonesty;
- Even if the conduct was dishonest, the High Court was wrong to find his fitness to practice was impaired and was wrong to remit the case to the MPT.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 September 2010 by Rosalind English
J M v. The United Kingdom – 37060/06 [2010] ECHR 1361 – Read judgment
The European Court of Rights has declared that rules on child maintenance prior to introduction of the Civil Partnership Act discriminated against those in same-sex relationships.
The events happened nearly a decade ago and the law in relation to same-sex couples has greatly altered since, so it will be of limited relevance to those paying child benefit now. Of more interest is the reasoning of the majority in deciding the case under the right to peaceful enjoyment of property rather than the right to family life.
The case summary is based on the Court’s press release, and is followed by my comment.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 March 2016 by Fraser Simpson
Hammerton v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6287/10 – read judgment.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person). However, the decision not to provide compensation to the individual following a failure to provide him with a lawyer during domestic proceedings resulted in a violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial).
by Fraser Simpson
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 July 2012 by Guest Contributor
Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the second consultation of the Bill of Rights Commission. This consultation invites views on a number of key issues that form part of the Commission’s mandate. In the Daily Mail’s correspondent’s view, the Commission has committed an appalling transgression by asking potential respondents whether the UK Bill of Rights should include additional rights, referring amongst other things to socio-economic rights. This is echoed by the Sun which argues that the Commission has ‘suggested’ (which it clearly has not) that ‘all Brits be given handouts as a birth right’, and the Daily Express which suggests “Spongers can Sue to Claim Benefits”.
Socio-economic rights are rights that relate to human survival and development. Like the majority of European and other countries, the UK has volunteered to be bound by a range of such rights as a result of ratifying a number of international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1992) and the European Social Charter (ratified by the UK in 1962). While these treaties haven’t been made part of our domestic law in the way the European Convention on Human Rights has been as a result of the Human Rights Act, they impose a range of human rights obligations on the UK. The government reports back periodically to the UN expert committees that monitor the implementation of these treaties.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 July 2013 by Rosalind English
Malik v Fassenfelt and others [2013] EWCA Civ 798 – read judgment
A common law rule that the court had no jurisdiction to extend time to a trespasser could no longer stand against the Article 8 requirement that a trespasser be given some time before being required to vacate:
The idea that an Englishman’s home is his castle is firmly embedded in English folklore and it finds its counterpart in the common law of the realm which provides a remedy to enable the owner of the castle to secure the eviction of trespassers from it. But what if the invaders occupy for long enough to establish their home within the keep? Whose castle is it now? Whose home must the law now protect?
This was the question before the Court of Appeal in a challenge to a possession order requiring the removal of squatters from private land.
Although there is now some doubt as to whether the leading authority on landowners’ rights against squatters is still good law, Article 8 still does not entitle a trespasser to stay on the land for ever. At its highest it does no more than give the trespasser an entitlement to more time to arrange his affairs and move out.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
19 November 2024 by Guest Contributor
Deb and Graham characterise my argument as follows: “the right to life under Article 2 is absolute and allows no exception; there is a negative obligation upon the UK not to take life; any euthanasia laws would necessarily involve the taking of life; therefore euthanasia laws would breach Article 2.” They then point out that this argument has been rejected in Mortier v Belgium.
The problem is that this completely mischaracterises my argument and as result Deb and Graham dedicate several paragraphs to attacking a strawman. My argument was much narrower than they claim. As I explained in my blog post the “negative obligation prohibits the State from conducting euthanasia and assisted suicide itself, even as part of a well-regulated scheme with appropriate safeguards. This means that, under the Convention, States may allow/tolerate private parties from conducting euthanasia/assisted suicide with appropriate safeguards but the State itself cannot conduct them.” (emphasis added)
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
20 July 2013 by Rosalind English
SS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 888 – read judgment
This case concerns a hitherto little-explored aspect of the right to a private and family life: a parent’s opportunity to teach their offspring about their own religious faith.
This is also a subset of the right under Article 9 to practise one’s own religion. This question was raised in EM(Lebanon) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64 but was only tangential to the main issue, which was the relationship between the appellant mother and her son as opposed to the father whose entitlement to custody would have been secured under Islamic law.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
14 November 2014 by David Hart KC
Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2014] UKSC 63 – read judgment 12 November 2014 and
R (ota ZH and CN) v. LB Newham et al [2014] UKSC 62 – read judgment 12 November 2014
A brace of cases showing the limited role which Article 8 and Article 1 of the 1st Protocol has to play in housing law, so heavily regulated by a combination of statute and contract law. The human right protections conferred, as we shall see, are mainly procedural.
The contract and property issues are well illustrated by the case of Sims. Mr and Mrs Sims had lived in a council property, until Mrs Sims left, she said as a result of her husband’s violence. For her own housing reasons she sought termination of their periodic secure joint tenancy by unilateral notice. Her husband, as the other joint tenant still living in the property, maintained in response to possession proceedings that he was entitled to remain there as a sole tenant; anything else was inconsistent with his Article 8 and A1P1 rights.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
15 May 2013 by Isabel McArdle
GROSS v. SWITZERLAND – 67810/10 – Chamber Judgment [2013] ECHR 429 – Read judgment / press summary
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Swiss guidelines for doctors prescribing lethal drugs were too unclear and therefore breached article 8 ECHR, the right to private and family life. Ms Gross sought a prescription for a lethal drug to end her own life. She has no critical illness, but is elderly and feels that her quality of life is so low that she would like to commit suicide. The Swiss medical authorities refused to provide her with the prescription.
Assisted dying and the right to die have been firmly back in the spotlight this week, with the cases of Lamb and “Martin” going to the English and Wales Court of Appeal. Mr Lamb is taking up the point made by Tony Nicklinson in the High Court, before his death, that doctors should have a defence of necessity to murder charges in cases of assisted suicide. Mr Nicklinson’s widow, Jane, is continuing his fight too. The cases also challenge the current guidelines on when prosecution should be brought for assisting suicide. You can read more about the background to the right to die caselaw here.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 January 2024 by anuragdeb
In Lord Tennyson’s Arthurian ballad ‘The Lady of Shalott’, the eponymous heroine is stranded in her island castle. Continually weaving a web in her loom of the reflections of the outside world she sees in her mirror, she knows she will be cursed if she stops and looks out to nearby Camelot. But one day, Sir Lancelot rides by her castle and she abandons her loom and looks outside. Her mirror cracks “from side to side” and she is cursed. She leaves her castle and floats down to Camelot in a boat, dying before she reaches it.
Victorian poetry scholar Erik Gray analyses the Lady of Shalott as Tennyson’s exploration of the role of an artist: knowing what is better (staying inside and looking at reflections of the real world) and choosing to do what is worse (going outside into the real world). Just as the Lady of Shalott’s mirror cracked, the Supreme Court in Dalton’s application for judicial review marked possibly one of the largest cracks yet in the mirror principle: that the rights provided under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) should mirror those under the ECHR. But this analogy with the Lady of Shalott raises two important questions: was the jurisprudence flowing from the mirror principle better and is the turn away from it worse?
At the outset, I acknowledge my involvement in the Dalton litigation. This post is not an exploration of that litigation. Instead, I look at the possible impact of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the mirror principle and what it may tell us more broadly about the HRA.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments