Search Results for: environmental/page/18/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
22 May 2018 by Suzanne Lambert
The wedding of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle and the start of the first phase of hearings in the Grenfell Inquiry occurred within hours of each other but could not have been more different in terms of how they were received by the British public.
By welcoming into its ranks a biracial, divorced, professional American actress, the Royal Family appears to have gained some much needed legitimacy, and the very modern Royal wedding, undeniably a celebration of diversity, is perhaps a sign that this bit of the British Establishment is moving with the times.
The start of the Grenfell Inquiry — almost a year after the fire on 14 June 2017 which claimed 71 lives — has not been met with such optimism nor enjoyed such accolades. Instead, from the moment the question of who would chair it arose, the Inquiry has been dogged by accusations of “whitewashing”, a persistent failure to listen to the victims and bereaved, and a failure to give them a proper voice.
Is there any hope that the Grenfell Inquiry will finally gain legitimacy? As with the successful McPherson Inquiry following the Stephen Lawrence murder, recognition of diversity and inclusivity are essential.
Pressure for a Diverse Panel
When retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, was named as Chairman of the Inquiry, the announcement was met with much criticism, with lawyers, campaign groups, and MPs calling for Sir Martin to quit. Opposition Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, argued that a diverse Panel would “help to both build trust and deliver justice” and Labour MP, David Lammy, went so far as to suggest that a “white, upper-middle class man” who had possibly never visited a tower block might not be able to “walk with these people on this journey”.
In announcing the Terms of Reference, the Prime Minister indicated that, at that stage, she had not appointed any other members to the Inquiry Panel but she noted that the Inquiries Act 2005 did allow for such appointments to be made with the consent of Sir Martin, during the course of the Inquiry, so that the composition of the Inquiry Panel could be “kept under review”.
R (ota Mr Samuel Daniels) v The Rt Hon Theresa May, the Prime Minister & Sir Martin Moore-Bick [2018] EWHC (1090) Admin — read judgment
On various dates commencing in September 2017, solicitors representing Mr Daniels, the son of an elderly disabled man who died in the Grenfell fire wrote to Sir Martin, the Solicitor to the Inquiry, and the Prime Minister, asking whether the Prime Minister would exercise her powers under s7 of the Inquiries Act to appoint a panel to sit alongside Sir Martin.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
10 February 2017 by Sarah Ewart
THE DUBS AMENDMENT
The big news this week is that the UK government will only accept another 150 unaccompanied refugee children under the Dubs Amendment.
What’s the Dubs Amendment?
Alfred Dubs, who himself came to the UK via Kindertransport, introduced an amendment to the Immigration Act 2016. The amendment, which became Section 67 of the Act, mandated that a number of unaccompanied child refugees in Europe would be allowed to come to the UK. The number was left unspecified, until this week.
Since the law was passed in May, it has brought around 900 children to the UK, many from the camp (the ‘Jungle’) in Calais. Many of these came over when French authorities ransacked the Jungle in October 2016.
(FYI, the Dubs Amendment is not to be confused with the Dublin rules, an EU Regulation governing how asylum claims are handled and shared between EU countries. Amber Rudd herself has on occasion gotten it wrong. For news this week on the Dublin Regulations and time limitations, see here).
What just happened?
Now Amber Rudd has announced (in a written statement the day before Parliamentary recess) that the number of children brought by the Dubs Amendment will not exceed 350. That includes 200 already transferred, and only children who were in Europe before the Immigration Act was passed in May 2016 are eligible (at least under this provision – the Syria Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme are still in operation).
What now?
Well, the charity Help Refugees had already launched an application for Judicial Review for the government’s failure to properly implement the Dubs Amendment, back in 2016. The claim (brought by three barristers from Doughty Street, instructed by Leigh Day) asserts that the government failed to properly consult with local authorities as required by statute (as per Section 67.2 of the 2016 Act), and therefore both unlawfully and incorrectly calculated the number of children to bring. The case characterises the government’s figure as woefully low, and the claim won a pretty significant victory in December 2016: the court found that the Dubs Amendment was an additional obligation that the government did not meet by acting in accordance with EU law, specifically Dublin III above.
The next hearing for this case is actually today, in the High Court. This in an interesting one to watch in light of these recent developments, so watch this space!
TRANSGENDER PARENTING
The Family Court in Manchester has denied a transgender parent access to her five Orthodox Jewish children. J, a transgender woman, left her wife and the Charedi Jewish community in 2015 and has been fighting a legal battle for access to her children since.
In family law, the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration: any decision regarding parental access must be made with that in mind. A parent’s presence in a child’s life is presumed to be beneficial unless the contrary is shown.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson, in his judgment, had the unenviable task of balancing J’s rights on the one hand, to see her children and to be free from discriminatory treatment as a transgender women, and the potential harm to the children. The judge, who said that “it is not for the court to judge the way of life of the ultra‐Orthodox Jew or of the transgender person,” found “with real regret” that the overriding concern was the risk, amounting to a probability, that the children and their mother would be rejected by their Orthodox community if they continued to have a relationship with J.
(J v B and The Children (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4)
MARRIAGE LAWS
Two separate judgments this week have been a win for unmarried couples.
The ECHR found that to exclude children born out of wedlock from their inheritance rights is discriminatory. German legislation previously provided that children born out of wedlock before 1st July 1949 were precluded from the right to inherit, and the ECHR followed the direction of movement in both national and EU-wide case law to find that this was unlawful. (Mitzinger v. Germany, Application no. 29762/10 ECHR)
Closer to home, the Supreme Court found in favour of a Northern Irish woman, Denise Brewster, who applied for Judicial Review after she was denied her deceased partner’s pension. Unmarried cohabitees in Northern Ireland were required to nominate their partners with a designation form, whereas married couples would benefit from automatic entitlement. Because Ms Brewster’s partner didn’t fill out the nomination form before his sudden death, she was not entitled to his pension. The five sitting justices in the Supreme Court found unanimously that the requirement for an opt-in form should be removed. This judgment is predicted to have wide implications for the rights of cohabiting couples in other areas.
RIGHTS OF DISABLED PEOPLE
Various charities for disabled individuals have published reports finding that the UK government is violating the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These will be submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which announced in 2015 that it would conduct an inquiry into the UK government’s treatment of disabled people.
The UK has the (very) dubious honour of being the first: no other government has yet been investigated under this Convention. The Optional Protocol mandates the UN Committee to investigate where they have reliable evidence of ‘grave and systemic violations’ of the Convention, but this had not yet been used since the Convention was adopted in 2008.
The UN released a damning report in October 2016, finding that the UK government has systemically violated the rights of disabled people and making eleven policy recommendations. It delves into policies going back to 2010, including vicious cuts to welfare and social security benefits. Westminster’s response is expected later this year.
IN THE NEWS:
- Trump’s executive order mandating a travel ban on citizens from seven countries has been found unlawful in multiple US appeals courts. With lawsuits currently moving through 11 out of the 13 US appeal court circuits, it’s easy to anticipate that the controversial order will provide grounds for litigation for months and perhaps years to come. The likelihood that the US Supreme Court will rule on the ban is growing, as Trump’s administration shows willing to defend the policy throughout the courts, and meanwhile the American Civil Liberties Union is moving towards international legal action, and applying for an emergency hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
- The Bar Council and the Citizenship Foundation are creating lessons for secondary school pupils on constitutional law to explain the role of the judiciary in democracy. The move was prompted by the backlash against the judiciary after the Miller ruling about triggering Article 50, in particular the personal attacks against the three High Court judges. (BBC).
- MP Liz Saville Roberts has tabled a Sexual Offences (Amendments) Bill 2017, which is attracting significant cross-party support. The Bill would tighten up existing laws on the use of sexual history evidence in rape cases, including questions in cross-examination. (Guardian)
IN THE COURTS THIS WEEK:
- The High Court is hearing an application for Judicial Review on the government’s decision to continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia, despite warnings from senior civil servants that they might be used to kill Yemeni civilians. (Guardian)
EVENTS:
- If you missed 1 Crown Office Row’s event in collaboration with Leigh Day, “Brexit and Fundamental Rights”, you can find the podcast here. Chaired by Joshua Rozenberg QC, no less, it’s well worth a listen!
By Sarah Jane Ewart
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 October 2020 by Guest Contributor
This article is a condensed version of a piece in the Edinburgh Law Review, Jan 2021 Issue.
Questions around government responsibility for food systems, churning away during the Brexit debates, long ignored, sometimes derided, are meeting stark realities in the coronavirus pandemic. This week we are back to free school meals (FSM).
This summer when the government proposed that it would be stopping the provision of free school meals in England over the summer holidays, it was met with public outcry. When the government U-turned on the decision it was attributed to a successful online campaign led by footballer Marcus Rashford. On 10 October he was awarded an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours.
In the background human rights lawyers Jamie Burton of Doughty Street Chambers and Dan Rosenberg of Simpson Millar acting on behalf of the Good Law Project and Sustain had issued a judicial review pre-action protocol to the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson MP (hereinafter SSE).
When the government reversed the decision on free school meals, the legal proceedings were halted and as a result potentially significant legal precedent was lost. This comment sets out the human rights case against the government in respect of not providing free school meals in England that may be of renewed and wider relevance in the future. (Education is a devolved matter and therefore the UK government powers in this area do not extend to Scotland and Wales.)
It is also noted that yesterday an Opposition motion in the House of Commons to extend provision of Free School Meals to Easter 2021 was voted down by 322-261. Marcus Rashford has issued a tweet in response. The issue has not gone away.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
29 October 2015 by Isabel McArdle
The European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to Saudi Arabian blogger, Raif Badawi. The Prize, named after Andrei Sakharov who spoke out publicly against the nuclear arms race during the Cold War and criticised Soviet society, is awarded to those who “have made an exceptional contribution to the fight for human rights across the globe, drawing attention to human rights violations as well as supporting the laureates and their cause.”
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 March 2011 by Rosalind English
The government’s proposals for reform of the law on defamation have been published. The bill seeks to address concerns that libel law has a chilling effect on freedom of speech, failing to strike the right balance between free speech and protection of reputation.
The pressure of the widely-supported reform campaign, inspired by recent libel actions stifling comment on issues of scientific and academic debate, has no doubt contributed to the manifesto commitment on the part of all three parties which the coalition is now following through. The consultation paper and draft bill has been met with muted enthusiasm, with critics claiming that the proposed statute at best codifies the common law, with all its confusions and complexities, and that the whole is at worst “too little, too late” to meet their reform demands.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
19 November 2020 by Shaheen Rahman
This three-part extended analysis will discuss the important recent authorities on article 2 ECHR in the context of the provision of healthcare and identify important trends in the development of the law in this area.
Where article 2 of the Convention is invoked to allege inadequate provision of healthcare by the state, recent Strasbourg and domestic authority suggest an increasingly restrictive approach.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
3 October 2014 by Guest Contributor
“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. … Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.” Eleanor Roosevelt (1958).
For human rights to matter, they must be made real first, at home, in those small places that matter to us all. After almost four decades of debate, it was in this vein that the Westminster Parliament, with Conservative Party support, voted to “Bring Rights Home” in the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”). As we wake this morning to the front pages of two national newspapers decrying human rights “madness” and welcoming freshly minted (but fairly familiar) Conservative Party policy plans to condemn the HRA to history, this is a good message to remember.
The proposals are incoherent in their consideration of domestic law, incomplete in their engagement with the devolved constitution and disrespectful to the UK’s commitments in international law. They undermine the cause of bringing rights closer to home and seemingly have no care for progress of minimum standards in the wider world.
What rights?
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
9 August 2017 by Rosalind English
Just posted: Marina Wheeler QC in conversation with Rosalind English about efforts to preempt and limit the influence of extremist materials on children in the family courts. In this interview Marina also discusses the implementation of the government’s counterterrorism “Prevent” strategy against adults who are suspected of starting down a pathway towards terrorism but who have as yet committed no crime. The podcast is now available on iTunes as Episode 8 in our series.
To listen, click on the Law Pod UK banner on the top right hand of the home page. You can access this and other free episodes of Law Pod UK, including David Hart QC on the Brexit Bill and its implications for the environment. Read more about David Hart’s concerns about the potential loss of right to sue for breach of EU law under the rule in Francovich in The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-bill-will-remove-right-to-sue-government-750dhfjj3?shareToken=09ea60e3150edafe920c43e542df0351
Like this:
Like Loading...
14 October 2024 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
Last week, the Government published the new Employment Rights Bill – a bill Deputy PM Angela Raynor has said seeks to “turn the page on an economy riven with insecurity, ravaged by dire productivity and blighted by low pay”. Among the measures included are steps towards ending “exploitative” zero-hour contracts, the introduction of a statutory probation period for new hires, and the removal of the two-year qualifying period for claims to unfair dismissal. The bill places significant emphasis on flexible working as the future of employment, stating that it will be “default for all, unless the employer can prove it is unreasonable”. With various aspects of the bill strengthening protections to women in the workplace, Jemima Olchawski, CEO of the Fawcett Society, has called the bill “a win for women”. However, the bill is not without its critics. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite union, claimed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill has “more holes than Swiss cheese”, leaving loopholes for employers to evade the provisions on zero-hour contracts and fire & rehire. Whistleblowing charity Protect have also expressed regret that the bill does not go far enough to strengthen protections for whistleblowers.
The Tory leadership race continued last week as the candidates were whittled down to a final two: Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, both considered to be on the right of the party. Membership of the ECHR has become an increasingly central issue in the race. While Jenrick has promised to leave the ECHR immediately if ever elected PM – calling the issue one of “leave or remain” – Badenoch told Sky News she believes that focusing on the ECHR “shuts down the conversation we need to have with the entire country” about migration. Both candidates have been the subject of criticism for comments made during the party conference. Jenrick, in support of his campaign to leave the ECHR, has controversially claimed that special forces are opting to kill instead of catch terrorists as otherwise the “European Court will set them free”. The charity Action on Armed Violence have stated that Jenrick’s comments “do a disservice to the serious allegations at hand” in the inquiry into SAS killings in Afghanistan, which must be “allowed to proceed without political interference”. Badenoch has come under fire for comments insinuating that maternity pay is “excessive” and that “about 5 to 10%” of civil servants are so bad that they “should be in prison”. She has backtracked on both fronts, claiming her comments were “misrepresented”.
In Other News
A UN report published last Thursday – three days after the one-year anniversary of the October 7th attacks – contains findings that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system”, committing war crimes in doing so. The report further states that Israeli security forces have “deliberately killed, detained and tortured medical personnel”, with children having “borne the brunt” of the health system’s “collapse”. It was further found that the “institutionalised mistreatment” of Palestinian detainees had taken place under direct orders from Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israeli National Security Minister. On Friday, in a statement from its mission in Geneva, Israel took strong objection to the report, calling its conclusions “outrageous” and a “blatant attempt to delegitimise the very existence of the State of Israel and obstruct its right to protect its population, while covering up the crimes of terrorist organisations”. Israeli representatives have accused the commission behind the report, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, of creating an “alternate reality” and refused to cooperate with the investigations preceding the report’s compilation.
On Wednesday, the United Nations Human Rights Council in their 57th session adopted a resolution on Afghanistan in response to the escalating crisis in the country, extending the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan. The report resulting from resolution 54/1 to carry out a “stocktaking” of accountability options on Afghanistan was also presented at the session. The report detailed a variety of recommendations to Afghan de facto authorities, including the establishment of a moratorium on executions and the implementation of victim-centred transitional justice measures. While Amnesty International celebrated that the stocktaking marked the “first time in recent years that the UN is debating how to address serious accountability gaps”, the measure was nevertheless “inadequate” in the face of the crimes under international law being committed in Afghanistan. Amnesty also criticised the resolution adopted this week, claiming the council have “shied away from sufficiently supporting justice for the people of Afghanistan who have placed their hopes in the international community” by failing to establish an independent international accountability mechanism.
In the Courts
Last week, the European Court of Justice ruled that European Member States are obligated to recognise legal gender identity changes conducted in other Member States. The Court held that Romania’s refusal to recognise the applicant’s UK Gender Recognition Certificate constituted a violation of his right to move and reside freely within the Member States of the European Union. In a press release accompanying the ruling, the CJEU stated that “gender, like a first name, is a fundamental element of personal identity; […] a divergence between identities resulting from such a refusal of recognition creates difficulties for a person in proving his or her identity in daily life as well as serious professional, administrative and private inconvenience”. The applicant’s legal counsel, human rights lawyer Iustina Ionescu, told charity Transgender Europe that the “verdict has shown that trans people are equal citizens of the European Union”.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Cyprus’ immediate return to Lebanon of Syrian asylum seekers intercepted at sea constituted a violation of their human rights – in particular, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. There had also been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of the collective expulsion of aliens). Cyprus had failed to consider the risk of lack of access to asylum in Lebanon, the risk of refoulement, and the individual situations of the asylum seekers. The Court paid significant attention to a Human Rights Watch report published in September 2020 which revealed systematic mistreatment of asylum seekers by Cypriot authorities. The report had been referenced in the applicants’ arguments and was not challenged by counsel for the Government. Cypriot Government spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis has stressed that the events concerned occurred in 2020, under the previous administration, and has denied the allegation that the government has been carrying out further refugee pushbacks since the ruling.
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 June 2015 by Thomas Raine
Main v Scottish Ministers [2015] CSIH 41, 22nd May 2015 – read judgment
The Court of Session’s appeal chamber – the Inner House – has had to decide whether the scheme of indefinite notification requirements for sexual offenders in Scotland is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 October 2015 by Rosalind English
KW (by her litigation friend) and others v Rochdale Council (Court of Appeal) [2015] EWCA Civ 1054 – read judgment
This was an appeal against a ruling by Mostyn J in the Court of Protection concerning a consent order between an incapacitated woman, the appellant, and the local authority ([2015] EWCOP 13). The judge had held that the 52 year old appellant, who had been severely incapacitated following surgery, had not been subject to deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights by her 24 hour care package. In his view, the test for deprivation of liberty in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 did not apply. In paragraph 17 of his judgment Mostyn J remarked that it was impossible to see how the protective measures in place for KW could linguistically be characterised as a “deprivation of liberty”. Quoting from JS Mill, he said that the protected person was “merely in a state to require being taken care of by others, [and] must be protected against their own actions as well as external injury”. At para 25, he said that he found that KW was not “in any realistic way being constrained from exercising the freedom to leave, in the required sense, for the essential reason that she does not have the physical or mental ability to exercise that freedom”.
He therefore ordered that it was in KW’s best interests to reside at the address at which she was residing and to receive a package of care in accordance with her assessed needs. The Court of Appeal upheld her appeal against this ruling, holding that the judge had been bound by Cheshire West and had made a material error of law.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 September 2010 by Adam Wagner
Updated, Tue 21 Sep | It is being reported that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, is looking to end the ban on prisoners voting in elections. If the law were to change, it would represent the end of a very long road for campaigners. However, they have been waiting since 2005 and may well be waiting for longer yet.
The Times apparently reported this morning (I haven’t confirmed this as it is behind a pay wall) that the deputy prime minister is backing plans for prisoner enfranchisement.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 July 2017 by Poppy Rimington-Pounder
Women from Northern Ireland who travel to the UK seeking abortions will now be able to access the procedure without charge on the NHS. See the Supreme Court decision on this, posted by Rosalind English, which brought the whole matter to light. You can hear a discussion of the various issues in this case on our new podcast series.
The government changed its policy on the matter amid fears that Conservative MPs were planning on supporting an amendment to the Queen’s speech, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, to provide Northern Irish women with access to free abortions in England; with the new Conservative government’s much reduced majority, Prime Minister Theresa May could not afford to risk a rebellion from her own MPs.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
14 October 2018 by Thomas Hayes
Baking takes up supreme court time on both sides of the Atlantic, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees makes an appearance in the Court of Appeal, Unexplained Wealth Orders make an entrance and more…
The biggest news of the week arguably came out of Northern Ireland. However, mercifully this blog can ignore the ongoing speculation regarding a Brexit settlement, the attitude of DUP MPs, the potential presence of border infrastructure and whether or not veterinary inspections and customs checks are of loose equivalence (well, at least for now…).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
14 July 2011 by Rosalind English
Farouk Sabeh el Leil v France (29 June 2011) – read judgment
When a diplomatic employee takes action for compensation for unfair dismissal, the host country’s courts cannot simply rule out the possibility of a claim on the basis that the employer has state immunity. This would impair the very essence of his right of access to a court under Article 6 of the Convention.
The applicant, a French national, had been employed as an accountant in the Kuwaiti embassy in Paris since August 1980. He was promoted to head accountant in 1985. In March 2000, the Embassy terminated his contract as part of a cost-cutting exercise. His application to the local employment tribunal was initially successful but ultimately failed before the Paris Court of Appeals which found that the State of Kuwait enjoyed jurisdictional immunity on the basis of which it was not subject to court actions against it in France.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments