We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
UK Human Rights Blog - 1 Crown Office Row
Search Results for: environmental/page/18/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
The dust has settled since the government released its draft Online Safety Bill. Now is therefore a good time to evaluate its aims, methods, and potential impacts, which we will do so in this two-part post. The first post will have a look at the overall architecture of the bill, discussing what it is trying to do and how it is trying to do it. The second post will survey responses to the bill from academics and civil society campaigners, discussing whether the bill does too much or not enough.
The general strategy of the Online Harms Bill is to place duties on “regulated services”, requiring them to identify and mitigate system level risks of harm to their users. This post will focus on the meaning of “regulated services”, and the various duties that the Online Harms Bill places them under. As things stand, the bill would give significant powers to Ofcom, which would act as a regulator and enforcer of the various duties created under the bill. This first post will conclude with a look at the new powers that would be given to OFCOM under the bill.
Regulated Services
The bill would apply to “regulated services”. The definition of regulated services is found in section 3: regulated services are either “user-to-user services” or “search services” which “have links to the United Kingdom” and which are not exempt.
The first important thing to note is the broadness in the drafting of all these definitions. A service has links to the UK if it has a significant number of users in the UK, if UK users are a target market, or if there are “reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of significant harm to individuals in the UK” using the service. Thus, territorially, a very wide number of online services could be caught.
A “user-to-user service” (since publication of the draft bill generally called a ‘U2U’ service in commentary), defined in section 2, is a service which allows users to share user generated content with other users. The definition excludes content generated by the site itself, and content shared by those employed by the service.
This is a widely defined provision. Obviously intended to catch large social media organisations like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok, it is nonetheless drafted broadly enough to also include smaller blogs, websites for shopping, online gaming sites and other categories of online platform which hosts user generated content.
However, the exact nature of how those sites will be regulated will be dependent on their classification by OFCOM as category 1 or 2A/2B services. Category 1 is reserved for services with greater functionality and larger user bases, and services classified as such are subject to stricter duties, which will be explained in the duties section; machinery for classification is currently found in Schedule 4 of the bill.
Some exceptions apply, but these are tightly drafted. Functions such as email and SMS/MMS services, limited functionality services (such as services where users can only comment on site generated content), internal services such as intranets, and public bodies in the exercise of a public function are exempt. Exemptions can be found in Schedule 1; per s.3(8), the Secretary of State can amend the exempt services found there.
“Search services” are defined as services providing an internet search engine that are not U2U services. Much of the same duties apply to search and U2U services, so these will be largely dealt with together.
I promised an analysis piece in my post on the Mosley judgment but there has been such an outpouring of comment and opinion on the case that a more useful exercise is to provide some sort of guide through the maze of material already out there.
The Court makes its disapproval of the conduct of the News of the World crystal clear and emphasises the need for a “narrow interpretation” of freedom of expression where sensational and titillating press reports are involved [114].
The Sunday Times, now committed to its campaign to change the law on assisted dying, has shared the story of Len and Karen Williamson, who spent £45,000 travelling to Switzerland with the assistance of private ambulances and a private flight, in order for Karen to elect the timing of her own death. Physician assisted suicide remains illegal in the UK, with the Suicide Act 1961 (which simultaneously legalised suicide) rendering liable those who aid, abet or procure the suicide of another to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Repeated challenges have been made against this law, with the most prominent being the leading case of Nicklinson & Anor R (on the application of) (Rev 1) [2014] UKSC 38. A nine-judge Supreme Court rejected the application of Tony Nicklinson, who was paralysed from the neck down and who described his life as a ‘living nightmare’, refusing to issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act (see Rosalind English’s post on that decision.) This would have rendered the blanket ban on physician assisted suicide incompatible with the article 8 right to private and family life. Instead, the court expressly left the difficult decision up to Parliament. Since then, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its position in the case of Noel Conway. Conway’s earlier Court of Appeal decision was considered in full on the UK Human Rights Blog.
Now, there appears to be some new hope for advocates of the right to die, a movement which (where the terminally ill are concerned) is supported by over 90% of the UK population. Baroness Meacher’s Assisted Dying Bill has now reached its second reading in the House of Lords, though it has a long way to go yet. The new Bill would permit attending doctors to provide medicines that would bring about the end of the lives of patients with a committed wish to die, where they are mentally competent and within six months of natural death. They would not be permitted to administer the medicines themselves (potentially leaving out individuals with locked-in syndrome who are not able even to swallow). Parliamentary intervention, strongly recommended by the Commission on Assisted Dying in 2012, would go some way towards curing the unprincipled approaches the courts have been forced to take in tragic cases such as Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] UKHL 17 and A (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 254, two cases which legalised the removal of life support by doctors, and the killing by separation of conjoined twins whose lives are parasitic upon and deadly for their stronger siblings, respectively.
Conor Monighan brings us the latest updates in human rights law
In the News:
Internationally there were a number of developments which have significant consequences for human rights. In Russia a prominent critic of Vladimir Putin has allegedly been poisoned. Alexei Navalny, who is known for exposing corruption within the country, suddenly fell ill last week after drinking tea.
Supporters claim the Russian state has tried to silence Mr Navalny’s criticism of President Putin, and then attempted to cover up its actions by stopping Mr Navalny from being treated abroad. Despite initial resistance from doctors, who said that Mr Navalny was too ill to be moved, the leader has now been flown out of Russia. Critics say the developments are part of a wider crackdown on freedom of speech within the country.
West London Mental Health NHS Trust (Respondent) v Chhabra (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 80 – read judgment
It is not unknown for lawyers or doctors to speak on a mobile phone about confidential details of a case while travelling by train. Some of you may even have left case papers out on your seat or table while you hunt down a bacon baguette from the Travelling Chef (formerly known as “Toastie Geoff” prior to rebranding). If so, read on, for this is a cautionary tale…
This appeal by Dr Chhabra was concerned with the roles of the case investigator and the case manager when handling concerns about a doctor’s performance under the disciplinary procedures introduced over eight years ago for doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. The national policy framework is known as ‘Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS’ (MHPS), which the Trust had implemented through its own policies.
Ten years after the Equality Act came into force, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have published their findings and recommendations in a report entitled “Inclusive Justice: a system designed for all”.Although the report recognises where progress has been made, it also identifies very significant problems.
The inquiry, which covered England, Wales and Scotland, heard from defendants, legal professionals, charities, intermediaries and organisations who help people with what are often referred to as “hidden disabilities” – cognitive impairments, mental health conditions, and neuro-diverse conditions.
The EHRC’s key recommendations focus on the pre-trial phase, when important decisions are made about adjustments and whether the defendant will plead guilty or not guilty. The report is concerned both with participation and also the opportunities and risks arising from the increase in modernisation (for example, video hearings).
Put simply, intended parents should avoid embarking on a surrogacy arrangement where they do not meet, have any knowledge of or means of contacting the surrogate who carries their much wanted child. (Mrs Justice Theis DBE)
This case concerned an application by intended parents for a parental order in respect of an 18-month-old child following a surrogacy arrangement with a surrogate in Nigeria whom neither of the intended parents had met and about whom they had no information.
The use of algorithms in public sector decision making has
broken through as a hot topic in recent weeks. The Guardian recently ran the “Automating
Poverty” series on the use of algorithms in the welfare state. And on 29
October 2019 it was reported
that the first known legal challenge to the use of algorithms in the UK, this
time by the Home Office, had been launched. It was timely, then, that the
Public Law Project’s annual conference on judicial review trends and forecasts
was themed “Public law and technology”.
Basic tech for lawyers
The conference helpfully opened with a lawyer-friendly run down of algorithms and automation. Dr. Reuben Binns (ICO Postdoctoral Research Fellow in AI) drew a number of useful distinctions.
The first was between rule-based and statisticalmachine learning systems. In rule-based systems, the system is programmed to apply a decision-making tree. The questions asked and the path to a particular outcome, depending on the answers given, can be depicted by way of flow-chart (even if that flow-chart might be very large, involving numerous branches). In contrast, statisticalmachinelearning involves a computer system training itself to spot patterns and correlations in data sets, and to make predictions based on those patterns and correlations. The computer system is first trained on data sets provided by the system designer. Once trained, it can be used to infer information and make predictions based on new data. These systems might be used, for example, to assess the risk of a person re-offending, where the system has been trained on existing data as to re-offending rates. It has long been known that machine-learning systems can be biased, not least because the data on which they are trained is often biased.
The Human Genetics Commission have today published new guidance for direct-to-consumer genetic tests, including a recommendation that children should not be genetically tested by their parents unless the test is clinically indicated. The guidelines highlight that the ethical issues surrounding home-testing are still fuzzy and provide an interesting challenge from a perspective of human rights.
Home DNA testing kits are a fast-growing trend. They have already been on sale direct to consumers for three years by companies such as 23andMe and deCODEme, which advertise home-testing as a means of “taking charge of your health” and “filling in your family tree”. DNA paternity testing has been available for years, but it is the health aspects of home testing which have huge and potentially troubling implications in respect of basic rights.
The ‘F’ word is back in use, famines have returned. In 2017 the UN identified four situations of acute food insecurity that threatened famine or breached that threshold, in north-eastern Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. In December 2018 famine was formally declared across regions of Yemen, this is likely to be the famine that will define this era. Starvation is also being used as a weapon of war in Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. People living in the Gaza Strip and in Venezuela also suffer from the manipulation, obstruction and politicization of food and humanitarian aid.
Dr Simon Singh has won the first battle in the libel action, brought by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), in the Court of Appeal. Dr Singh was sued by the BCA in respect of an article he wrote in The Guardian in April 2008, in which he said there was not enough evidence to prove that chiropractic treatment is effective against certain childhood conditions including colic and asthma.
Mr Justice Eady ruled against Dr Singh in May 2009 in relation to two important preliminary issues. Dr Singh appealed to the Court of Appeal, and Lord Judge, Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley were asked to rule on the preliminary points relating to possible defences.
The Court has used the opportunity to mount a robust and somewhat lyrical defence of the right to freedom of expression.
Macfarlane and others v United Kingdom (ECHR 329 (2012) – read press release
Tomorrow the Strasbourg Court will hear complaints in four applications that UK law has failed adequately to protect the applicants’ right to manifest their religion, contrary to Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). See our posts on these cases here and here, and in the related Preddy case here.
All four applicants are practising Christians who complain that UK law did not sufficiently protect their rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. Ms Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Ms Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complain that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks while at work. Ms Ladele, a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, complain about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality. Their challenges to their consequent dismissal were rejected by the UK courts on the basis that their employers were entitled to refuse to accommodate views which contradicted their fundamental declared principles – and, all the more so, where these principles were required by law, notably under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
The judgment is awaited with considerable anticipation: the National Secular Society and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have both filed intervening submissions under Rule 44 §3 of the Rules of the Court.
Merlin Entertainments LPC, Chessington World of Adventures Operations and others v Peter Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB) 25 September 2014 – read judgment
This case explores the extent to which a campaign of criticism, conducted by internet and email, can merit restraint by the civil courts. As the judge says, whatever the aims of the campaign in question, its supporters may, in the course of their activities, annoy, irritate, and upset companies and individuals. But should the courts interfere, before the question whether the campaign is justified has been decided? And to what extent is such a campaign a criminal offence?
This particular dispute concerned a series of communications by the defendant to the general public about the inadequacy of safety measures and other shortcomings of the claimants’ amusement parks. The claimants contended that Dr Cave’s communications with the public and with their employees were defamatory, and in breach of confidence, and that they were thereby entitled to stop him, before any trial, by relying on the statutory tort of harassment. They therefore applied for an interim injunction restraining the defendant from setting up websites and sending mass emails regarding the issue of safety in theme parks. The question before the judge was whether they should wait until they had established defamation and/or breach of confidence, before the court granted a remedy. Continue reading →
The International Federation for Human Rights (Féderation Internationale pour les droits humains, FIDH) has published a report sharply critical of French, German, UK and US state and media responses to pro-Palestine movements between October 2023 and September 2025, in what it calls “a profound crisis”, “not only under authoritarian regimes, but also in liberal democracies that have long claimed to uphold human rights.” Co-signed by the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (France), the Center for Constitutional Rights (US) and the Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland), the report compares “violations to the rights of freedom of opinion and expression” across the four jurisdictions, particularly through what it perceives as direct and indirect media censorship and “systematic bias in reporting”; “violations against activists, NGOs, and civil society”; “violations against academic freedom”; and restrictions to “freedoms of peaceful assembly and association” (with blanket bans on protests in France and Germany coming under particular criticism for failing to meet tests of necessity and proportionality). FIDH claims that diverse measures “directly violat[ing] international human rights obligations… have created a widespread chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate” in the countries concerned, “further undermining democratic participation and the voices of minority groups.” Among the report’s recommendations directed at the UK are a review of public nuisance orders, and the creation of an independent body to oversee police practices during demonstrations, based on the model of the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland.
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, has published two separate letters on human rights concerns in the UK: one regarding protest policing, the other the “situation of trans people”. The first letter, addressed to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, notes the “ever more prominent” policing of protests in the UK since the Commissioner’s visit in July. It urges a “comprehensive review of the current legislation on the policing of protests within the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations” (referring specifically to the Terrorism Act 2000, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023). Further concerns are expressed about the prohibitions of assemblies “in the vicinity of a place of worship” and of the wearing of masks in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently before the House of Lords. In the second letter, addressed to the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Women and Equalities Committee, O’Flaherty draws attention to the guidance provided by Strasbourg case law on the rights of trans people: “this is particularly important as the Supreme Court [in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16] did not engage with these human rights issues.” Speaking of the fallout of the Supreme Court case, the Commissioner warns against “a tendency to see the human rights of different groups of people as a zero-sum game. This has contributed to narratives which build on prejudice against trans people and portray upholding their human rights as a de facto threat to the rights of others.”
In the courts
The Home Secretary has lost her appeal against the decision to grant one of the founders of Palestine Action permission for judicial review of the group’s proscription under the Terrorism Act. In R (Huda Ammori) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311, Lady Carr CJ held that the fact there was a route open for Palestine Action to seek “deproscription” through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission did not rule out a challenge to the original proscription by way of judicial review. “We consider that the fact that judicial review would be a more expeditious means of challenging the Order, given the public importance of issues raised, and, in particular, the fact that persons were facing convictions for acting in ways that were made criminal as a consequence of the Order, justified using judicial review” ([59]). The Court of Appeal also granted Ms Ammori permission to apply for two further grounds of review: that the Home Secretary failed to have regard to relevant considerations, and that she did not follow her published policy. These are in addition to the two grounds already permitted by the High Court on 30 July: that the Home Secretary’s Order was unlawful as a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention (freedom of expression and assembly), and that the Home Secretary should have consulted Palestine Action before making the Order, and by failing to do so was in breach of natural justice and Article 6 of the Convention (right to fair trial). The judicial review hearing is due to commence at the High Court on 25 November.
(1) MS JENNY PATON (2) C2 (3) C3 (4) C4 (5) C5 and POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL, Investigatory Powers Tribunal – Read ruling
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has ruled that a local council acted unlawfully in spying repeatedly on parents suspected of lying about where they lived in order to get their child into a sought after school. The ruling may not, however, prevent local authorities from spying on families for similar reasons in the future.
The IPT exists to investigate complaints about conduct by various public bodies, including in relation to surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Section 28 of RIPA allows a public body to apply to conduct direct surveillance if the authorisation is necessary on various grounds, including the detection of crime.
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.
West London Mental Health NHS Trust (Respondent) v Chhabra (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 80 – 
Recent comments