Search Results for: environmental/page/18/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
29 May 2012 by Guest Contributor
Publishing the Justice and Security Bill this morning, the Secretary of State for Justice said “I have used the last few months to listen to the concerns of … civil liberties campaigners with whom I usually agree.”
There are many people who today would sorely like to agree that Ken has listened and has taken their concerns on board. Unfortunately, the Government’s analysis remains fundamentally flawed. The Green Paper was clearly a “big ask”. There have undoubtedly been significant changes made from the proposals in the Green Paper. However, the secret justice proposals in the Justice and Security Bill remain fundamentally unfair, unnecessary and unjustified.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 December 2020 by Samuel March
R v Long, Bowers and Cole [2020] EWCA Crim 1729 (16 December 2020) — judgment here
The Court of Appeal held yesterday morning that the sentences of the three men responsible for the manslaughter of PC Harper in 2019 were neither ‘unduly lenient’ nor ‘manifestly excessive’. The Court rejected applications from both the Defendants and the Attorney General (AG), meaning there will be no substantive change to the manslaughter sentences passed at first instance. The Court also refused to grant permission to two of the co-defendants to appeal against their convictions.
BACKGROUND
The case concerned the killing of PC Andrew Harper which in August 2019. PC Harper was killed as he tried to apprehend the three defendants, all part of a group of thieves in the process of stealing a quad bike. As the defendants made off at speed in a car driven by the first Defendant (Henry Long), PC Harper was caught and dragged for more than a mile behind the car.
Long (18 at the time, now 19) alongside co-defendants Albert Bowers (17 now 18) and Jessie Cole (17 now 18), were jointly charged with conspiracy to steal, murder and manslaughter. In the lead-up to trial, all three pleaded guilty to the conspiracy to steal, and Long pleaded guilty to manslaughter. On 24 July 2020, after a 5-week trial at the Central Criminal Court, all three were acquitted of murder, but Bowers and Cole were found to be guilty of manslaughter.
The outcome means that, whilst the jury could be sure that PC Harper died as a consequence of the unlawful acts of the Defendants, they could not be sure that the Defendants actually intended to kill anyone, or to cause anyone really serious harm. In this instance, it means that the jury will have had at least some reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendants knew that they were dragging PC Harper behind them as they drove away.
On 31 July 2020, Long received an extended determinate sentence of 16 years with an extended licence period of 3 years. Bowers and Cole were sentenced to 13 years detention in a Young Offenders Institution. Concurrent sentences were imposed in respect of the conspiracy to steal (32 months for Long, and 38 months for Bowers and Cole).
THE COURT OF APPEAL
There were three applications before the Court of Appeal:
- Bowers and Cole applied for leave to appeal against their convictions of the offence of manslaughter;
- The Attorney-General (“AG”) applied for leave to refer the sentences arguing that all three were unduly lenient; and
- All three defendants sought leave to appeal their respective sentences.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
22 August 2016 by Guest Contributor
By Pritesh Rathod
RT v (1) The First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and (2) Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2016] UKUT 0306 (AAC) – read judgment.
The Upper Tribunal has ruled that, in deciding whether or not an applicant has cooperated with the prosecution of her assailant where she made and later retracted an allegation of rape, it was necessary to see why that retraction was made and whether it was done truly voluntarily, rather than simply assessing whether she was responsible for the retraction.
Background facts
The Applicant (“RT”) was married to H and had four children with him between 2001 and 2008. From 2004, she was subject to physical and mental abuse by H, culminating in three incidents of rape. What followed was a somewhat protracted and complicated course of events relating to H’s prosecution.
Initially, H was arrested and charged with six counts of rape. He was bailed subject to certain conditions. While H was in custody, RT wrote to him saying that she missed him and wanted him back home. Over Christmas 2009, H returned home and he and RT had “something of a reconciliation”, including having consensual sexual intercourse.
By January 2010, RT sought to withdraw the complaint (she had commenced divorce proceedings against him). In February 2010, RT telephoned the police to ask what would happen if she had lied about the rapes. Later that month, she retracted her allegations, saying that all of them were untrue. H appeared at the Crown Court and was acquitted after the prosecution offered no evidence.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 June 2011 by Graeme Hall
It’s time for the human rights roundup, a regular bulletin of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts. The full list of links, updated each day, can be found here.
by Graeme Hall
In the news:
Joshua Rozenberg, critical of the decision to appoint Jonathan Sumption QC to the Supreme Court, reports that Parliament is consulting on whether it should intervene in judicial appointments. Indeed, a guardian.co.uk Editorial has suggested that the best way for the judiciary to defend itself against accusations by Parliament of over-stepping its authority, is to make itself more diverse. Adam Wagner has previously blogged about the (lack of) diversity in the upper echelons of the judiciary and has also published a two-part series on the power of unelected judges here and here.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 August 2024 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
Riots continued throughout the UK last week, sparked by the attack and murder of 3 children in Southport on July 29th. The riots have been linked to a widely circulated online rumour falsely identifying the perpetrator as a Muslim asylum seeker. UK Chief Executive for Amnesty International, Sacha Deshmukh, has stated the riots to be caused at root by “racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia”. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called the rioting an “assault on the rule of law and the execution of justice” and made clear that those involved will not “be allowed to hide behind the legitimate right to protest”. The Crown Prosecution Service revealed on Friday via a post on X (formerly Twitter) that 159 individuals have been charged in connection with the “violent disorder” across the country, with a total of 741 arrests having been made. The news follows Justice Minister Heidi Alexander’s announcement that the process of opening 500 prison places for those involved in the riots is underway.
On Friday, the UK Government announced fresh sanctions against Belarus in response to ongoing human rights violations in the country. The sanctions have been announced on the four-year anniversary of the “deeply flawed” 2020 presidential elections in Belarus; elections which Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated have resulted in “over 40,000 citizens arrested on trumped up political charges, civil society and independent media trampled and a regime with no regard for democracy or human rights”. The Viasna Human Rights Center, a Belarusian NGO, claims that as of August 11, Belarus holds 1385 political prisoners including journalists and human rights activists. The new sanctions raise the total number against Belarus to over 200 individuals and entities. The announcement also revealed a funding package of £2.5 million to support human rights and civil liberties in Belarus.
In Other News
Unrest continues in Venezuela following the contested re-election of President Nicolas Maduro on July 28th. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has published a statement arguing that there is “overwhelming evidence” that the opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, was the true victor. The statement cites the fact that the opposition have published over 80 percent of the tally sheets from polling stations across Venezuela showing Urrutia to have won by an “insurmountable margin”, further corroborated by exit polls. The announcement of Maduro’s re-election sparked protests across the country which have continued into this week. In a press conference on Tuesday, Maduro announced that over 2229 individuals had been arrested in connection with the protests, calling those involved “terrorists”. In a press conference last week, a spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk expressed concern over the “numerous cases of arbitrary detention”, including that of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders, children, and journalists. Amnesty International sent an open letter on Friday to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court calling for his “resolute and immediate action” against the crimes being committed under international law by Venezuelan authorities. Amnesty argue in the letter that the ongoing “tragedy is a consequence of the impunity for serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity that Maduro’s government has been committing for years.”
Reports have surfaced that in only two days last week, Iranian authorities executed a minimum of 29 individuals. The UN Office of the High Commissioner have verified that a further 38 people were executed in Iran over the course of July, raising the total for 2024 thus far to 345. The Office raised concerns in particular about the “lack of due process and fair trial standards”, with several executions occurring with “neither the prisoner’s family nor legal counsel being informed”. NGO Iran Human Rights has reported that 26 men were executed in a group hanging outside Ghezelhesar Prison – an execution the scale of which has been unparalleled since 2009. Amnesty have revealed that at least one of the prisoners executed in the spree was imprisoned in connection with the Woman Life Freedom protests that erupted following the murder of Mahsa Amini in 2022.
The Bulgarian Parliament passed an anti-LGBT amendment last Wednesday to the country’s education laws, banning the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one.” The amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority with 159 votes in favour and only 22 against. LGBT rights group Forbidden Colours have stated they believe the move represents Bulgaria “adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook”, a development they call “deeply troubling”. The organisation have also raised questions about the swiftness with which the amendment occurred, both readings occurring on a single day – raising “serious concerns about the legislative process and the intent behind such haste”. A spokesperson for the EU Commission told POLITICO last Thursday that while the EU is aware of the amendment, they were unable to comment. The spokesperson however reiterated that the Commission “remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling discrimination, inequalities and challenges faced by LGBTIQ individuals.”
In the Courts
Last Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court rejected Shamima Begum’s permission to further appeal the removal of her British citizenship. Ms Begum appealed on four grounds: trafficking, invoking Article 4 ECHR; deprivation of the right to make representations; a failure to ensure good community relations, required per s.149 of the Equality Act; and de facto statelessness. Permission to appeal was refused on all four grounds, concluding that “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”. In response to the ruling, Maya Foa, director of human rights NGO Reprieve, has stated that “exiling British nationals like Ms Begum is about politics, not the law”. The decision signifies the exhaustion of Ms Begum’s legal remedies in the UK. However, Ms Begum’s lawyers told the BBC that they intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The Dublin High Court found last week that the Irish Government’s treatment of asylum seekers breaches the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell stated in judgment that in failing to support the accommodation needs of applicants for asylum, “the State has breached the rights of those persons as provided for in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” – the right to human dignity. It was held that central to respecting the human rights of asylum seekers is the maintenance of “an adequate standard of living which guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health where they do not have the means to provide for themselves”.The judgment has been welcomed by the UN Refugee Agency, who have now called on the Irish Government to take “immediate action”. The Court did, however, decline to grant the mandatory orders sought by the applicants, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, on the basis that it was not satisfied that there was evidence the Government would ignore its obligations.
US federal judge Mark Walker ruled last Thursday in Claire v Florida DMS that Florida’s ban on transgender healthcare access for state employees violates their civil rights. Florida has had a categorical ban on coverage of healthcare for “gender reassignment or modification services or supplies” of state employees for decades, which has now been found to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a form of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex since it denies transgender employees coverage for medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria. Quoting a judgment from 2020, Judge Walker reiterated that “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex” as “the first cannot happen without the second”. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the judgment in a press release, with Staff Attorney Samantha Past stating that “discrimination has no place” in Florida. The ACLU “are hopeful that this decision will encourage a commitment from the state to treating members of the transgender community with the respect they deserve”.
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 February 2011 by Alasdair Henderson
BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC) – read judgment – and SA (Iranian Arabs-no general risk) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 41(IAC) – read judgment.
The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) last week allowed two asylum appeals by Iranian political activists, and laid down guidance on the factors the Home Office and immigration tribunals should take into account when deciding asylum applications and appeals based on political activities here in the UK.
In the midst of all the excitement over the events in Tunisia and Egypt, it is important to remember that most countries in the wider Middle East are still under the control of authoritarian regimes which give scant regard to basic human rights. In particular, the success of the recent protests in removing Presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak from office are a reminder of the very similar, but unsuccessful, protests in Iran following the re-election of President Ahmadinejad in June 2009. The Iranian regime brutally suppressed the protesters in 2009, and there has been a crack-down on opposition activists since. The same reaction by the regime has been evident at renewed protests yesterday and today. The Upper Tribunal had to consider the ongoing situation in Iran in two recent decisions.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 November 2018 by Jonathan Metzer
On 14th November 2018 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 58. The effect of this decision is that:
(a) A claimant at the Immigration Tribunal who relies on their private (not family) life under Article 8 will be entitled to have only “little weight” placed on that private life if they have been in the UK without indefinite leave to remain, unless there are “particularly strong features of the private life in question”; and
(b) A claimant who is financially dependent on other people but not on the state should not have that fact held against them when assessing the public interest in their removal.
Whilst the result was a victory for the individual claimant in this case, the wider consequences of this decision will be to clarify and tighten the law in a way that will make it even harder than it already was for claimants to succeed on the basis of their private life in the UK.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 December 2010 by Suzanne Lambert
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Respondent [2010] UKUT B1 – Read judgment
There has been public outrage over the ruling of two Senior Immigration Judges that it would be unlawful to deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd, who has been labelled an “asylum seeker death driver”
The fury has not been limited to the lay public or the media, but “great anger” has also been expressed by high-profile figures such as Prime Minister David Cameron, a well-known critic of the Human Rights Act. The Government’s embarrassment over the decision has prompted Immigration Minister, Damian Green, to announce that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) will appeal the decision, and there have been more drastic calls from Tory MPs for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
15 February 2011 by Graeme Hall
Today we are reinvigorating our weekly human rights news and case law roundup. Look out for regular bulletins of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts.
by Graeme Hall
Bringing Rights Back Home, with foreword by Lord Hoffmann – Policy Exchange: A report by political scientist Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, commissioned by the thinktank Policy Exchange, offers a strong academic criticism of the European Court of Human Rights’ current composition and powers, as well as the affects its judgments are having in Britain. Click here for our previous commentary on the report.
Ben Emmerson: The European Court of Human Rights enhances our democracy – The Independent: In a detailed article, Ben Emmerson QC examines the thinktank Exchange Policy’s recently published report ‘Bringing Rights Back Home’, which criticised the current practises of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the barrister pays attention to the comments of Lord Hoffman (a former law Lord) who authored the report’s foreward. See our previous post for a commentary on the report.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
13 February 2020 by Charlotte Gilmartin
On 30 January 2020, Mr Justice Chamberlain gave judgment in BXB v (1) Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania (2) Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [2020] EWHC 156 (QB), making an important contribution to the law of vicarious liability.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
30 September 2019 by Charlotte Gilmartin
A person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth, irrespective of gender? This was the ruling of the Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane P, President of the Family Division, on 25th September in TT, R(on the application of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales [2019] EWHC 2384 (Fam) . He decided that the Claimant, (known as “TT”), who was legally recognised as male at the time of giving birth to his child, (“YY”), is correctly registered as “mother” on YY’s birth certificate.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 November 2021 by Dominic Ruck Keene
In R (Babbage) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 2995 (Admin), the Claimant applied for judicial review, claiming that his immigration detention from 27 February 2020 to 29 April 2021 had been unlawful and/or that there was a public law error relating to the delay in the provision of s.4 accommodation. Soole J gave a potentially significant judgment concerning the ambit of the ‘grace period’ for locating s.4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 accommodation, i.e. accommodation provided to failed asylum seekers. The judge also made some apposite comments concerning the requirement for appropriate evidence in unlawful detention claims from the relevant decision maker.
The Facts
The Claimant, a Zimbabwean national, was detained as Foreign National Offender and deportation proceedings pursuant to the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007 were commenced. He was detained under Immigration Act powers from September 2013 until December 2015 at which point his release was ordered by the court on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of returning him to Zimbabwe. During his initial detention he made an application for asylum which was subsequently refused, and he became appeal rights expired. Following a short custodial sentence imposed on 25 September 2019, the Claimant was detained again between 22 October and 4 December 2019, following which an Emergency Travel Document was agreed in principle by the Zimbabwean Embassy, although no ETD was ever subsequently issued. On 7 February 2020, the Claimant received a short custodial sentence for breach of a community order. Upon his release he was detained again under Immigration Act powers. On 25 May 2020 the Case Progression Panel recommended the Claimant’s release. On 7 April 2021 the FTT granted bail in principle subject to the provision of s.4 accommodation. The SSHD granted s.4 accommodation on 15 April but was not provided with accommodation and released until 29 April 2021.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
25 February 2019 by Rosalind English
In the news
This week has been dominated by Shamima Begum. On Tuesday last week, Home Secretary Sajid Javid issued an order depriving Ms Begum of citizenship under s.40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The act authorises the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship where this is “conducive to the public good” – but s.40(4) states that the order must not make the person stateless.
The Home Office claimed compliance with s.40(4) on the basis that Ms Begum could claim citizenship from Bangladesh, in light of her Bangladeshi heritage, until the age of 21. However, on Wednesday, the Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement that Ms Begum was not a Bangladeshi citizen, and that there was ‘no question’ of her being allowed into the country. Ms Begum herself told the BBC, “I wasn’t born in Bangladesh, I’ve never seen Bangladesh and I don’t even speak Bengali properly, so how can they claim I have Bangladeshi citizenship?”
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
24 March 2020 by Charlotte Gilmartin
Uddin v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 338 – read judgment
On 12 March 2020 a unanimous Court of Appeal led by Sir Ernest Ryder (Senior President of the Tribunals), together with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice King, allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the First tier Tribunal (“FtT”) and Upper Tribunal (“UT”)’s decisions upholding the refusal of his application for leave to remain.
The case concerns the correct approach to the interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) in circumstances arising out of a foster care relationship where the person who had received or continued to receive that care is now an adult.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
25 May 2011 by Maria Roche
AP (Trinidad & Tobago) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 551 Read Judgment
In the ongoing controversy over the deportation of foreign offenders, the Court of Appeal has decided that the Immigration Tribunal had not made a mistake of law in deciding that a foreign citizen who had lived in the UK since the age of 4 and had been convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for a drugs offence, following a string of other offences, should not be deported.
The Court of Appeal also commented on the interaction between the Tribunal and appellate courts and a potential distinction between ‘foreign criminals‘ as defined by the UK Borders Act 2007 and other foreign offenders.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments