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/20/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, Mr Justice Johnson held in R (Humnyntskyi) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1912 (Admin) that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.
Matthew Fisher is a doctor and aspiring barrister with an interest and experience in MedTech.
Might Uncle Ben’s words prove prescient in the context of medical negligence?
Regardless of whether one attributes this famous quote to Voltaire or Spider-Man, the sentiment is the same. Power and responsibility should be in equilibrium. More power than responsibility leads to decision-making with little concern for the consequences and more responsibility than power leads to excessive caution. This article argues that there is now a disequilibrium in the NHS, which is the root cause for defensive medical practice and the growing NHS litigation bill.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire affirmed a transition from patients as passive receivers of care to active consumers by making the collaborative patient-doctor relationship a legally enforceable right. However, as yet patients are not expected to share responsibility for a negative outcome. Medical paternalism may now be dead but judicial paternalism appears to be alive and well. However, contributory negligence is a necessary counter-weight in this balance and it must urgently be applied to restore equilibrium.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] EWHC 3631 (Admin), Collins J, 5 November 2014 – read judgment UPDATED POST
Fireworks here from Collins J in making sure that Bank Mellat got some disclosure of information in its fight to discharge a financial restriction order against it.
Bank Mellat is an Iranian bank, initially singled out by an 2009 order which prohibited anybody from dealing with it. The order was part of sanctions against Iran in respect of its nuclear and ballistic missiles programme. However, it bit the dust, thanks to the Supreme Court: see judgment. I did a post on that decision, and followed it up with one (here) on the (dis)proportionality arguments which led to the order’s downfall.
However the Bank was subject to two further orders, made in 2011 and 2012. They led to the freezing of €183m held by it in London. The 2012 order has since been revoked, but the 2011 one remains. This is the subject of the Bank’s application to set it aside. On any view, as Collins J recognised, it had caused very serious damage to the Bank’s business.
M.M. v United Kingdom (Application no. 24029/07) – read judgment
The European Court of Human Rights yesterday handed down a Chamber judgment in declaring that the arrangements for the indefinite retention of data relating to a person’s caution in a criminal matter and for the disclosure of such data in criminal record checks infringe Article 8 of the ECHR.
Although the Court recognised that there might be a need for a comprehensive record of data relating to criminal matters, the indiscriminate and open-ended collection of criminal record data was unlikely to comply with Article 8 in the absence of clear and detailed statutory regulations clarifying the safeguards applicable and governing the use and disposal of such data, particularly bearing in mind the amount and sensitivity of the data.
The case arose from a family dispute in Northern Ireland in the course of which the applicant, a grandmother, took her grandson away from his parents for two days before returning him unharmed. This resulted in her receiving a caution for child abduction in November 2000. In 2003 the police advised her that her caution would remain on record for only five years, i.e. until 2005. However, following the Soham murders and the Bichard report, there was a change of policy whereby any convictions and cautions where the victim was a child would be kept on record for the offender’s lifetime. Continue reading →
A, R (on the application of) v B [2010] EWHC 2361 (Admin) (21 July 2010) – Read judgment
When should the police disclose a person’s private sexual practices to his employer? The high court has just ruled that a detective inspector breached a man’s human right to privacy by telling his employer that he had been taking pictures of short-skirted women in the street without their knowledge.
The case of ‘A’ raises important questions of the extent of the police’s duty to keep the peace and prevent crimes before they happen. This duty can come into conflict with the human right to respect of private and family life , which can be breached by the state in order to keep the public safe.
The Coalition Government has presented its legislative agenda for the coming year in the Queen’s Speech. Below are links to some of our previous posts which address some of the proposed policies.
The full line-up of bills announced can be found on the Number 10 website, or you can also read the full transcript. Our analysis of the Coalition’s human rights policies is here. The list will probably not be exhaustive, as some of the promises made in the Programme for Government may be instituted via secondary legislation or attached to other related Acts of Parliament.
One notable absence is any mention of reform to extradition policy (see our post from yesterday). The Programme for Government included the promise to “review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed.” Liberty, the human rights organisation, had already welcomed the change in a statement on Monday. The family of Gary McKinnon would have also been waiting for this, as Mr McKinnon is currently awaiting a decision from the new Home Secretary as to whether he will be extradited to the United States on computer hacking charges. That being said, a change to the extradition arrangements may be included in another bill, although this seems unlikely.
The Ministry of Justice’s plan to roll out the chemical castration of convicted sex offenders has met with academic criticism, legal warnings, and comparisons to controversial schemes in other jurisdictions. The programme, announced this week by justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, is set to be piloted in twenty prisons in England and Wales as one of a number of “radical” reforms proposed in former Lord Chancellor David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review. Professor David Grubin of Newcastle University joined other forensic psychiatry experts expressing scepticism of the measure, saying that, although it was likely to reduce reoffending rates significantly, its “mandatory element” was “very unethical and… most doctors I know would be resistant to it.” Similar ‘Anti-Libidinal Intervention’ (ALI) schemes have been been introduced on a voluntary basis in Denmark and Germany, and mandatorily in Poland and Moldova – in the latter case, lasting for barely one year, before the country’s constitutional court quashed the measure for what it ruled as its fundamental human rights infringements. ALI programmes elsewhere have seen widespread condemnation from human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, citing in particular their violation of European Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading punishment), 8 and 12 (right to private life and to found a family). Marcus Johnstone of PCD Solicitors has said that the current proposals for ALIs in the UK would lead to challenges in the courts.
An investigation by Liberty Investigates and Metro found that a number of UK universities have been providing intelligence on pro-Palestine student protesters to the police. The investigation described “varying degrees of cooperation and intelligence sharing” in correspondence between universities and police forces. A manager at Queen Mary University of London wrote to the police that “[w]e are monitoring closely the plans of the students in the encampment and will provide you with the details when they are known”. Universities named in the investigation said they were committed to protecting and encouraging free speech.
Student protesters are also facing challenges in the courts, with multiple universities seeking possession orders in order to evict pro-Palestine encampments from campus grounds. The University of Birmingham sought a possession order on Thursday. The defendant student argued that granting the University possession would be unlawful because it would discriminate against her protected philosophical beliefs and interfere with her rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The University argued that the occupation is not a mere expression of opinion, but is designed to interfere with the University’s activities, citing over £250,000 of costs incurred as a consequence of the encampment. Judgment has been reserved until a later date.
In other news, The Undercover Policing Inquiry started ‘Tranche 2’ hearings on Monday, entering a phase of the inquiry which covers the conduct and management of the Special Demonstration Squad between 1983 and 1992. The Metropolitan Police Service acknowledged wrongdoing during this period in its opening statement. The MPS described the fact that at least nine undercover officers engaged in “deceitful sexual relationships” during their deployments as “completely unacceptable” and apologised “for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen”. The MPS also acknowledged that there was “unnecessary reporting” on groups which “did not present any risk of serious public disorder and were not engaged in any criminal or subversive activity”, including groups which were campaigning for police accountability.
In international news
On Tuesday the President of Sierra Leone, Julius Maada Bio, signed the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act into law, banning marriage with a child under 18. In 2021 UNICEF reported that 30% of women and girls in Sierra Leone married in childhood. Sierra Leone’s First Lady Fatima Bio, who was a victim of child marriage and championed the bill, described how child marriage “destroys [children] before they even know who they are”. She said there was no excuse not to comply with the law. The law has been welcomed by human rights campaigners as a historic step forward for the rights of the child inthe country.
In the courts
The US Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority on Monday that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” when carrying out their constitutional powers. They remain liable for private conduct. Justice Roberts delivered the majority judgment, writing that the President must be able to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly” without the threat of prosecution. In a strong dissenting judgment Justice Sotomayor wrote that the president “is now a king above the law”. US President Joe Biden described the decision as setting a “dangerous precedent” which undermined the rule of law.
The Supreme Court of Kansas ruled on Friday that a state law banning the most common second-trimester abortion procedure violated the state’s constitution. Delivering the decision for the majority, Justice Eric Rosen wrote that the court stood by its 2019 decision that “the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy”. Several nearby states including Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri banned abortion following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the historic ruling in Roe v Wade, removing a right to abortion under the US Constitution. Kansas has become a destination where women living in those states can travel to obtain an abortion.
The Telegraph has launched a campaign to “Stop foreign criminals using ‘family rights’ to dodge justice“. The perceived inability of judges to deport foreign criminals as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular the right to family life, is one of the most commonly heard criticisms of human rights law.
In an editorial yesterday, the Telegraph argued that the Human Rights Act has become “a means of undermining public safety, not of helping to protect it.” The newspaper claims that last year 200 foreign convicts avoided deportation by citing the right to family life”, which is “an absurd state of affairs”.
David Mead, in an interesting post – here – about “publicness” in section 6 of the Human Rights Act, looks at a case in which the Olympic Delivery Agency got an injunction against protesters: Olympic Delivery Authority v Persons Unknown . The ODA was a public authority, and the protesters were advancing defences under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association). Arnold J dismissed the defences on the basis that these rights needed to be balanced against the ODA’s rights to property under A1P1.
As Mead points out, the judge was probably wrong to do so. On the face of it, the ODA had no rights under the Convention, under A1P1 or otherwise, because it was a public authority, and was likely to be acting as such in its protester-clearing role. One can perhaps save the judge’s blushes, by a slightly different route. The right of free speech under Article 10(1) has to be balanced against the protection of the rights of others under Article 10(2), and the latter would cover the ODA’s property rights which it was enforcing.
But the more fundamental question is why public authorities (think local authorities or NHS Trusts) cannot complain that they are HRA victims. After all, they can be unfairly dumped on by central government, can be lied about, can have their finances cut, their functions or their premises taken away (hospital unit closures), can receive an unfair trial, and ultimately lose their “life” in some governmental reorganisation.
Greater Glasgow Health Board v. Doogan and Wood [2014] UKSC 68 – read judgment here.
The Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in an interesting and potentially controversial case concerning the interpretation of the conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act 1967. Overturning the Inner House of the Court of Session’s ruling, the Court held that two Catholic midwives could be required by their employer to delegate to, supervise and support other staff who were involved in carrying out abortion procedures, as part of their roles as Labour Ward Co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.
We set out the background to the case and explained the earlier rulings and their ramifications on this blog here and here. The key question the Supreme Court had to grapple with the meaning of the words “to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection” in section 4 of the 1967 Act.
R (on the application of Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2013] 168 (Admin) – read judgment
On 22 April 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in refusing to pay for a lawyer to assist Lindsay Sandiford as she faces the death penalty for drug offences in Indonesia. Last Wednesday, they handed down the reasons for their decision.
On 19 May 2012 Lindsay Sandiford was arrested at Ngurah Rai International Airport in Bali following the discovery of almost five kilograms of cocaine in the lining of her suitcase. A number of southeast Asian countries take a notoriously hard line on drugs offences, and following her conviction on 19 December 2012, Ms Sandiford was sentenced to death. Many media outlets have reported that in Indonesia, death sentences are generally carried out by a firing squad.
We will have to wait some time before Strasbourg hands down its judgment in the religious discrimination cases it heard earlier this week.
Whatever the outcome – which is perhaps predictable – the Court’s ruling will have a significant influence on the place of religion in public life and on how the relationship between religion and the state should be structured to reflect the aims of fairness and mutual respect envisaged in the Convention.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission argues in its intervention submission that Strasbourg – and the UK courts – should move on from their “restrictive” interpretation of Article 9, summed up by Lord Bingham’s oft-cited description of the Court’s position in R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15
The Strasbourg institutions have not been at all ready to find an interference with the right to manifest a religious belief in practice or observance where a person has voluntarily accepted an employment or role which does not accommodate that practice or observance and there are other means open to the person to practise or observe his or her religion without undue hardship or inconvenience.[para 23]
(This is a revised intervention after the EHRC responded to widespread criticism of its proposed argument in support of “reasonable accommodation” of employees’ beliefs – see Alasdair Henderson’s post on this dust-up “Leap of Faith” and our following post on the reversal of the EHRC’s position.) Continue reading →
This is the first post by the blog’s new rounder-uppper Daniel Isenberg, who joins Sam Murrant. Welcome, Daniel!
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly bulletin of human rights news. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.
This week’s human rights news was dominated by the man who has become the Home Secretary’s bête noire, Abu Qatada. Elsewhere the UK’s relationship with the Strasbourg Court was addressed by Jack Straw and the Court’s recently-retired President, whilst the Court, itself, criticised the UK’s policy on criminal records data retention. Meanwhile, in speeches two Court of Appeal judges have made expressed views on human rights and the principle of proportionality.
There is a scene in the film Milk in which Harvey Milk, a gay rights leader and politician, counsels his young protegé Cleve Jones on how to rally an angry crowd. Cleve has been reading a convoluted speech to little effect, when Milk steps in to show him how it’s done.”Lose the note cards next time”, he tells Cleve, “your job is to say into that bullhorn what they’re all feeling”.
Geoffrey Robertson QC has taken Harvey Milk’s advice in a recent article in the Daily Mail in support of a British Bill of Rights. We can be angry about European human rights judges and the European Convention, says Robertson, because “human rights can be delivered without Europe infringing the sovereignty of the British Parliament” through a British Bill of Rights. He feels the pain of the Euro-sceptic case.
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.
The Telegraph has launched a campaign to “
R (on the application of Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2013] 168 (Admin) – 
This is the first post by the blog’s new rounder-uppper Daniel Isenberg, who joins Sam Murrant. Welcome, Daniel! 
Recent comments