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/22/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
Tucked away on page 48 of the Conservative Party 2019 election manifesto, the following passage could be found in a section entitled “Protecting our Democracy”:
After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.
That is something of a laundry list of many of the most charged constitutional issues faced by the United Kingdom. But of all the matters cited, the one which has received perhaps the most attention of late is the Government’s apparent intention to consider changes to our system of judicial review.
The Hague Court of Appeal has recently handed down a ruling that is of profound importance to environmental lawyers. It is not only the first case at the appellate level in Europe that has resulted in a victory on the merits for the victims, but also the first case to hold that a parent company was under a duty of care with regard to foreign claimants. I will attempt to summarise one of the judgments in the following paragraphs, but readers would do well to look at the detailed analysis of the case by Dr Lucas Roorda on the Rights as Usual blog: “Wading through the (polluted) mud: the Hague Court of Appeals rules on Shell in Nigeria”.
David Hart QC will follow up my post with a piece on the UK Supreme Court decision in Okpabi v Shell on 12 February 2021.
There are in fact three judgments in this case Four Nigerian Farmers and Milieudefensie v. Shell; as Dr Roorda says,
The first (‘Cases A and B’) concerns an oil spill from an underground pipeline near Oruma in 2005; the second (‘Cases C and D’) concerns an oil spill from an underground pipeline near Goi in 2004; the third (‘Cases E and F’) concerns an oil spill from a wellhead near Ikot Ada Udo.
Bournemouth Borough Council v PS and another [2015] EWCOP (11 June 2015) – read judgment
Mostyn J in the Court of Protection was asked to determine whether care arrangements in place for a 28-year-old man (BS) with severe autism and who lacked capacity constituted a deprivation of his liberty. He concluded that the care arrangements in place were in his best interests and did not constitute a deprivation of his liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR. Although he was subject to observation and monitoring in his own home he was not under continuous supervision and he was afforded appreciable privacy; there were no locks on the doors and he was free to leave.
Interestingly, comments made in this case shows that judges, or some of them, do engage with what is being said about them in the blogosphere. Continue reading →
A child learns early that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it. Thankfully that principle does not apply to Government consultations and this is aptly demonstrated by a group of responses to the consultation into whether “closed material” (secret evidence) procedures should be extended to civil trials.
Of the responses that I have read, there is very little support for the proposals as they stand and, as journalist Joshua Rozenberg has pointed out, the most damning criticism has come from the very lawyers who are currently involved in “closed” proceedings.
If you are interested in the issue, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is hearing evidence on it today from two special advocates, including my co-editor Angus McCullough QC (see his post on the topic), as well as the current and former independent reviewers of terrorism legislation. The session begins at 2:20pm and can be watched live here.
As I did with the Bill of Rights Commission consultation, I asked people to send me their consultation responses. What follows is a wholly unscientific summary of the ones I received:
The new and wide-ranging Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) introduced by the Public Order Act 2023 came into force on Friday. As part of the Government’s attempt to ‘crack down’ on protesters ‘dedicated to wreaking havoc’, the police will now be able to apply to courts for an order to place restrictions on protesters’ locations, associations with others, online activity, and more. Breaching an order will be a criminal offence carrying up to six months’ imprisonment and an order can be made against anyone who has previously committed ‘protest-related offences’, including the many newly criminalised by the Public Order Act itself. Liberty have previously criticised SDPOs as an ‘unprecedented and highly draconian measure, which could amount to a ban on named individuals’ fundamental right to protest’.
Scotland’s new laws on hate crime came into force last Monday. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act both consolidates existing hate crime offences and creates a new offence of ‘threatening or abusive behaviour intended to stir up hatred’ on the basis of ‘age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics’. A working group headed by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC has recommended that a separate offence be created to tackle misogynist abuse. Despite concerns about freedom of expression being raised by a variety of high profile online commentators, the Scottish Government have insisted the threshold for prosecution is very high with the act having multiple built in protections, including a ‘reasonableness’ defence. Some reports have suggested Police Scotland have already received up to 6000 complaints under the new law since Monday.
In Other News
Last Monday, drone strikes by the Israeli Defence Force killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in the Gaza strip. Over a five minute period, three missiles struck three WCK vans delivering food to Northern Gaza despite previous coordination of the route with Israeli forces. Israel has admitted responsibility for the strikes and launched an investigation, reporting on Thursday that IDF forces had mistakenly believed the cars had been hijacked by Hamas militants and that drone operators were unable to see the WCK logo on the vans in the darkness. WCK has criticised the lack of accountability demonstrated by Israel’s response and has called for an independent inquiry. In related news, an open letter signed by UK judges and lawyers – including multiple former Supreme Court Justices – has called for the UK Government to end its supply of arms to Israel. The 17-page letter explains that the Government’s current position ‘falls significantly short’ of fulfilling its obligations under international law. The majority of British voters also believe the UK should cease their exports of arms to Israel, as revealed by a YouGov survey conducted last week.
The UN Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution on Thursday to recognise and enhance the rights of intersex people. In a resolution proposed by Chile, Australia, Finland, and South Africa, the Council voted to call on Member States to ramp up protections offered towards intersex people against ‘discrimination, violence and harmful practices’. The resolution includes a provision requesting a report from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ‘examining in detail discriminatory laws and policies, acts of violence and harmful practices against persons with innate variations in sex characteristics, in all regions of the world.’ Intersex people do not currently enjoy specific protection in the UK under the Equality Act 2010.
In the Courts
Uganda’s Constitutional Court declined last Wednesday to nullify the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act. Enacted last May, the law – which permits the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ – has received international criticism for violating rights protected both by Uganda’s own constitution and by international treaties to which Uganda is a signatory. The Court did strike down particular provisions which it held to be ‘inconsistent with right to health, privacy and freedom of religion’; one such provision placed an obligation on all citizens to report anyone they suspected of engaging in homosexual activity, which was held to violate individual rights. Despite this, the judgment has been criticised by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, who revealed that ‘close to 600 people are reported to have been subjected to human rights violations and abuses based on their actual or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity since the Anti-Homosexuality Act was enacted in May last year’. He stated that the Act ‘must be repealed in its entirety, or unfortunately this number will only rise’. The LGBT+ activists behind the court case told Reuters that they intend to appeal to the Ugandan Supreme Court to seek a full annulment of the Act.
The European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment last week finding that the lack of access to asylum to those arriving on Poland’s eastern borders meant that Poland was in breach of the ECHR. The case concerned a group of Tajik asylum seekers repeatedly turned away at the Ukrainian border crossing. During interviews with Polish border guards, the claimants stated they were seeking international protection from political persecution in Tajikistan, and that they were at danger of deportation in Ukraine. Their denial of access to the Polish asylum system and lack of an effective appeal process for the rejection at the border crossing violated Articles 3 (freedom from torture) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). A violation of Article 4 of Protocol 4 (prevention of collective expulsion of aliens) was also found, as the claimants successfully contended that the refusal of entry was on the basis of a wider policy to not accept asylum seekers at Polish border crossings.
This is a summary of an article published here and inevitably simplifies the detailed arguments and considerations within it. The article represents the views of the author alone.
Note: This article involves examination of the legal provisions that accompany the restrictions on movement of individuals announced by the Government. The current Government guidance setting out these and other restrictions can be found here. Legal scrutiny is important but should not be taken to question the requirement to follow the Regulations.
The ‘lockdown’ imposed by the government to contain the coronavirus and Covid 19, the disease it causes has been enforced mainly through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’), imposed under powers delegated by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’).
Recently Lord Anderson QC, Robert Craig, Tom Hickman QC and others and Benet Brandreth QC and Lord Sandhurst QC have argued that the Regulations were or may have been ultra vires as secondary legislation beyond the delegated powers under Pt 2A of the 1984 Act. In turn, Prof Jeff King has argued that the delegated powers were exercised lawfully. It is the view of the author that the arguments against the vires of the legislation on that ground are more convincing.
This article argues that the Regulations are also a disproportionate interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’); and that, were they challenged by judicial review, should be disapplied if necessary to avoid a breach of s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The secretary of state had granted a temporary approval during the COVID-19 pandemic of “the home of a pregnant woman” as a class of places for the taking of Mifepristone, one of the two drugs required for a termination of pregnancy during the first 10 weeks. The appellants challenged this decision by way of judicial review, arguing, inter alia, that it was unlawful as being without the powers conferred by the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended).
Legal background
The 1967 Act sets out the legal framework under which abortions can be performed in England and Wales. Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it a criminal offence to administer drugs or use instruments to procure an abortion. Section 59 of the same Act makes the supply of drugs, knowing that they are intended to be unlawfully used to procure the miscarriage of any woman, a criminal offence.
The Act excludes from criminal liability the termination of a pregnancy by a medical practitioner under certain circumstances including maximum term of twenty four weeks and risk to the woman. The Act also stipulates that treatment must be carried out in an approved place.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly smorgasbord 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.
A bumper edition this week, mostly thanks to Lord Justice Leveson and his long-awaited report, released this week to a tumult of online commentary. In overshadowed, but potentially no less significant news, the House of Lords approved amendments to the “secret courts” Justice and Security Bill; the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the Crime and Courts Bill, and we have another round of arguments for and against the UK’s continuing association with the European Court of Human Rights.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular booster shot 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.
In the news
Survey on LASPO impact
ilegal founders Patrick Torsney and Colin Henderson have launched a survey in collaboration with Centre for Human Rights in Practice researchers at the University of Warwick, focused on discerning the impact of LASPO legal aid cuts to professionals working in relevant sectors and their clients. Participation has been encouraged by both the Legal Voice and Pink Tape blogs, and the survey itself may be found here.
Department of Energy and Climate Change v. Breyer Group plc and others [2015] EWCA Civ 408, 28 April 2015 read judgment
In 2011, DECC decided to change the rules about subsidies for photovoltaic schemes, and caused substantial losses to those who had contracted or were about to contract on the basis of the more generous old subsidies.
This is prime territory for a damages claim under A1P1 ECHR. The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an appeal by DECC against a decision of Coulson J (see my post here) supportive of such claims. The decision was on preliminary issues involving assumed facts, but important legal arguments advanced by DECC were rejected by the CA.
The future of the UK response to COVID-19 remains uncertain. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has hinted that things will be ‘significantly normal’ by Christmas, and has emphasised his reluctance to impose a second national lockdown, comparing such a threat to a ‘nuclear deterrent’. Yet the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there is a risk we will need another national lockdown in the winter months. Mr Johnson has said the advice on working from home will change on 1st August to ‘go back to work if you can’; Sir Patrick Vallance says there is ‘no reason’ to change that advice. Confusion continues to reign.
Access to justice has been a major casualty of the pandemic, with jury trials suspended and a steady backlog of cases building up in the courts. To address that backlog, the government is now opening 10 temporary ‘Nightingale Courts’, which will hear civil, family, tribunal, and non-custodial criminal cases. Chair of the Criminal Bar Association Caroline Goodwin QC says that these courts are ‘just a start’, and that further buildings and a renewed focus on criminal trails will be needed to clear the backlog. Justice Minister Robert Buckland has already warned that the backlog may not be cleared until 2021.
The Court of Appeal has granted Shamima Begum leave to enter the UK in order to pursue her appeal against the Home Office’s decision to remove her British citizenship, overruling part of the decision made by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The court’s ruling is discussed in more detail below, and in an article by Marina Wheeler QC.
Bancoult v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Divisional Court, Richards LJ and Mitting J, 16-24 April 2013, judgment awaited, but see 25 July 2012, Stanley Burnton LJ for an earlier judgment UPDATED
A quick update at the end of the recent judicial review on 24 April by Mr Bancoult on behalf of the Chagossian islanders, but before judgment. The challenge was to the designation of the waters around their islands as a “no take” Marine Protected Area, i.e. one which could not be fished.
I have posted on this saga before, which started with the Chagossians’ eviction from their islands in the Indian Ocean in the late 1960s and early 1970s, here, here, and, in Strasbourg, here. After a judgment from the courts in 2000, the FCO accepted that the original law underlying their departure was unlawful, and agreed to investigate their possible resettlement on some of their islands.
Dr DB v. General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 2331 (QB), 23 September 2016, Soole J – read judgment
An interesting three-way privacy fight between a GP, a patient who had complained about his treatment by the GP, and the GMC who had investigated that complaint. The prize in that fight was a copy of a medical report obtained by the GMC from an independent expert, which had concluded that the GP’s care had fallen below “but not seriously below” the expected standard.
The patient had wanted a copy of the report; all he had seen so far was a one-page summary. His motive was to investigate a possible claim for clinical negligence, arising out of the delayed diagnosis of his bladder cancer. The GP refused consent.
The GMC then concluded it should disclose the report to the patient. And the GP brought these proceedings to stop disclosure. Continue reading →
When a Convention right arises in circumstances which also engage EU law, which court is the final arbiter of their meaning and application?
This is not as arcane a question as it appears, since in the UK many cases engage points of EU law, so Convention rights, which are part of the “general principles” of Community law, get in under the wire via the European Communities Act 1972. And in July the Council of Europe published the draft agreement for accession of the European Union as a signatory to the European Convention, which either adds another string to the ECHR bow, or a further layer of constitutional obscurity of interest only to international jurists, or both: – time will tell. Continue reading →
Aranyosi and Căldăraru [C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU].
On 5 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) must be deferred if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because of the conditions of detention for the person concerned in the requesting state. If the existence of that risk cannot be discounted within a reasonable period, the authority responsible for the execution of the warrant must decide whether the surrender procedure should be deferred or brought to an end.
The cases concerned two totally unrelated and separate extradition requests: a Hungarian accusation warrant seeking the person for trial, the other a Romanian conviction warrant so the person sought could serve a prison sentence. The requested state in both cases was Germany. Continue reading →
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.
A child learns early that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it. Thankfully that principle does not apply to Government consultations and this is aptly demonstrated by a group of responses to the 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly smorgasbord of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular booster shot of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Recent comments