Search Results for: environmental/page/27/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
14 June 2010 by Adam Wagner
No entry?
A number of recent cases have ignited an interesting debate on the place of religion in the UK court system, and whether the courts are doing enough to ensure religious freedom as they are obligated to do under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The most notorious example has been McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd, an unfair dismissal claim brought by a relationship counselor who as a result of his Christian beliefs refused to promote gay sex. The former Archbishop of Canterbury submitted a witness statement stating that cases such of these should be heard by judges with special religious sensitivity. Lord Justice Laws in the Court of Appeal rejected his arguments outright.
We also posted last week on the Hardeep Singh case, in which Mr Justice Eady in the High Court effectively threw out a libel action because it rested upon fundamental principles of legal doctrine which could not properly be examined by a secular court. We posted:
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 October 2012 by Alasdair Henderson
Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson (unreported, 18 October 2012, Slough County Court) – Read judgment
The Christian owner of a B&B in Berkshire was found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to allow them stay in a double-bedded room because of her belief that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
Although a county court judgment, this case has been splashed all over the headlines, partly because of BNP leader Nick Griffin’s comments on Twitter (about which see more below) but also because it is so factually similar to the high-profile case of Bull v. Hall and Preddy which is currently before the Supreme Court (see our analysis of the Court of Appeal judgment here). This judgment has also come along at a time when the European Court of Human Rights’ decision is awaited in the four conjoined cases of Ladele, Eweida, Macfarlane and Chaplin, all of which involve issues of religious freedom and two of which involve the same potential conflict between the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation and the right to religious freedom (see our posts here, here and here). Moreover, Recorder Moulder’s comprehensive and careful judgment has helpfully been made available online (see link above), so it can be considered in detail.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 January 2016 by David Scott
David Miranda -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 6 – read judgment.
On Tuesday the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000 and, while upholding the lawfulness of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10.
by David Scott
See RightsInfo’s coverage here. For our coverage of the High Court’s previous decision see here, and on his original detention here and here.
The Case
Mr Miranda, the spouse of then-Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was stopped and detained by the Metropolitan Police at Heathrow Airport on 18 August 2013 under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was questioned and items in his possession were taken by police, including encrypted material provided by Edward Snowden. Mr Miranda was detained for nine hours, the maximum period permitted at the time (since reduced to six hours).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 April 2017 by Rosalind English
Conway, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 640 – read judgment
Noel Douglas Conway, 67, is a victim of motor neurone disease. He has just been refused permission to seek judicial review of the criminalisation of physician-assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961. The High Court considered that Parliament has recently examined the issue following the Supreme Court decision in the 2014 Nicklinson case , and two out of three judges concluded that it would be “institutionally inappropriate” for a court to declare that s.2(1) of the Suicide Act was incompatible with the right to privacy and autonomy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Charles J dissented (and those who are interested in his opinion might want to look at his ruling last year in the case of a minimally conscious patient).
Background facts and law
The claimant, whose condition worsens by the day, wishes to enlist the assistance of a medical professional or professionals to bring about his peaceful and dignified death. But Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act criminalises those who provide such assistance. The question of whether someone would be prosecuted for assisting suicide is governed by a detailed policy promulgated by the Director of Public Prosecutions. That policy was formulated in 2010 in response to the decision in R. (on the application of Purdy) v DPP [2009] UKHL 45, and was refined in 2014 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Nicklinson. A similar declaration of incompatibility had been sought in Nicklinson, but by a majority of seven to two the court refused to make the declaration on the grounds that it was not “institutionally appropriate” to do so. The court, however, encouraged Parliament to reconsider the issue of assisted dying.
In the instant case, the court had to determine whether the circumstances which led the Supreme Court to refuse to grant the declaration in Nicklinson had changed so that a different outcome was now possible.
The Court concluded – with an interesting dissent from Charles J – that this was a matter for parliament. A declaration of incompatibility would be institutionally inappropriate in the light of the recent Parliamentary consideration of Nicklinson. The claim was unarguable and permission was refused.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 June 2019 by Conor Monighan
Conor Monighan brings us the latest updates in human rights law
Credit: The Guardian
In the News:
The High Court has heard how MI5, which is responsible for domestic spying operations, may have unlawfully retained the data of innocent civilians for years.
Liberty’s challenge centres on the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which gives the security services the ability to access digital devices and electronic communications. It alleges that the system of information gathering used by the security services is illegal.
As part of a systemic judicial review, the High Court was told MI5 had realised that there were problems with their data handling in January 2016, but that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary were only informed in April. It was also alleged that MI5 has been holding sensitive data without proper safeguards. Liberty argued that the security services had submitted warrant applications which misled judges, because the agencies had incorrectly suggested sensitive data was being properly protected.
Much of the case will be heard in private over the next week.
In Other News….
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 July 2014 by Guest Contributor
Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading. Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.
Metaphors were rife. Descriptions of the Government’s proposals ranged from Lord Woolf’s invocation of the image of Governmental wolves among some unlikely judicial sheep, to the titular and topical tennis imagery used with devastating effect by Lord Brown of Eaton –under-Heywood:
“More and more areas of our lives are controlled by public authorities. At the same time we have become understandably, I suggest, less trusting and certainly less deferential towards those with authority over us. I sometimes wonder whether it did not all start with John McEnroe’s outraged questioning of line calls at Wimbledon way back in the 1970s. However, we should consider how in the long run his behaviour has contributed to the hugely improved policing of those lines that is in operation today…By the same token, the use of judicial review has to my mind undoubtedly raised the standards of public decision-making in recent years.” (Col 1591)
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 December 2014 by Celia Rooney
Photo credit: Guardian.co.uk
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular winter wonderland of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can find previous roundups here. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Celia Rooney.
Human Rights Week 2014
Next week (8-12 December) is Human Rights Week 2014. There is a bumper programme of events – full details on the Law Society mini site or the Human Rights Week Twitter account. Of interest to readers of the UKHRB, Adam Wagner is speaking at a panel event on Tue 9 December, along with Liberty’s Rachel Robinson and Anthony Speight QC: Protecting Human Rights in the UK: Is there a case for major change
Also, on Monday 8 December (busy week!), Adam is speaking at the Human Rights Lawyers Association event – Regional Human Rights Systems: Under Siege, along with Prof. Douglass Cassel (University of Notre Dame), Jessica Simor QC (Matrix) and Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (Policy Exchange).
In the News
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 June 2013 by Daniel Isenberg
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular chocolate selection box 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.
Much of the news this week relating to the media: tweeting, printing and everything in between.Chris Grayling’s thriftiness also maintains the interests of commentators, academics and lawyers; and cases involving the freedom of religion remain at the forefront of the ECtHR as the Strasbourg Court reforms.
by Daniel Isenberg
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 March 2026 by Guest Contributor
By Kian Leong Tan
INTRODUCTION
In R (Ansari) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police [2026] EWHC 472 (Admin), the High Court (Chamberlain J) held that the heightened level of disclosure required under Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) [2009] UKHL 28 (“AF-disclosure”) does not apply in a challenge to the seizure, download, retention and inspection of the contents of a person’s mobile phone by an examining officer pursuant to Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (“TA 2000“).
In addition to undertaking a comprehensive review of the AF-disclosure case law, Chamberlain J also rejected the notion of some form of an intermediate level of disclosure in closed material proceedings, where the AF-disclosure threshold is not met. The decision offers some much-needed clarity in this area of law.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
16 July 2012 by Sam Murrant
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.
In the news
Lord Neuberger is to be our next Supreme Court President, replacing Lord Philips who is retiring and pipping rival candidates Lady Hale and Lord Mance. In other news, some interesting cases were decided this week, including the Catholic Church’s loss in a vicarious liability case in the Court of Appeal, and the residents of the Fred Wigg Tower lose their judicial review action challenging the decision to put a missile defence system atop the building for the Olympics. We also have more law reform updates, as the Commission for a Bill of Rights published its second consultation paper, the House of Lords debated the ever-controversial Justice and Security Bill, and a commentator provided an illuminating and worrying discussion of the “snooper’s charter”, the Draft Communications Bill.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
25 August 2025 by Catherine Berus
In UK News
ECHR
Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The application is challenging the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Dr. McCloud is seeking a re-hearing of the case, arguing that the initial trial infringed her Article 6 right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr. McCloud sought leave to join the case before the courts in For Women Scotland in light of the impact the ruling could have on transgender individuals with gender recognition certificates (GRCs), but her application was rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, no evidence or representations from the estimated 8,500 individuals who hold GRCs was entered in the original hearing.
Dr. McCloud will be represented by a trans-led legal team in partnership with London’s Trans Legal Clinic.
Facial Recognition Technology and the London Metropolitan Police
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been granted leave to intervene in a judicial review examining whether the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by police complies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ECHR argued that the case of R (Thompson and Carlo) v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis raises important questions of public interest and that the current policy related to the technology is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.
LFRT captures and analyses the faces of individuals walking in front of real-time close- circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Biometric data that is unique to those individuals is then compared to a ‘watchlist’ of persons the police are seeking. The EHRC is concerned with the expansion and development of LFRT in light of the lack of domestic legislation that regulates its use. The Commission will make submissions that the technology is intrusive and will highlight the development of international policy on LFRT and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation.
Parole Futures
A new anthology on the future of parole systems, Parole Futures: Rationalities, Institutions and Practices has been published by the Onati International Series in Law and Society, edited by Harry Annison, Nicola Carr and Thomas Guiney. The book includes insights from 27 world-leading experts on the pressing issues about parole systems around the world, including: Asia; Australia, North and South America, and Europe. The objectives of the anthology is to encourage a ‘systematic and critical reflection’ on parole systems, and to introduce ambitious ‘what if’ thinking ‘about the futures of parole and prison release’.
International News
A United Nations (UN) panel of 11 experts—including six Special Rapporteurs—released a statement expressing concerns over escalating intimidation and censorship of Iran International journalists globally. According to the UN statement, 45 Iran International journalists and staff and 315 of their family members have received credible threats to life or safety. Individuals are located across seven countries: the UK, USA, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and Türkiye. The increase in threats to journalists over the last year coincided with the Iran-Israel conflict of June 2025, with Iranian officials alleging that journalists were acting as spies for Israel.
UK-based journalists have required police protection or re-location within the UK or abroad. Women have also faced additional threats of sexual violence; while family members have been interrogated, surveyed, and threatened with death or arrest.
The UN argues this is a campaign to ‘silence and censor critical reporting and courageous public interest journalism’, and that such intimidation violates the freedom of expression, media and ‘deprives the public of their right to information’.
The UN is urging Iran to immediately cease the threatening and intimidation of journalists and their families, and to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.
In the Courts
The High Court has granted the Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction which will prevent Somani Hotels Limited from continuing to accommodate asylum seeks at the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited ([2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)). The Council argued that the use of the Bell Hotel constituted a material change of use from its classification as a hotel, requiring planning permission, which the Somani Hotels Limited had not obtained.
The High Court acknowledged that the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to provide accommodation, and that this need is growing. However, the ‘balance of convenience’ and the strength of the Council’s case ultimately outweighed the considerations raised by Somani and an interim injunction was granted. Somani Hotels Limited has until September 12, 2025, to comply with the order. There are concerns that other councils may now seek interim injunctions for hotels utilized in their areas. As of March 2025, there were approximately 30K asylum seekers living in hotels.
Catherine Berus | LinkedIn
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
The New York Times reports that after years of promising leads gone cold, the final piece of evidence which led to Osama Bin Laden was found by interrogating detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Given the rough interrogation techniques which were in use at the prison camp, the killing has reopened the debate over torture, and whether it is ever justified.
Blogger David Allen Green, amongst others, asks whether the Bin Laden scenario may amount to an exception to the “otherwise absolute rule” that torture is wrong. I would like to pose a slightly different question: on the basis of current UK law, would it have been lawful for UK authorities to use information obtained under torture to capture or kill a known terrorist?
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 June 2013 by Daniel Isenberg
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular sweet and salted extra large popcorn box 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. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Daniel Isenberg.
Not our own proposed “Snooper’s Charter” getting the civil liberties groups excited this week, but the all-sensing eyes and ears of the American government. Meanwhile, Europe publishes a useful handbook on asylum and immigration issues; whilst the Strasbourg Court cuts down its growing backlog of cases.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
18 September 2013 by Rosalind English
R (on the application of) Christopher Prothero v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2830 (Admin) 18 September 2013 – read judgment
This was a challenge to regulations introduced in 2012 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which require a person on the Sex Offenders Register to provide details of bank, debit or credit card accounts held by him. The claimant sought a declaration that this particular regulation was incompatible with his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The last time the notification requirements under the 2003 Act came under attack, the Supreme court held that they were capable of causing significant interference with the Article 8 rights of an offender on the register (R (F)(a Child)) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17) – see our post on that case and its consequences.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 November 2012 by Guest Contributor
For justice to be seen to be done, judgments given in open court must be accessible in two senses. They must be clearly written so that a reasonably well informed member of the public can understand what is being decided. But they must also be available to the public, and in this sense their accessibility depends on their being reported.
Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, so stated in the first BAILII annual lecture, hosted by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP at their premises in Fleet Street last night. The full speech can be read here.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments