Search Results for: environmental/page/38/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
20 November 2018 by Guest Contributor
In the recent judgement of MM (Malawi) & MK (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2482 the Court of Appeal declined to grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court for consideration of whether the test under Article 3 for removal of foreign nationals in medical cases, as set out in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867 , was correctly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 64.
Background
The issue in this case was whether the removal of a foreign national from the UK would breach their rights under Article 3 not to be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment where they are in receipt of medical treatment in the UK which is not available in their home country.
In 1997 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined in D v UK (Application no. 30240/96) that, as the applicant was in the advanced stages of AIDS to the extent that he was reliant upon palliative care in the UK and would receive no comfort or moral support in his home country, his removal would constitute a breach of Article 3. This was noted to be a ‘very exceptional’ case.
The current leading domestic authority is N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 31. N was also diagnosed with AIDS but owing to the availability of treatment in the UK she was expected to live for decades; however, if returned to Uganda, where such treatment was not available, she would die within one to two years. Lord Hope set out the test for ‘very exceptional’ as follows:
For the circumstances to be […] ‘very exceptional’ it would need to be shown that the applicant’s medical condition had reached such a critical stage that there were compelling humanitarian grounds for not removing him to a place which lacked the medical and social services which he would need to prevent acute suffering while he is dying …” [my emphasis]
Therefore, although N would die much faster in Uganda, as she would not be subject to ‘acute suffering’ whilst dying there was no breach of Article 3. This was held to be the case even though it was accepted that N’s life would be significantly shortened [see Lord Nicholls at para 15]. The issue was declared to be not whether her death would follow removal but whether “there is care available […] to enable [her] to meet that fate with dignity” [Baroness Hale, para. 69]. In N’s case it was considered that such care was available. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR approved this reasoning in N v UK (Application no. 26565/05).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
10 May 2021 by Calla Randall
In the news:
Campaigners have warned that a loophole allowing children aged 16 or 17 to get married with their parents’ consent is enabling forced child marriages to take place across England. Current laws against forced marriage to do not specifically protect children, and there are no laws in the UK to prevent religious or customary child marriages. The organisation Girls Not Brides UK, who sent a letter to the Prime Minister warning of the impact of this loophole last week, have suggested that child marriages disproportionately affect girls, and often lead to fewer educational and employment opportunities and a higher risk of domestic violence. The government’s Forced Marriage Unit, which collects data on cases of forced marriage, shows that more than a quarter of cases involve children. The Conservative MP Pauline Latham is currently promoting a bill in Parliament aimed at criminalising child marriage completely.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
9 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
A team of 1 Crown Office Row barristers and staff are taking part in the 10KM London Legal Walk next week. You can sponsor the team by clicking here.
We are raising money for the London Legal Support Trust, which funds Law Centres and pro bono agencies in and around London including the invaluable Bar pro Bono Unit and Free Representation Unit.
The UK Human Rights Blog was launched just over a year ago. It is a free service and we intend it to remain so, in order to give the general public easy access to expert human rights commentary. We do not support campaigns as a matter of policy, but we do ask that if you use and enjoy the blog, and you consider access to justice to be important, that you sponsor us in next week’s walk.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 May 2012 by Rosalind English
Mcgrath v Dawkins, Amazon and others [2012] EWHC B3 (QB) -read judgment
In an interesting ruling on a strike-out action against a libel claim, a High Court judge has delineated the scope for defamation in blog posts and discussion threads where the audience is small and the libel limited.
Background
The claimant, C, is the author of a book entitled “The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know”. Published at the same time on the same general topic, but taking the opposite side, was “The Grand Design: New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of Life” by the very well-known scientist Professor Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Both books were available for purchase through the Amazon UK website run by the third defendant.
Amazon includes an online public-access facility, through which any member of the public may publish their own review of a book for sale on the site, and others may post comments on that review, or on previous comments, so creating a “thread” which may be read by any internet user worldwide. Since Prof. Hawking’s book was likely to attract far more interest among readers than C’s, he decided to raise the profile of his own work. In September 2010 he posted a purported review of the Hawking book, signed by “Scrooby”, which began by giving the details of his own book, and then went on to claim that this book “answered all doubts raised in [Hawking’s] book” and was an “antidote to this misguided book”. As the judgment continues
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
29 April 2013 by Sarina Kidd
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular potpourri 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, in order to deport Abu Qatada, there have been mumblings of a temporary departure from the ECHR. Furthermore, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s legal services reforms lead to a strike in the North, and the recent ECHR decision to allow the UK’s ban on political advertising continues to generate discourse.
by Sarina Kidd
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 March 2011 by Matthew Flinn
R (on the Application of AC) v Bershire West Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 247 – Read judgment.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of a male-to-female transsexual who was refused NHS funding for breast augmentation surgery.
The appellant, known as AC, had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder (GID) in 1996. As part of its GID treatment program the PCT had been prepared to provide genital reassignment surgery, which AC had not availed herself of.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 August 2013 by Daniel Isenberg
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular non-silly season of human rights news and views. 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.
The end of the legal term seemingly does not mean a let-up in immigration news, with a number of Home Office, asylum and immigration-related stories making the headlines. Also, the back-and-forth on legal aid cuts continues, as well as some interesting perspectives on the Mental Capacity Act, sexual offences trials and the FOIA veto. Some interesting judgments too, particularly on secret trials.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 December 2017 by Guest Contributor
On 1 December 2017 an event in Temple Church with the Bar Council in collaboration with Refugee Tales, an outreach project whose aim is to see the end of indefinite immigration detention, saw an announcement of new recommendations for reform of the system of immigration detention.
This followed from the publication on 30 November 2017 of ‘Injustice in Immigration Detention, Perspectives from Legal Professionals’, an independent report by Dr Anna Lindley of SOAS. Read the report here: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/623583/171130_injustice_in_immigration_detention_dr_anna_lindley.pdf
The Bar Council, led by Andrew Langdon QC, is making a series of recommendations in light of the report, as follows:
- A 28-day time limit for administrative detention;
- Automatic judicial oversight of the arrangements for holding people in administrative detention;
- Adequate legal aid for advice and representation for those held in immigration detention to challenge the loss of their liberty;
- A ban on the use of prisons for the purposes of administrative detention;
- Special care for vulnerable people and victims of torture held in administrative detention; and
- Review and clarification of the criteria for administrative detention. The relevant policy and rules need to be accessible and intelligible so that all those who are affected by the exercise of powers to detain understand the reasons for the exercise of those powers and can challenge decisions where appropriate.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 March 2011 by Adam Wagner
One of the country’s most senior judges, Lord Neuberger, has given a stirring speech on the challenges of open justice in the 21st century. His ideas are progressive and practical, and amount to a manifesto for building a more open justice system, fit for the internet age.
The annual Judicial Studies Board lecture has in recent years been used by the senior judiciary to criticise the European Court of Human Rights (see Lord Judge’s and Lord Hoffmann’s 2010 and 2009 speeches), so Neuberger’s Open Justice Unbound represents a refreshing change of pace.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 August 2013 by Rosalind English
Ignaoua, R (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2512 (Admin) – read judgment
The Government’s termination of existing judicial review proceedings via certification under the Justice and Security Act was “troubling” but lawful. Parliament’s intention was clear, even though there were no new rules in force yet.
The claimant was challenging her exclusion from the UK on national security grounds in proceedings commenced in 2010. The proceedings were terminated under special powers conferred by the Act. The challenge could proceed instead before the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC), which has all the powers of the divisional court to conduct a judicial review of his exclusion.
The question before the court was whether the certificate had been lawfully made and not an abuse of process.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 August 2023 by Grace Storrie
In the news
Alexei Navalny – a vocal critic of Putin’s government and prominent opposition figure in Russia – has been sentenced to a further 19 years in prison. Navalny is already serving an 11-year sentence for various charges. The hearing for this most recent conviction was held behind closed doors, at a penal colony in Nelekhovo (to the east of Moscow). The opposition leader was found guilty on six counts, including a charge for inciting and financing extremism. As part of this most recent conviction, Navalny will be moved to a “special regime colony”, where his access to visitors (including family members and his legal team) will be reduced. Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for Navalny’s release and denounced the “repressive crackdown on freedom of expression and political opposition in Russia”.
In a similar piece of news, the UK Government imposed sanctions on 6 individuals in connection with the conviction of Vladimir Kara-Murza, a prominent critic of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Mr Kara-Murza is a dual Russian and British national, who was sentenced earlier this year to 25 years in a penal colony for treason and spreading “knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces. Mr Kara-Murza’s appeal was dismissed this week, prompting the UK Government to initiate fresh sanctions against the three judges, two prosecutors and “expert witness” involved in Kara-Murza’s appeal. The UK Government says the conviction is “politically motivated targeting” and Mr Kara-Murza is being persecuted for his anti-war stance. The sanctions include asset freezes and travel bans against the individuals concerned.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
20 June 2013 by Rosalind English
In the matter of B (a child) (FC) [2013] UKSC 33 – read judgment
This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer “significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.
The following summary is based on the Supreme Court press report. References in square brackets are to paragraphs of the judgment.
Background facts
The child concerned had been removed from her parents at birth under an interim care order. The mother was for many years in an abusive relationship with her step-father. She also had criminal convictions for dishonesty and a history of making false allegations. She had been diagnosed with somatisation disorder, a condition which involves making multiple complaints to medical professionals of symptoms for which no adequate physical explanation can be found.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 June 2015 by Guest Contributor
Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (App No 13216/05) – read judgment
In two important decisions, the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court has held that the forced displacement of peoples from the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh during the armed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (right to the peaceful enjoyment of property) and Article 8 (right to a private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case of Chiragov which concerned the forced displacement of Azerbaijani nationals was decided in parallel with the Grand Chamber judgment in Sargsyan v Azerbaijan (found here). Sargsyan was delivered on the same day and reached the same conclusions in respect of Armenian nationals forced to flee from Azerbaijani territory.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
26 June 2020 by Henry Tufnell
This post is written in response to a comment by a reader, John Burton, of Rosalind English’s post on the latest in the Lockdown challenge launched by Simon Dolan in which Philip Havers QC has been instructed.
We don’t dispense legal advice from the UKHRB, but I thought this was a very interesting question and the editorial board felt it best to try to answer it in a separate post, so here it is, and many thanks to Henry Tufnell, one of our pupil barristers, soon to become one of our new tenants, for taking up the challenge.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
22 May 2013 by Guest Contributor
Doogan and Wood v. NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board [2013] CSIH 36 – read judgment here and Alasdair Henderson’s commentary here
It is easy to become complacent about women’s reproductive rights in mainland Britain. Compared to our Irish neighbours, women here are able to access their chosen contraceptive, abortion and maternity services with relative ease. When Savita Halappanavar died after she was refused an abortion in Galway, commentators lamented a system where a woman could be told by healthcare staff that she couldn’t have an abortion because Ireland is a Catholic country. We imagined that such events could not happen here. A recent judgment of the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session (the Scottish Court of Appeal) shakes that belief. Of most concern is that the court failed to engage with the human rights implications of its decision.
Our abortion law is found in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 1 makes abortion lawful only when it has been authorised by two doctors who attest that continuing the pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s physical or mental health, or where the child would ‘suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped’. In effect, all abortions, save those for fetal abnormality, are performed on the basis that there is a threat to the woman’s physical or mental integrity as a result of pregnancy. Section 4 excuses a person from ‘participating in any treatment’ under the Act if they express a conscientious objection to abortion. As the Abortion Rights campaign points out, the law gives doctors control over women’s informed choices about their pregnancy that can lead to damaging delays in accessing abortion services.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments