Search Results for: environmental/page/45/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)

Eastenders in Supreme Court: A1P1 filling in the gaps

15 May 2014 by David Hart KC

Barnes v. The Eastenders Group [2014] UKSC 26 read judgment

Not Albert Square, but it could be. The Crown Prosecution Service suspect two individuals of a massive duty/VAT fraud in their cash and carry businesses. The CPS go to the Crown Court (in the absence of the individuals) and get an order to appoint a receiver (i.e. a paid manager) to run the affairs of companies (Eastenders) in which the individuals are involved, as well as a restraint order against the individuals. Both receivership and restraint orders are set aside some months later by the Court of Appeal, on the basis that the HMRC investigator’s statements were largely “broad and unsupported assertions”. Problem: by then the receiver had run up £772,547 in fees.

Simple issue. Who bears those fees? The receiver, the CPS or the companies against whom the order was made? And A1P1 (the right to possessions) made the difference.

Continue reading →

Facial Recognition Technology not “In Accordance with Law”

13 August 2020 by Rafe Jennings

R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Respondent)and Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales (Interested Parties) [2020] EWCA Civ 1058

The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty. 

The scoop, the chef, his wife and her father

19 July 2011 by Rosalind English

Christopher Hutcheson (formerly known as KGM) v News Group Newspapers and others – read judgment

In these turbulent times for Rupert Murdoch (see our contempt post) it seems strange to see one of his newspapers being vindicated by the courts, but, for once, The Sun seems to be coming up smelling of roses.

These proceedings concerned Mr. Hutcheson’s application to restrain NGN from publishing certain information. In 1968 he married a lady with whom he had four children, who are now grown up. The marriage still subsists. In the meantime, from about 1976 he developed a relationship with another woman with whom, in 1979 and 1981 respectively, he had two children.   

Continue reading →

Guest post: Will the Detainee Inquiry be human rights compliant? A JUSTICE reply – Eric Metcalfe

16 August 2011 by Guest Contributor

A year after it was first announced, the Detainee Inquiry on 6 July published its Protocol and terms of reference. On 3 August, JUSTICaE together with 9 other NGOs wrote to the Detainee Inquiry. Among other things, we said that an Inquiry conducted on such terms would ‘plainly … not comply with Article 3 [of the ECHR]’. We also made clear that, were the Inquiry to proceed on this basis, we would not submit any evidence or attend any further meetings with the Inquiry team.

In his interesting article last week (‘Will the Detainee Inquiry be human rights compliant?’, 8 August) Matthew Flinn queried our claim that the Protocol fails to meet the requirements of article 3 ECHR. Notwithstanding the government’s own statement that it doesn’t intend for the Inquiry to comply with article 3, Flinn set out various arguments to suggest that the Protocol might nonetheless comply with article 3 in any event.

Continue reading →

Article 8 tweaked, human rights exam passed – the Human Rights Roundup

11 June 2012 by Wessen Jazrawi

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly dose 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.

Thanks to the Jubilee, it was a short week for most of us but there was still plenty happening in the world of human rights. Hot topics included the criminalisation of forced marriage and the UK’s second UPR, and as usual the debate surrounding the Justice and Security Bill rages on. And, today the Home Secretary will unveil her plans to persuade judges to alter how they interpret Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

by Wessen Jazrawi

Continue reading →

The Weekly Round-Up: Extremism Redefined, Justice for Subpostmasters, & Elections in Russia

18 March 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In the UK

The Government has announced a new definition of extremism. Michael Gove, communities secretary, told ministers on Thursday that they should not interact with any groups labelled as extremist or that do not maintain ‘public confidence in government’. While the former definition encompassed ‘vocal or active opposition’, the new definition refers to the ‘promotion or advancement of ideology’. This move away from physical acts into ideas has been criticised as having the potential to infringe on the right to freedom of thought when there is no harmful consequence – Miriam Cates MP warned of its potential to ‘chill speech of people who have perfectly legitimate, harmless views’. Any organisations judged to fall within the remit of the new definition will be excluded from receiving funding or having an audience with any minister. If a group feels that their labelling as extremist is incorrect, they can challenge the ministerial decision before the courts – but there is no process for internal appeal. The chief executive of MEND, one of the organisations mentioned by Mr Gove, told the BBC he would pursue legal action if the organisation was labelled extremist. Brendan Cox, widower of Jo Cox MP, told The Guardian in the wake of the change that ‘extremism deserves to be treated seriously and soberly, not used tactically to seek party political advantage’.

On Wednesday, the House of Commons passed the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, which automatically quashes the convictions of hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly convicted as a result of the Horizon IT scandal. This is the first time a piece of legislation has been used in order to vacate convictions en masse. On top of the £179m already paid to those wrongly convicted, a £600,000 lump sum has been made available to sub-postmasters wrongly convicted, and a £75,000 payment was approved for any who, though not convicted, suffered mistreatment. Though the subject of the Bill is uncontroversial, some lawyers have been left feeling uneasy about its methods; legal experts have warned that legislating to overturn convictions threatens to override the judicial process and could set a dangerous precedent.

In wider news

Voting in Russia’s presidential election began on Friday with ballots continuing to be cast over the weekend. Vladimir Putin is standing for his fifth term as president after amendments to the constitution were made in 2020 to allow a candidate to stand for fifth and sixth terms; another term will see him having served 30 years in power. Although a handful of candidates are running against him, others have been disqualified and many consider that those remaining pose no credible threat. Nations have been called upon by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to refuse to recognise and legitimate the results of this weekend’s election, which has been referred to as a ‘carefully staged legitimisation ritual’.

Five years after the proposal for regulation was first tabled, the EU voted in a plenary session on Wednesday to adopt the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, now expected to receive final approval within weeks. The Act categorises the risk level of various programs and imposes stepped restrictions accordingly, including banning any system of AI deemed to pose an ‘unacceptable risk’ (with exemptions for military and national security use). The response to the Bill has been mixed – while many are praising the EU for being the first to create a set of binding regulations on AI, the Act has been criticised both for being too burdensome and stifling competition in the tech sector and for its silence on crucial human rights matters such as biometric mass surveillance and predictive policing. Amnesty International has suggested that the failure of EU lawmakers to ban the export of AI incompatible with the new legislation will allow companies to profit from technologies the Union itself has deemed excessively dangerous and harmful, establishing ‘a dangerous double standard’.

An open letter signed this week by twelve Israeli human rights organisations has accused Israel of ignoring the provisional ruling delivered by the ICJ over the military campaign in Gaza. 25 NGOs have also sent a letter this week to President Joe Biden calling for the United States to end their ‘support for the ongoing catastrophic humanitarian situation’ by terminating the provision of weapons and security assistance. This comes as the President announced a floating pier would be built for aid to access Gaza while President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen announced that a sea corridor would be opened into Gaza to supply food amid fears of an impending famine.

In the courts

On Tuesday, the ECHR published a judgment confirming that the right to conscientiously object to military service is protected by the right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms. The applicant, Murat Kanatlı, was convicted for refusing to perform compulsory Turkish military service on the grounds that he conscientiously objected.  The statutory provisions did not allow him to undertake any other kind of civilian service in substitution, and therefore there was no possibility a fair balance between his interests and the interests of society had been struck. Accordingly, the Court found a breach his rights under Article 9.

Two courts in Japan ruled last week that the country’s ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. In separate rulings, the Sapporo High Court ruled that the lack of recognition of same sex marriage in the Civil Code violated the constitution while the Tokyo District Court declared that the ban violated the dignity of the individual and was therefore unconstitutional. These are the latest in a slew of Japanese judgments over the last five years suggesting the that the legislature should recognise same sex marriage in order to honour the rights of citizens. Though polls suggest same sex marriage enjoys support from up to 70% of the population, the government have shown no indication that this is likely to occur in the near future.

Thirty-three Metropolitan police officers are suing the Met for trauma stemming from the Grenfell Tower fire. Civil claims are being pursued for psychiatric injury suffered during the tragic event in 2017 which killed 72 people. Mediation is ongoing and it is hoped an out of court settlement will be reached. The proceedings have commenced against the Met Police after it was announced last month by the Fire Brigades Union that the claims of firefighters responding to the tower fire had been settled for over £20m. It is expected that the second and final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry will be published this spring or summer and will inform the Met Police’s decision as to whether to bring criminal charges against any parties, including corporate and gross negligence manslaughter.

Dr Naik, hate speech and the principle of expectation

29 December 2011 by Rosalind English

The Queen on the application of Naik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1546 – read judgment

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the exclusion of an Indian Muslim public speaker  from the United Kingdom after making statements which breached the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviours policy” was lawful,  and that any interference with his rights was justified.

We posted previously on the original exclusion of Dr Naik from the United Kingdom, and reported on his subsequent address by sattelite link to the Oxford Union.

The appellant had regularly visited the UK since 1990 on public lecture tours. In 2008 he was granted a five-year multiple entry visitor visa. In 2010, two days before he was due to arrive in the UK on a lecture tour, the secretary of state excluded him and revoked his visa. She considered that he had made a number of statements which were supportive of terrorists, such as Osama Bin Laden, and breached the “unacceptable behaviours policy” for exclusion from the UK.

The decision was based on the fact that several of his statements fell within the Home Office’s “Unacceptable Behaviour Policy”, an indicative guide to types of behaviour which would normally result in grounds for exclusion, and that his presence would not be conducive to the public good.The Administrative Court dismissed Dr Naik’s application for judicial review of this decision, holding that the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the protection of national security is a central constitutional role, and encompasses a duty owed to the public at large. It could not be overridden by reference to any representation or practice relating to an individual entrant.
Continue reading →

Shadow Justice Secretary speaks to lawyers on “The State of Human Rights”

30 March 2010 by Adam Wagner

We have been following with interest the debate over the proposed “Bill of Rights” which all of the major parties are considering in some form. Dominic Grieve QC, the Shadow Justice Secretary, gave a speech last week to the Human Rights Lawyers Association which touched upon the Conservative Party’s proposals. Francis Klug wrote in The Guardian that:

Some of us asked Grieve to clarify the effects of these proposed interpretation clauses at yesterday’s meeting. I am not sure we were any the wiser. The purpose appears to be to free our judges from the approach of the Strasbourg court (they are already free from slavishly following the case law) where rights are not absolute. The text of the ECHR could still be used, Grieve says (although he suggests this is only his personal preference, not necessarily his party’s). But it is not at all clear that the human rights framework for balancing or limiting rights – based on preventing harm rather than creating eligibility criteria – will survive these suggested “interpretation clauses”.

The text of the speech has not been published, but Mr Grieve has published a speech on the same topic on his website, given in November 2009. In that speech he made clear that the Human Rights Act would not be replaced without a wide public consultation. However, he did provide some clues as to the nature of the “interpretation clauses”, saying:

Continue reading →

Parliament Square protesters lose eviction appeal [updated]

16 July 2010 by Adam Wagner

Hall & Ors v Mayor of London (On Behalf of the Greater London Authority) [2010] EWCA Civ 817 (16 July 2010) – read judgment

The Mayor of London has won a court order to evict a camp of protesters from Parliament Square, with the Court of Appeal upholding a decision of the High Court stating that the Mayor’s response to the protest was proportionate and not a breach of the protesters’ human rights.

The protesters had gained a temporary reprieve by appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal, but that appeal has now been rejected. The BBC report that Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, said “I think it’s wonderful that as a city we can protest. But it is nauseating what they are doing to the lawn“.

Continue reading →

Equality, human rights and religion or belief: time to get out of the courtroom? – Alice Donald

24 August 2012 by Guest Contributor

The interaction between the law and religion or belief is rarely out of the headlines. Debate rages about whether Article 9, the human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, receives sufficient – or too much – protection in the courts.  There has been a considerable amount of litigation, much of it contentious (see, for example, here, here and here) 

A new report for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) by researchers at London Metropolitan University, including myself, explores these controversies. It is based largely on interviews and roundtable discussions with around 100 religion or belief groups, human rights and/or equality organisations, employers, public service staff, academics and lawyers. It is concerned as much with differing perceptions and understandings of the law as with the law itself. It also examines the practical application of the law in the workplace and public services.

Continue reading →

Pardon and Amnesty – when is there money in it?

16 May 2011 by Rosalind English

When does being not guilty make you innocent? This question arose coincidentally in two rulings, just over a month of each other, from the highest courts of the UK and South Africa respectively.

The Citizen and others v McBride concerned libel proceedings which had been brought against a former member of the armed wing of the ANC. McBride had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1986 after killing three women in a bomb attack. Nine years later he was granted an amnesty by the SA Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The question before the Constitutional Court was whether a person convicted of murder, but granted amnesty under the Reconciliation Act, can later be called a “criminal” and a “murderer” in comment opposing his appointment to a public position.

Continue reading →

The Weekly Round up: planned new Bill of Rights; fall in the success rate of JR claimants; Afghan judge applies for relocation to UK

4 July 2022 by Ruby Turok-Squire

Criticism of the planned British bill of rights has been gathering momentum. Free speech campaigners have argued that it will undermine freedom of expression rather than support it.  Labour’s shadow justice minister called it ‘a very dark day for victims of crime, for women, for people in care, for everyone in this country who rely on the state to protect them from harm’ . A cross-party amendment that would include the right to abortion has been proposed. While Dominic Raab stated that abortion is already ‘settled in UK law’, Labour MPs have argued that there should be a free vote for MPs on enshrining abortion in the bill as a fundamental right.

Nicola Sturgeon has announced that the Scottish government intends to hold an independence referendum on 19^th October 2023. Her government has requested that the Supreme Court give a ruling on whether they can legally call such a referendum without authorisation from Westminster. Sturgeon commented that if the court’s response is negative, the next general election could provide a ‘de facto referendum’ on independence.   

In other news

According to a recent analysis, the proportion of judicial reviews in England and Wales in which claimants have won has fallen by 50% since 2020. Last year, 31 judicial reviews (excluding immigration) found for the claimant in the High Court, the lowest number since 2001, when records began. Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, responded with a warning that the rule of law ‘could easily become a relic for the history books’

The Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office have called on the Law Commission of England and Wales to review the law regarding contempt of court. This comes amidst concerns that the current system is ‘disordered and unclear’. The review will aim at simplification, clarification, consistency and greater effectiveness within the law regarding civil and criminal contempt of court. It will address, among other things, Article 10 ECHR in relation to publishing information about court proceedings, potential procedural issues, responsibility for adjudication, investigation and prosecution, and the appropriateness of current penalties. 

The UK Information Commissioner has announced that public authorities will only be fined for data breaches in ‘the most egregious cases’. The effectiveness of fines as a deterrent was doubted by the Commissioner. Public reprimands will be used more frequently, alongside enforcement notices, as part of ‘a more proactive and targeted approach’. 

Supreme Court endorses judicial review over other remedies – in some cases

3 November 2024 by Rosalind English

McKleenon, re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) 2024 UKSC 31

Following our recent Law Pod UK episode on judicial review, this case contains some useful guidelines to the differences between the kinds of remedy available via judicial review versus statutory appeal, private civil actions, private prosecutions and other avenues for compensation.

It involved an application for judicial review of decision-making by the regulator of landfill maintenance, where the regulator argued that the claimant had an adequate alternative remedy such that judicial review should be refused.

The applicant, Noeleen McAleenon, had claimed that the regulator had not taken appropriate action to prevent harmful chemical gases and noxious smells escaping from a neighbouring landfill site. But the public bodies maintained that judicial review should be refused because Ms McAleenon had adequate alternative remedies, in that she could herself launch a private prosecution against the owner of the site: Section 70 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) provides that a person aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance may make a complaint to the magistrates’ court for an order requiring abatement of the nuisance and prohibiting its recurrence and the imposition of a fine.) Alternatively, the defendants said, she could bring a nuisance claim against them in private law.

The first instance judge dismissed the alternative remedies defence. He observed (para 92) that the case concerned the public law issues of regulation and enforcement, whereas any private prosecution in the magistrates’ court under section 70 would centre on the issue of whether a nuisance had been caused. Whilst there is of course an overlap between the two questions, the two kinds of litigation have quite different purposes:

“a member of the public with sufficient interest is entitled to hold regulators to account by pursuing any public law wrongdoing. It would be an unfortunate and unattractive position if a regulator could effectively be immune from suit in this sphere by reference to alternative proceedings in the magistrates’ court”.

Jailing jokers, killing burglars and homophobic prisons – the Human Rights Roundup

15 October 2012 by Wessen Jazrawi

Updated |
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly buffet 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. 

Many of the articles in the blogosphere this week have concerned the conviction and jailing of Matthew Woods for offensive jokes made about the abducted five year old April Jones which came in the same week as a man was jailed for wearing an offensive t-shirt about police deaths. Lawyers, comedians and others have expressed their concern about the sentence and its implications for freedom of expression in this country. The other key news of the week is the statement by our new Minister for Justice, Chris Grayling, that householders will be allowed more leeway in the force used against burglars in their home. Meanwhile, the Attorney-General has come out in support of the European Convention of Human Rights.

by Wessen Jazrawi

Continue reading →

The Round-up: 21/7 bombers in Strasbourg and other news

7 June 2015 by acwessely

Photo credit: Guardian

This week’s Round-up is brought to you by Alex Wessely.

In the news

Three high profile cases concerning the UK government have been granted hearings in the European Court of Human Rights grand chamber, putting the relationship between the government and the ECHR “in the spotlight“.

• Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom concerns four men convicted of offences relating to the 21 July London terror plot. The men were initially interviewed by police before they were allowed to consult a lawyer (on the grounds that the urgent situation meant no delay was permissible), which they claim is a breach of their Article 6 rights (right to a fair trial).
• The second case, Hutchinson v UK, concerns the politically charged issue of whole life tariffs – prisoners who have been told they will never be released from jail. Ian Hutchinson, sentenced in 1983 for triple murder and rape, argues that this constitutes a violation of his Article 3 rights (protection against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment). This argument was rejected in February, but is now being re-heard.
• The third case is brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was killed by police in 2005 when they mistakenly thought he was planning a suicide attack at Stockwell station. This is covered by Inquest, the Guardian and Evening Standard.

Continue reading →