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: justice and security bill/page/27/www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1975/1.html
More documents have emerged calling into question what the UK security services knew about the alleged mistreatment of ‘War on Terror’ detainees. Until this case is resolved, it is unlikely that work will begin on the upcoming torture inquiry.
Various documents have been disclosed in the ongoing case of Al Rawi and Others v The Security Services, in which six men who were detained at various locations, including Guantanamo Bay and Bagram in Afghanistan, allege various forms of mistreatment. They say that the UK government knew or should reasonably have known that the mistreatment was happening. Although the case has not yet reached trial, it has been the subject of a number of high-profile applications for secret documents (see our posts here and here).
When two Nobel Laureates, an eminent constitutional lawyer and the Secretary General of COSATU (South Africa’s largest trade union federation) are unified in their stinging criticism of a proposed Bill, it may be the time has come for a redraft. Following 293 condemnatory submissions to the National Council of Provinces’ Ad Hoc Committee, the ANC has begun to make concessions.
In an unexpected volte-face at Committee deliberations last month, the ANC tabled a raft of amendments to the current draft of the controversial Protection of State Information Bill. Key proposals include the insertion of a narrow ‘public interest defence’ in relation to a Clause 43 charge of unlawful disclosure of classified information and scrapping of the intolerably low mental element ofconstructive knowledge – “ought reasonably to know” – from many of the offence-creating provisions. By virtue of the former amendment, an accused would also be able to rely on a defence of ‘wrongful classification’.
R (on the application of) Lord Carlile of Berriew and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department 20 March 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 199 – read judgment
Last year the Divisional Court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision to prevent a dissident Iranian politician coming to the United Kingdom to address the Palace of Westminster: see that decision here and my post discussing the “Politics of Fear” here.
In this appeal, the parliamentarians contended that the Divisional Court had failed to consider the proportionality of the exclusion decision with sufficient scrutiny, and, by giving precedence to the possibility of unlawful actions by the Iranian regime, had given inadequate weight to the rule of law. It was perverse, they said, to justify the exclusion decisions by reference to risks to local staff and British government property in Tehran. Furthermore they argued that there had been unfairness in failing to consult the Parliamentary appellants. Continue reading →
Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the second consultation of the Bill of Rights Commission. This consultation invites views on a number of key issues that form part of the Commission’s mandate. In the Daily Mail’s correspondent’s view, the Commission has committed an appalling transgression by asking potential respondents whether the UK Bill of Rights should include additional rights, referring amongst other things to socio-economic rights. This is echoed by the Sun which argues that the Commission has ‘suggested’ (which it clearly has not) that ‘all Brits be given handouts as a birth right’, and the Daily Express which suggests “Spongers can Sue to Claim Benefits”.
Socio-economic rights are rights that relate to human survival and development. Like the majority of European and other countries, the UK has volunteered to be bound by a range of such rights as a result of ratifying a number of international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1992) and the European Social Charter (ratified by the UK in 1962). While these treaties haven’t been made part of our domestic law in the way the European Convention on Human Rights has been as a result of the Human Rights Act, they impose a range of human rights obligations on the UK. The government reports back periodically to the UN expert committees that monitor the implementation of these treaties.
The Home Office has tightened its ‘good character’ guidance for citizenship applicants who entered the UK illegally or via dangerous routes. From 10 February 2025, those applying who arrived without ‘a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey’ will ‘normally‘ have their citizenship applications refused. This is ‘regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry’. A ‘dangerous journey’ includes, but is not limited to, ‘travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle’. The Home Office has confirmed these new rules would ‘likely not apply’ to children, ‘given illegal entry is normally considered outside of a child’s control’. This policy shift reflects the government’s attempt to deter illegal migration via ‘small boats’, and comes alongside the introduction of the recent Border Security, Asylum an Immigration Bill. The change departs from the policy that illegal entrants could have their citizenship applications considered after ten years. These updates have been criticised as a potential contravention of UK obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of asylum seekers and refugees for illegal entry.
MI5 has admitted providing false information to the courts regarding neo-Nazi agent, ‘X’, accused of attacking his former partner ‘Beth’. Her complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was heard in her absence in closed sessions, due to MI5’s claim that it could neither confirm nor deny X’s identity for national security reasons. However, it was revealed that a senior MI5 officer had disclosed X’s identity to a BBC journalist, while attempting to dissuade the organisation from naming him in a report. This contradicted the Security Service’s stance in evidence given to multiple courts that national security reasons meant its ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy was strict. The MI5 Director-General has given an ‘unreserved apology to the court’, emphasising the agency’s commitment to accuracy and transparency. This revelation has raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence provided by the security service, which is given deferential treatment in the courts. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an independent review into the incident.
In International News
Ukraine will not be attending upcoming US-Russia peace talks in Saudi Arabia, with European leaders also excluded. The continent’s most powerful leaders will gather for a crisis summit in Paris to discuss how to safeguard the future of European defence in the event of US disengagement, and how best to support Ukraine’s position. This also comes after JD Vance, US Vice-President, has recently accused European democracies of stifling freedom of speech and religion, criticising the UK’s conviction of Christian Adam Smith-Connor for breaching a safe zone around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. This reflects the fractures in relations between the US and Europe, and there is increasing uncertainty over what role the US will play in future European security. Former prime minister of the UK, John Major, has warned that global democracy is under threat if the US withdraws from its leading role in the world, and that American ‘isolationism’ risks emboldening Russia and China to step into the vacuum. Crucially, any peace deal concluded without Ukraine’s involvement risks undermining the country’s sovereignty and right to self-determination, which are foundational principles of international law. Without Ukrainian or European presence at the talks, it is also unclear what stance will be taken regarding justice and accountability for human rights violations that are alleged against Russia during the war. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming talks, the balance of the international order appears to be at stake.
In the Courts
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Joseph El-Khouri against his extradition to the US to answer crimes of alleged insider trading. The decision clarified the definition of an ‘extradition offence’ and the operation of the ‘double criminality’ rule under s.137 of the Extradition Act 2003. This rule provides that the relevant conduct must constitute a crime in both the UK and the requesting country. Section 137 provides separate tests giving effect to the principle, depending on whether the acts took place in the requesting state’s territory (s.137(3)) or outside of it (s.137(4)). The Supreme Court rejected the USA’s arguments that, because the effects of Mr El-Khouri’s conduct were likely to be felt on US markets, they occurred ‘in’ the US . Departing from Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC 1, the court held that the conduct occurred in the territory where the physical acts took place, not where their effects were felt. The court held that the statutory test for an extraditable offence was unworkable unless there was a clear distinction between offences taking place ‘in’ and ‘outside’ the requesting territory. The definition of conduct occurring ‘in’ the requesting territory had been too wide in Cando Armas, and this decision has labelled Lord Hope’s obiter comments in that case in particular as ‘mistaken’. In the present case, because almost all the relevant acts occurred in the UK and not in the US, Mr El-Khouri’s conduct had been wrongly classified as subject to the s.137(3) test. Although insider dealing was an offence under both US and UK criminal law, he could not be extradited because there was no provision of UK law which would have permitted a prosecution in equivalent circumstances of an individual in the US.
Wang Yam v Attorney General [2014] EW Misc 10 (CCrimC) 27 February 2014 – read judgment
It is for the UK government to decide whether to vary an order preventing publication of material heard in private in a murder trial, if the offender goes on to petition the European Court of Human Rights. It is not for the Strasbourg Court to determine whether the right to a fair trial should outweigh the risks to UK national security reasons.
The question regarding a state’s obligation not to impede the right of individual petition to Strasbourg arose where the applicant offender applied for an order permitting him to refer to material, which had been restricted on national security grounds during his murder trial, in an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Continue reading →
By a narrow 4-3 majority, the Supreme Court has ruled in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22 that the extent of GCHQ’s powers to hack into internet services should be subject to judicial review, despite a powerfully-drawn ‘ouster clause’ which sought to prevent the decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal from being questioned by a court.
Lord Carnwarth, who delivered the majority judgement, noted the ‘obvious parallel’ with the seminal case of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147. Turning to the ouster clause in the present case, he considered that ‘a more explicit formulation’ might have ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a challenge to a decision by the IPT, but that, such as it was, the clause was not sufficiently clear to do so.
Lord Carnwarth also stated that: ‘It is ultimately for the courts, not the legislature, to determine the limits set by the rule of law to the power to exclude review.’ Although it was not necessary to decide on the general lawfulness of ouster clauses, he saw ‘a strong case for holding that, consistently with the rule of law, binding effect cannot be given to a clause which purports wholly to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to review a decision of an inferior court or tribunal, whether for excess or abuse of jurisdiction, or error of law.’ Lord Lloyd-Jones, another of the Judges in the majority, remained neutral on this statement.
Lord Carnwarth’s ‘rule of law’ argument was echoed by Caroline Wilson Palow, Privacy International’s general counsel, and Simon Creighton, of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, which acted for Privacy International. Megan Goulding, a lawyer at Liberty, which supported Privacy International, stated that the ouster clause was ‘not just undemocratic, but a sinister attempt to reduce the safeguards that protect our rights.’
In contrast, Professor Richard Ekins, a Tutorial Fellow in constitutional law at Oxford University, has stated that the ruling ‘violated the sovereignty of parliament.’ Ekins credited the three dissenting judges for their willingness to ‘[give] effect to parliament’s authoritative choice’ to limit judicial review by creating a specialist tribunal to consider complaints against the intelligence services.
In the News
The foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has appointed Rita French, formerly his principal private secretary, to a post as the UK’s first human rights ambassador. Hunt put the appointment implicitly in the context of Brexit, stating that ‘as the UK enters a new chapter in its history’ he will ensure human rights are not forgotten in the rush to secure desperately needed free trade deals. Shami Chakrabarti, shadow attorney general, made her skepticism clear: ‘Rita French’s task will be an uphill struggle in a party that has consistently campaigned to scrap human rights instruments and cosied up to every despot in the pursuit of trade.’
The appointment came shortly after Human Rights Watch published a 115-page report condemning the UK government for breaching its duty to protect citizens from hunger by pursuing ‘cruel and harmful policies’ with little regard for children living in poverty. While a government spokesperson dismissed the findings, school staff and food bank volunteers confirmed that the report tallied with their experiences.
On Wednesday, the defence secretary, Penny Mordaunt, announced ‘a statutory presumption against prosecution’ for alleged offences committed in the course of duty more than ten years ago, covering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following the announcement, Mordaunt went further, stating that she would like to see the proposed exemption extended to period of the Troubles in Ireland. Mordaunt’s comments were quickly met with criticism from human rights groups, a string of Conservative MPs, Ireland’s deputy prime minister Simon Coveney, and Sinn Féinn’s deputy leader Michelle O’Neill. An editorial in The Independent argued that the move would set human rights back by decades, allowing ‘the UK [to] opt in and out of the ECHR, depending on whether it is at war,’ while Amnesty UK’s campaign manager for Northern Ireland argues that the move undermines victims’ ‘fundamental rights to justice.’
In Other News
Ukraine responded angrily after ministers of the Council of Europe voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing Russia to ‘participate on an equal basis’ in the council’s committee of ministers and parliamentary assembly, five years after the country was stripped of its voting rights over the seizure of Crimea. Ukraine’s envoy to the Council stated that the decision was not ‘diplomacy’ but rather ‘a surrender’.
US President Donald Trump has outlined his ‘strongly pro-life’ views on abortion days after Alabama passed a law banning abortion in almost all cases. In a series of tweets, Mr Trump stated that he was against abortion except in cases of rape, incest or ‘protecting the life of the mother’. While Republicans eager to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling welcome the ban and Trump’s approbation of it, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren characterised the prohibition as ‘dangerous and exceptionally cruel’, and Human Rights Watch described the legislation as ‘a shocking abdication of responsibility by Alabama law makers’.
In the Washington Times, Neil Bush called for the release of Marsha Lazareva, a prominent Russian businesswoman imprisoned in Kuwait since May 2018 after being found guilty of embezzling 17 million dinars from the Kuwaiti Port Authority. Her latest hearing has been delayed until 9 June, after the judge recused himself unexpectedly. The manner in which Lazareva was tried and sentenced has been criticised by a number of human rights groups and diplomatic figures, including the former US Representative Ed Royce. Louis Freeh, a former judge and Director of the FBI, expressed concern for Lazareva’s health and wellbeing, and called the refusal of the Kuwaiti authorities to release her on a $33 million cash bail something he had ‘never heard of’ in his years as a judge and advocate. Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, senior counsel for Lazareva, has said that the ‘expert auditor’ on whose testimony much of the evidence relied has since been charged with the forgery of the three documents on which he depended during the case.
In the Courts
R (DA & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (DS & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21: The Supreme Court considered whether the revised benefit cap, introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, s8, to lone parents with children under two years old (i) unlawfully discriminates against parents and/or their children, contrary to ECHR Articles 14 and 8 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3, and/or (ii) is irrelevant. The court concluded, by a majority of 5-2, that the rule engaged ECHR Article 8, but could be justified because it was not manifestly without reasonable foundation. Lady Hale and Lord Kerr, dissenting, considered that a fair balance had not been struck.
Kuteh v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 818: The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for wrongful dismissal by a nursing sister employed by the Trust. The sister was a ‘committed Christian’ fired for breaching an undertaking not to have inappropriate religious discussion with patients. One of the patients who lodged a complain was told by Mrs Kuteh that if he prayed to God he would have a better chance of surviving a major surgery for bowel cancer which he was about to undergo. ‘Even having regard to the importance of the right to freedom of religion,’ the court concluded that the Employment Tribunal’s decision was ‘plainly correct’, and the Trust’s decision to dismiss Ms Kuteh for misconduct ‘fell within the reasonable band of responses’ in this case.
Social Media button on a keyboard with speech bubbles.
Barbulescu v Romania, 12 January 2016 – read judgment
In December 2015, the European Court of Human Rights, by 6 votes to 1, dismissed a Romanian national’s appeal against his employer’s decision to terminate his contract for using a professional Yahoo Messenger account to send personal messages to his fiancé and brother.
Mr Barbulescu contended that his employer had breached his Article 8 right to respect for his private life and correspondence, and that the domestic courts had failed to protect his right. The Court found that there had been no such violation because the monitoring of the account by his employer had been limited and proportionate.
Background facts
Mr Barbulescu’s employers asked him to create a Yahoo Messenger account for responding to client enquiries and informed him that these communications had been monitored. The records showed that he had used the Internet for personal purposes, contrary to internal regulations. The employer’s regulations explicitly prohibited all personal use of company facilities, including computers and Internet access. The employer had accessed the Yahoo Messenger account in the belief that it had contained professional messages. Continue reading →
The BBC reported yesterday that there’s “doubt” about the deportation of Abu Qatada, following his arrest on Tuesday and now his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights – which the Home Secretary Theresa May says is out of time. So: is she right? Is the appeal out of time? How has the Home Office got into this apparent mess? And what if any difference does this appeal make?
The European Court’s judgment in Abu Qatada’s case was dated January 17th 2012. Of that there’s no doubt; and it’s irrelevant whether the government or anyone else was given notice of the judgment before, or received it later.
We are delighted to announce that the UK Human Rights Blog by 1 Crown Office Row chambers has been shortlisted for the JUSTICE Human Rights Award 2010.
Also shortlisted are Reprieve and Bail for Immigration Detainees. The Human Rights Awards have been held each December since 2001 to commemorate Human Rights Day. As described by JUSTICE, the awards aim to recognise and encourage individuals and organisations whose work is dedicated to protecting and promoting the rights of others. Last year’s winner was the Gurkhas Justice Campaign. A full list of previous winners can be found here.
As reported by Guardian.co.uk, Lady Hale, one of the 12 UK Supreme Court justices, has said in a speech to The Law Society that the government’s proposed reforms to legal aid will have a “disproportionate effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society“.
Although the current crop of senior judges has not been afraid to express opinions on controversial issues, it is unusual for a sitting senior judge to criticise current and controversial government plans. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill has only just been published, and is being debated tomorrow in Parliament. The Guardian.co.uk article presents the comments as a “direct challenge” to the policy. However, upon a closer reading, Lady Hale cleverly steered clear of criticising the plans in her own words, but rather quoted the government’s own analysis of the bill.
The speech was entitled Equal Access to Justice in the Big Society, and was in memory of solicitor Henry Hodge, and can be downloaded in full here (PDF). It is also republished below the page break.
Graham Phillips, the Claimant, is a British national and video blogger who posts content from the Donbass dressed in Russian military fatigues. He says he is a journalist who provides a “counterbalance” to widespread western misunderstanding of the true situation in Ukraine but the Administrative Court disagrees. On 12 January 2024, it handed down judgment in R (Phillips) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin), in which it upheld the Government’s view that the Claimant is a propagandist for Russia who is lawfully subject to a sanctions regime which allows the state to freeze his assets.
It has been widely reported that the German magazine Die Aktuelle recently ran a front cover with a picture of a smiling Schumacher and the headline promising ‘Michael Schumacher, the first interview’.
The strapline added: “it sounded deceptively real”.
Anyone walking past a news stand would have assumed that this was a genuine interview with the former Formula 1 driver, who has suffered catastrophic brain injury since a skiing accident in 2013. Only buyers of the edition would have learned from the full article inside, that the ‘quotes’ had been produced by AI.
The news agency Reuter reports that “Schumacher’s family maintains strict privacy about the former driver’s condition, with access limited to those closest to him.”
And in a 2021 Netflix documentary his wife Corinna said
The case of OPQ v BJM addresses one of the most difficult practical issues in privacy law and adopts a novel solution. Eady J granted a “contra mundum” injunction – that is, one binding on the whole world – in an ordinary “blackmail” privacy case. This means that, although a “final judgment” will be entered, the injunction continues to bind the press and other third parties.
The case has attracted considerable media criticism, for example in the “Daily Mail” which, in a front page story tells its readers: “TV Star’s Shame Hushed up for Ever” (incidentally, the reference to a “TV Star” seems, at first sight, to breach terms of the instruction across the top and bottom of the judgment which is, presumably, part of the court’s order: “Publication of any report as to the subject-matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Claimant is limited to what is contained in this judgment“).
Sections 50 to 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill and Explanatory Notes; the full Government response is here, 4 February 2014
At first sight, proposals full of sound and fury, and signifying not a great deal for planning and environmental challenges. There are some slippery costs changes which we need to look at, but some of the potentially more concerning proposals (see Adam’s post and the linked posts) do not fully apply to this area, as I shall explain. There are also some perfectly sensible proposals about harmonising planning challenges which lawyers have been advocating for years.
This consultation got going in September 2013 when Grayling put forward his round 2 of reform to judicial review in a wide-ranging, and frankly worrying, consultation paper. This week’s announcement and draft bill seeks to take some of these measures forward, but leaves others at home.
Mercifully, the bill does not include the ill-thought out consultation proposal to reform rules about standing in judicial review – who can complain of unlawful action by government? The proposal had been very worrying to those concerned with environmental challenges. It would have led to the rather unsatisfactory position that a NIMBY complaining about a nearby development would have been able to challenge an unlawful decision, but an entirely altruistic concern about unlawfulness affecting, say, birds, bats or habitats would have been dismissed not on the merits, but because the NGO or individual conservationist had insufficient “interest” in the outcome. See my previous post on this.
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.
Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the 
The BBC reported yesterday that there’s “doubt”
As 
OPQ v BJM [2011] EWHC 1059 (QB – 
Recent comments