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/29/www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1975/1.html
At the heart of the case of R (Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin), a tragedy: the murder of a 14-year-old boy, Jaden Bailey, and the profound grief of his mother. Jaden had been drawn into criminal activity, first in Nottinghamshire, then London. In October 2018 he had been found at a “cuckoo house” in Bournemouth, in possession of cocaine, a mobile phone and £325 in cash. He was brought back to London by the Metropolitan Police, following which an action plan was prepared by the Children’s Social Care Department of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. In November 2018 Jaden was permanently excluded from school after a Snapchat video showed him in possession of an imitation firearm, for which he was arrested and charged, pleading guilty. On 8 January 2019 Jaden was riding a moped in Leyton when he was hit by a car; the occupants of the car got out and stabbed Jaden. He died at the scene.
Michael Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 12 – read judgment
This was a property dispute which broke out on the marriage breakdown of two joint tenants of council property. The wife who sought termination of the periodic secure joint tenancy by unilateral notice. The husband, as the other joint tenant still living in the property, maintained that he was entitled remain there as a sole tenant.
In fact, the point had already been settled in the case of Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v. Monk [1992] AC 478 which established that at common law, a periodic joint residential tenancy is terminated automatically, if one joint tenant, without the concurrence of the other joint tenant, or tenants serves a notice to quit on the landlord. Continue reading →
Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London 22 March 2013 [2013] EWHC 651 (Admin) – read judgment.
In a judgment which is sure to provoke heated debate, the High Court has today ruled that the banning of an advert which read “NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!” from appearing on London buses was handled very badly by Transport for London (“TfL”) but was not unlawful or in breach of the human rights of the group behind the advert.
The advert was placed in April 2012 by Anglican Mainstream, a Christian charity, on behalf of Core Issues Trust, another Christian charity which describes its aim as “supporting men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression” (see website here). It was intended as a response to another advert placed on London buses earlier in 2012 by Stonewall, the gay rights campaign group, which was in support of the proposal to introduce same-sex marriage and read “SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!”
The EU’s diplomatic service has warned of “indications” that Israel’s activities in Gaza and the occupied West Bank are “in breach of [its] human rights obligations” to the Union under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The report, due to be presented on 23 June to the foreign ministers of Member States by Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the EU’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is based on “facts verified by and assessments made by independent international institutions”. It follows an audit pushed forward last month by 17 Member States, led by the Netherlands. The Agreement, which came into force in 2000, provides for free trade arrangements between the two parties, currently worth over 42 billion euros a year in goods, and a further c. 35 billion euros in services: the EU is Israel’s top commercial partner. Article 2 of the Agreement states that “Relations between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of the Agreement.” Suspending the Agreement would require the unanimous consent of the EU’s 27 Member States.
The UK Office for Students (OfS) has issued new “free speech” guidelines to universities in England, effectively prohibiting blanket bans on student protests, and putting substantial brakes on the penalisation of students and staff exercising lawful speech. The guidelines anticipate and purport to give clarity to the provisions of delayed Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, now revised and due to come into force this August. The OfS’s new “three step” approach requires universities to take “reasonably practical steps” to “secure free speech” which is “within the law” (= Steps 1 and 2): where this is not possible, it must run a proportionality assessment on any interferences to free speech, following Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (= Step 3). The National Union for Students has dismissed the guidance as “just more nonsense playing into the so-called ‘culture wars’”, with the new regulations failing to the prioritise “protecting and supporting marginalised students.”
In the courts
The Court of Appeal has held that an asylum applicant’s fears of being returned to a jurisdiction which was not a “safe third country” or “safe third State” only affected his rights to appeal if the application were deemed inadmissible: it was “immaterial” to the assessment of an application once admitted. In AAZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 705, a Yemeni national appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Home Secretary’s refusal of his asylum application. The appellant, who had lived in China since the age of one but did not have Chinese nationality, claimed that there had been an error of law in the Tribunal’s allowing his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds with regard to Yemen, but not on humanitarian protection and human rights grounds with regard to China. The appellant argued that, since China was not listed as a “safe third country” under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, the UK was in breach of its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and in contravention of his rights under ECHR Article 3 (prohibition of torture), following the provisions concerning return to a “safe third State” under Part 4A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Bean LJ held that these statutory provisions did not apply to the instant case: “whether a state is a “safe third State” within this new provision only affects rights of appeal”, something not disputed here. The applicant’s risk of ill-treatment if returned to China therefore had to be decided on the basis of evidence relating to his own circumstances. Bean LJ found that the First Tier Tribunal “gave entirely adequate reasons for finding that the test was not satisfied” by the evidence of AAZA, who had spent virtually his whole life in China before coming to the UK as a student: “there was no error of law.” However, the Court held that the appellant might still apply to have his application reconsidered by the Home Secretary, if he could submit fresh evidence that he was at a risk of refoulement from China to Yemen.
The Sentencing Council caused controversy with its new guidance on imposing community and custodial sentences. Previously, magistrates and judges were told they ‘should request’ a pre-sentence report (PSR) ‘whenever the court reaches the provisional view that a community order may be appropriate’ unless the court considers it unnecessary. The new guidance strengths the obligation so that courts ‘must request and consider’ a PSR ‘before forming an opinion of the sentence’ unless it considers this unnecessary. It also adds a list of offenders for whom a PSR ‘will normally be considered necessary,’ including female and transgender offenders and those from an ethnic, cultural, and/or faith minority. The guidelines’ stated aim is to give sentencers ‘the most comprehensive information available about the circumstances of the offender and the offence.’ They take effect from 1 April 2025.
The government’s Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme will be broadened to postmasters who have had their convictions overturned by the courts. From 3 June 2025, these postmasters—who are currently covered by the Post Office’s Overturned Convictions scheme—can apply for redress from the government. £1.8 billion has been pledged to compensate the victims of the Post Office scandal.
Convicted female minors will no longer be placed in Young Offender Institutions, the government has announced. This adopts a recommendation in an independent review of girls in custody, undertaken by Susannah Hancock and published earlier this month. Girls will instead be placed in settings such as Secure Children’s Homes and Secure Schools.
In International News:
A death row inmate in Louisana is challenging his method of execution in court. Jessie Hoffman Jr., who was to become the first man in the state executed by nitrogen gas, is arguing for a more ‘humane’ means of death before a Baton Rouge federal court. His legal team has argued that death by nitrogen hypoxia is a cruel and unusual punishment under the US Constitution. Additionally, they say that it infringes on his freedom to practice his religion, namely Buddhist breathing and meditation exercises.
In the Courts:
16 Just Stop Oil activists appealed against their sentences (R v Hallam and Others [2025] EWCA Crim 199). They had been variously convicted of: occupying roads leading to the Navigator oil terminal in Thurrock; throwing soup on Vincent van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’; climbing or attempting to climb gantries on the M25; and conspiracy in relation to the M25 protest. The Sunflowers offenders were convicted of criminal damage; the others were convicted of, or pled guilty to, public nuisance offences.
The court stated that the leading authority on sentencing-related issues in cases of nonviolent protests—such as conscientious motivation and deterrence—was R v Trowland [2023] EWCA Crim 919. They emphasised that conscientious motivation could be factored into the assessment of culpability, but does not prevent a finding of high culpability, and that a judge is not obliged to specify the amount by which they have reduced a custodial term to reflect conscientious motivation. They also discussed the relevance of Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (peaceful assembly). It was held that the common law and the ECHR are in step, and the fact that the appellants’ actions constituted criminal conduct significantly weakened the protections afforded by the ECHR.
After considering the specific facts of each appellant’s case, the court quashed the sentences of 6 appellants and substituted lower ones. Roger Hallam, Just Stop Oil’s co-founder, had his 5-year sentence substituted for a 4-year one. Both ‘Sunflowers’ offenders had their appeals dismissed.
Earlier this month, the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing published a report which concluded that live facial recognition technology is currently “not fit” for use by Police Scotland.
Police Scotland had initially planned to introduce live facial recognition technology (“the technology”) in 2026. However, this has now been called into question as a result of the report’s findings – that the technology is extremely inaccurate, discriminatory, and ineffective. Not only that, but it also noted that the technology would be a “radical departure” from Police Scotland’s fundamental principle of policing by consent.
In light of the above, the Sub-Committee concluded that there would be “no justifiable basis” for Police Scotland to invest in the technology.
Police Scotland agreed – at least for the time being – and confirmed in the report that they will not introduce the technology at this time. Instead, they will engage in a wider debate with various stakeholders to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place before introducing it. The Sub-Committee believed that such a debate was essential in order to assess the necessity and accuracy of the technology, as well as the potential impact it could have on people and communities.
The report is undoubtedly significant as it reaffirms that the current state of the technology is ineffective. It therefore strengthens the argument that we should have a much wider debate about the technology before we ever introduce it onto our streets. This is important not only on a practical level but also from a human rights perspective, especially set against the backdrop of the technology’s controversial use elsewhere.
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 – Read judgment
Updated – the first two paragraphs of this post have been amended as they were factually inaccurate. Many apologies for this.
Last month, the Court of Appeal decided that the negligence claims of the families of five British soldiers killed or injured on duty in Iraq could go ahead. It would be for the High Court to decide on the facts whether decisions made about troops’ equipment and training fell within the long-standing doctrine of ‘combat immunity’. The appellants were however unsuccessful in arguing that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) applied.
The case concerned claims brought by the families of five men killed or injured in south-east Iraq. Corporal Allbutt was killed and Troopers Twiddy and Julien injured in Challenger II tanks in fratricide, or ‘friendly fire’, incidents on 25 March 2003. Privates Hewett and Ellis and Lance Corporal Redpath were killed in their Snatch Land Rovers by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on 16 July 2005, 28 February 2006 and 9 August 2007 respectively (the ‘Snatch Landrover claims’).
The Conservative Party’s proposals to introduce a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that would weaken the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – and the legal chaos that would ensue if it was ever enacted – have been hotly debated. The proposal makes clear that if the Council of Europe was to reject the UK’s unilateral move, as it would be bound to, the UK ‘would be left with no alternative but to withdraw’ from the Convention.
The policy is highly isolationist. The brief section on the ‘international implications’ of the plan does not pause to consider the impact of withdrawal on the other 46 states on the Council of Europe or the Convention system as a whole. Nor does it address the implications for the UK’s ability to promote human rights and the rule of law in countries with significantly worse human rights records.
This is despite the evident risk of contagion to newer Council of Europe states. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, has argued that if the UK persists in its disrespect for the Strasbourg Court, exemplified by its protracted non-compliance with the judgment on prisoners’ voting rights, this would
… send a strong signal to other member states, some of which would probably follow the UK’s lead and also claim that compliance with certain judgments is not possible, necessary or expedient. That would probably be the beginning of the end of the ECHR system.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is to deliver its latest, hotly anticipated, decision on prisoner votes next Tuesday 22 May. The case is Scoppola v. Italy (n° 3). The Court’s press release is here.
The UK intervened in the case, with the Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC himself travelling to Strasbourg to explain the UK’s views (including, classily, some submissions in French). As a result, the UK was granted an extension of time to comply with the decision in the original prisoner votes case, Hirst No. 2 and the more recent Greens and MT. The UK will therefore have 6 months from 22 May 2012 to introduce a Bill to Parliament (see this correspondence between the UK and the Court) to make the UK voting system compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Which is to say, it will have until 22 November 2012. Or is it 23 November?
“Today is an important day in the life of our court. For it is the first occasion upon which either we or our predecessors in the House of Lords have had occasion to address the interface between the power of the Secretary of State to deport a foreign criminal and the latter’s ability to resist deportation by reference to his right for respect for his family life under article 8 of the ECHR.”
Mr De A is a Portuguese national. He lived in the UK from 1998 to 2001 and from 2008 to date. He worked during the first period and for a year after his return. Mr De A had contracted HIV and AIDS. His health deteriorated so that he was not able to work. His prognosis in October 2010 was that he had about a year to live. At the time of the first hearing in this case in November 2011, his prognosis was about 6 months.
In a pithy parting shot to the Home Secretary, Lady Hale has given the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on the question of whether a person subject to a home curfew under immigration powers had been falsely imprisoned at common law and whether that concept should now be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty in article 5 of the ECHR. The Court decided the case against the defendant, as did every court below (the Blog covered the Court of Appeal’s decision here). The defendant had been required to pay the claimant £4,000.
False imprisonment at common law
The opening sentence sets the scene:
The right to physical liberty was highly prized and protected by the common law long before the United Kingdom became party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The claimant had been subject to an overnight curfew, enforced by way of monitoring equipment and an electronic tag, under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.
Last week, the European Court of Human Rights decided in the case of Haas v. Switzerland (judgment in French only) that the right to private life is not violated when a state refuses to help a person who wishes to commit suicide by enabling that person to obtain a lethal substance.
The applicant in the case, Ernst Haas, had for two decades been suffering from a serious bipolar affective disorder (more commonly known as manic depression). During that time he attempted to commit suicide twice. Later, he tried to obtain a medical prescription for a small amount of sodium pentobarbital, which would have allowed him to end his life without ain or suffering. Not a single psychiatrist, of the around 170 (sic!) he approached, was willing to give him such a prescription. This would have been necessary, under Swiss law, which allowed for assisted suicide if it was not done for selfish motives (in the opposite case, the person assisting could be prosecuted under the criminal code).
Yesterday morning, in a speech to civic organisations in Glasgow, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon warned that “no responsible government” would consider repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to the numerous negative consequences, both in the domestic and international sphere, that would result from such a move – (see a transcript of the speech here).
by Fraser Simpson
Proposals for Repeal of the Human Rights Act
It has been a longstanding Tory policy to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Such a policy is motivated by discontent over a handful of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) that have allegedly “undermine[d] the role of UK courts in deciding on human rights issues”. In October 2014, the then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling announced Tory proposals to treat Strasbourg judgments as “advisory” – irrespective of the potential incoherence between treating judgments in such a way and the UK’s obligations under Article 46, ECHR (see John Wadham’s post here). However, the 2015 Tory manifesto included less specific promises to “scrap the Human Rights Act” in order to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights”. Little substantive information has been provided on the development of these plans, apart from an intention, included in the Queen’s speech, to conduct consultations and publish proposals this autumn. Continue reading →
MAK and RK v United Kingdom (Application Nos 45901/05 and 40146/06) European Court of Human Rights March 23, 2010 – Read judgment
The taking of blood samples and photographs of a child by the medical authorities in the absence of the parents violated the child’s and parents’ rights to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention, and the inability of the parents to take an action for damages at common law against the hospital breached their right to a remedy under Article 13.
The applicant M.A.K was the father of R.K., who was born in 1989. In 1997 and again in 1998 M.A.K. took her to their family doctor because he, his wife and their daughter’s swimming teacher were concerned about what appeared to be bruising on her legs. This was followed by a visit to a paediatrician who had blood samples and pictures of the girl taken in the absence of either of the parents and despite the father’s indication that any tests should be done in the mother’s presence or with her explicit consent. The paediatrician concluded, after examining the girl’s genitalia and legs, that she had been sexually abused and informed the social workers.
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.
Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London 22 March 2013 [2013] EWHC 651 (Admin) – 
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 – 
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is to deliver its latest, hotly anticipated, decision on prisoner votes next Tuesday 22 May. The case is Scoppola v. Italy (n° 3). The Court’s press release is 
Amid a level of scrutiny unprecedented in the Supreme Court’s seven-year history, that is a headline unlikely to make it into tomorrow’s tabloids.
De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) – 
Recent comments