High Court allows UK government to continue exporting arms to Saudi Arabia

11 July 2017 by Rosalind English

Campaign against Arms Trade, R(on the application of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade [2017] EWHC 1754 (Admin) – read judgment

Angus McCullough QC acted as Special Advocate supporting the Claimant in this case. He is not associated with the writing of this post.

A challenge to the legality of UK’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia has failed. The claim sprang from the conflict in Yemen and the border areas of Saudi Arabia. It focussed on airstrikes conducted by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia in support of the legitimate government of Yemen against the Shia-led Houthi rebellion.  UK arms export policy states that the government must deny licenses for sale of arms to regimes if there is a ‘clear risk’ that the arms ‘might’ be used in ‘a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law. This in turn is based on the EU Common Position 2008/944/CFSP on arms export control, which explicitly rules out the authorising of arms licences by Member States in these “clear risk” circumstances.

The claimant argued that the body of evidence available in the public domain not only suggested but dictated the conclusion that such a clear risk exists. It was therefore no longer lawful to license the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

The High Court dismissed their claim. The CAAT intends to appeal this decision.
Continue reading →

Will control orders survive the anti-terrorism review?

9 November 2010 by Adam Wagner

The debate over whether control orders will survive the anti-terrorism review has been rumbling on for the past weeks, with a surprising amount of internal discussions being aired in public.

The human rights organisation Liberty, which opposes the orders, has posted a useful summary of the recent back and forth, which it calls (allegedly quoting the Prime Minister) a “car crash”. Reading the summary, it seems clear that there are a number of strongly held but opposing views within the coalition, apparently split down party lines. There also appears to be no clear picture from within the security services either.

Continue reading →

Round Up 20.01.20: The UK in the ECHR, Cypriot justice under the spotlight, deteriorating human rights in Russia and sentencing remarks on TV…

20 January 2020 by Thomas Hayes

Protestors demonstrate outside the Famagusta district court in Paralimni, Cyprus, at the trial of a 19-year old girl convicted of public mischief after withdrawing a rape allegation in contested circumstances. Credit: The Guardian.

A quick look at the “recent decisions” page of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute’s (BAILII) website did not, at first glance, give this author much cause for optimism in the preparation of this blog. However, a more careful reflection on the week’s events provided a plethora of material to consider, notwithstanding the absence of any recent decisions from the Supreme Court or civil Court of Appeal.

When the domestic courts go on leave, it falls to their European counterparts to pick up the slack and churn out judgments to help keep us occupied. It was with surprise however, that a hopeful scroll through the week’s European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions revealed not only the familiar names paying a visit to Strasbourg (ahem, Russia), but also that our own United Kingdom had put in an appearance at Europe’s legal naughty corner. Some further creative searching on BAILII revealed that the UK paid nine visits to the ECtHR last year, compared to Russia’s one-hundred and seventy-three.

In Yam v United Kingdom [2020] ECHR 41, a former MI6 informant and Chinese dissident failed in his attempt to have the ECtHR rule that his 2009 murder trial had been prejudiced by virtue of parts of it being held in camera, rather than in public. The applicant had relied upon the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically 6(1) and 6(3)(d):

“1.  In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing … [T]he press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(d)  to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;”

The court held however that these provisions did not prohibit domestic courts from derogating from public hearings where special circumstances justified it. The measures adopted during his trial had met the requirement of necessity. Furthermore, the ECtHR considered itself poorly equipped to challenge national authorities’ judgement when assessing national security concerns. The court held that the trial judge had carefully balanced the need for openness against the national security interests at stake, and in so doing, had limited the private aspects of the trial to the minimum possible. Through such an analysis, he had satisfied himself that a fair trial was still possible. Consequently, there was no thus disadvantage to the applicant, who had suffered no breach of his Article 6 rights.

In other international developments, lawyers acting for a British 19-year-old in Cyprus filed an appeal against her suspended sentence for public mischief and fabricating an “imaginary crime”. The woman involved had initially made accusations of gang-rape against 12 Israeli youths before retracting her accusation in circumstances now disputed. Her defence have suggested that not only was she suffering from PTSD at the time her claims were withdrawn, but also that she was in fear for her life. The signed confession was in Greek rather than English and made after several hours of unrecorded questioning by detectives in the absence of a lawyer. Her legal team seek to have her conviction overturned.

Returning to purely domestic considerations, the week also saw the announcement that judicial sentencing remarks in high profile cases will in future be broadcast on television from Crown Courts. The move was lauded by broadcasters and the Lord Chief Justice as promoting transparency and as an aid to public understanding of the criminal justice system.

The move was not however uncontroversial. Concerns were raised by the Bar Council of England and Wales that the broadcast of sentencing remarks in the absence of fuller details of the trial could lead to a failure on behalf of viewers to appreciate why a particular sentence has been passed. They expressed anxiety that the audience will be deprived of relevant context, such as mitigation. Further fears included that increased disclosure of judges to the public eye could expose them to undue attack and criticism in circumstances where a given sentence proves unpopular. However regardless of the merits, the development was successful in affording current BBC radio 4 listeners one of the funnier moments so far of 2020, when Evan Davis introduced American lawyer Robert Shapiro to debate the topic with Lord Sumption, only to find that they had inadvertently invited an American political adviser with the same name to the PM show instead (listen here).

The week also saw:

• The Mail of Sunday file its defence at the High Court on Tuesday in response to a claim brought by the Duchess of Sussex for breach of copyright, invasion of privacy and misuse of personal data. The case concerns excerpts of correspondence between the Duchess and her father published by the newspaper.

• The ECHR deliver judgment in favour of nine Russians detained pending trial for as long as 7 years, some of whom remain incarcerated, in circumstances characterised by fragile reasoning of the courts and an absence of due process – DIGAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA [2020] ECHR 54.

• The entire Russian government resign in a move thought likely to pave the way for amendments to the country’s constitution favourable to current leader Vladimir Putin. The proposed reforms would strengthen the role of the Prime Minister and weaken that of the President. Mr Putin is constitutionally barred from standing again for the presidency but could transition into one of the roles in which the proposed constitutional changes are likely to vest more power. The reforms would also restrict the applicability of international law in Russia to circumstances where it did not contradict the constitution or restrict people’s rights and freedoms, a measure framed as one to increase national sovereignty.

• The High Court refuse permission to appeal in a case brought by a soldier, who contracted Q-fever whilst serving in Afghanistan, against the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The claimant soldier had alleged failings on behalf of the MOD in not providing him with adequate chemoprophylaxis to protect him from the disease – Bass v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 36 (QB).

• A Jewish woman in London succeed in obtaining a religious divorce by launching a private prosecution under laws against controlling or coercive behaviour. The prosecution for this relatively new crime, known to listeners of the Archers, succeeded in pressuring the husband to grant a divorce which, according to Jewish law may be withheld by the man, resulting in the woman being unable to remarry. Such woman are known as ‘agunot’ (‘chained women’). But this woman’s chains have been broken through this innovative use of the criminal law.

Lastly, on the UK Human Rights Blog:

• Michael Spencer reviews the development over the last year as to how Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is applied to immigration cases

Public Law Podcast Seminar on Radicalisation Part 1: Civil Law and Closed Hearings

26 October 2017 by Rosalind English

1) Issues with Radicalisation cases and the civil law – Martin Downs

Continue reading →

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 →

Feature | A human right to money: will it ever happen?

8 June 2010 by Rosalind English

Al Rawi disclosure evidence of torture complicity?

15 July 2010 by Adam Wagner

The Guardian have published a number of documents which have been disclosed to the High Court as part of a claim for compensation by men claiming they were mistreated abroad with the knowledge of UK security services.

The Guardian claims that the documents reveal the “the true extent of the Labour government’s involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens”. Key passages can be found here.

The documents were disclosed as part of the ongoing case of Al Rawi and Ors v The Security Services. Although the case has not yet been heard, it has been the subject of a number of high-profile applications for secret documents which the Government have generally lost. We posted recently on the judgment of Mr Justice Silber leading to the disclosure of some of the most recent documents which the Guardian have published (see also here).

Continue reading →

The Weekly Round-Up: UNRWA banned & safe access zones come into force

4 November 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In UK News

Last Thursday, legislation providing for safe access zones around abortion clinics came into
force. Within these safe access zones, it is now a criminal offence to intentionally or
recklessly:

• influence any person’s decision to access or facilitate abortion services at an abortion
  clinic;
• obstruct any person from accessing or facilitating abortion services at an abortion
  clinic; or
• cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to
  access, provide or facilitate abortion services at an abortion clinic.

Dame Diana Johnson, Crime and Policing Minister, has stated that she is “confident that the
safeguards we have put in place today will have a genuine impact in helping women feel
safer and empowered to access the vital services they need”. Last week also saw the
introduction of a new preventative duty under the Equality Act 2010 with employers now
being required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the sexual harassment of their
employees.

In Other News

The Israeli Knesset (Parliament) voted by a 92-10 majority last Monday night to adopt two bills banning the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) from Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and labelling it a terrorist organisation. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that  “UNRWA workers involved in terrorist activities against Israel must be held accountable. Since avoiding a humanitarian crisis is also essential, sustained humanitarian aid must remain available in Gaza now and in the future”. However, no alternative aid structure has been proposed, leading to serious concerns about the availability of aid in the region. The new laws are likely to have the effect of forcing the closure of the UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem. In response to the vote, UN Security Council President Pascale Christine Baeriswyl has issued a press statement confirming that the members of the Security Council have “underscored that UNRWA remains the backbone of all humanitarian response in Gaza, and affirmed that no organization can replace or substitute UNRWA’s capacity and mandate to serve Palestinian refugees and civilians in urgent need of life-saving humanitarian assistance”. Philippe Lazzarini, UNWRA Commissioner-General, has said that the vote “sets a dangerous precedent” and “will only deepen the suffering of Palestinians” who have already “been going through sheer hell”.

Charity Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised last week a bill under consideration by the Armenian government which is seeking to enforce mandatory video surveillance across the capital city.  HRW have stated that the surveillance is “unjustified and interferes with privacy and other rights”, claiming that it would have a “chilling effect on fundamental civil and political rights”. The proposed laws would require private entities to install surveillance equipment and provide police 24/7 access to live video feeds. HRW referred to a 2022 report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age which states that mass surveillance for the purposes of general monitoring, of the same type the proposed bill would introduce, is an “almost invariably disproportionate” interference with the privacy of individuals. The Armenian parliament is expected to have a final vote on the bill before the close of the year.

In the Courts

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the case of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, confirming that the police do not owe a positive duty of care in law to protect individuals from harm. The facts of Tindall concern a driver who, after hitting a patch of black ice on the A413 and temporarily losing control but escaping serious injury, reported the ice to the police. The police attended the scene but did not take any effective action to remove the danger, resulting in the deaths of two drivers shortly afterwards who collided after skidding on the same patch of ice. While the Court accepted that the actions of the police amounted to a ‘serious dereliction of their public duty owed to society at large’,  it was held that public authorities such as the police are not liable for merely ‘failing to protect’ members of the public. The Court interestingly agreed that the police would have been liable had they actively made matters worse; however, this was not the case on the facts. Tindall is the latest in a controversial line of cases denying that the police should owe a legal duty of care to protect individuals from harm as a result of their special status.

Judgment has also been given in Abu Qamar v Secretary of State for the Home Department, a human rights appeal won by a Palestinian student who had her UK visa revoked after making highly controversial comments regarding the 7 October attacks last year. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that the Home Office decision constituted a “disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech” under the ECHR and that the Home Office had failed to show that Abu Qamar’s presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”. The Tribunal referenced the “clearly recognised and fundamental distinction between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Hamas and their actions,” stating that “nowhere”  did the appellant “express support for Hamas specifically, or their actions”. In particular, her referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” was said to be “consistent with views expressed publicly by human rights organisations”.

Article 10

1 June 2010 by Adam Wagner

Article 10 | Right to freedom of expression

Read posts on this Article

Article 10 of the Convention provides:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Perhaps unsurprisingly this provision is almost constantly in the news since it involves the core interests of the media, outraged by the development of the so-called “super-injunction” to prevent the reporting of “kiss-and-tell” stories in the celebrity sphere, the main source of profit for the printed press. The current headache for lawmakers and enforcers is how to regulate the dissemination of this kind of information on the internet, particularly social network sites such as Twitter. See our discussions on these issues here, here, here and here.

Although Article 10 guarantees the right to “receive information”, this Article does not require the State to provide access to information which is not already available (Leander v Sweden (1987)9 EHRR 433), although a relatively recent case suggests that the Strasbourg Court may be sympathetic to Article 10 challenges where a government has refused to provide information; in Matky v Czech Republic, application no. 19101/03, the Fifth Section of the Court suggested that an ecological NGO was entitled to access to information about nuclear power stations under Article 10. However this application was ultimately found to be manifestly ill-founded as declared the application manifestly ill-founded, as in the Court’s opinion the interference satisfied the requirements set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 2.

As we see, there are a number of permissible exceptions set out in this Article. Note that no measures in pursuit of these legitimate aims will be justified unless the interference with the individual’s freedom of expression has been “prescribed by law”, and the interfering measure is “proportionate” (see our discussion of these terms in the Article 8 section. Measures can be taken to limit freedom of expression in the interests of the following:

(1)  National security, territorial integrity, public safety, the prevention of public disorder and crime ;

(2)  The impartiality of the judiciary;

(3) The protection of health and morals;

(4) The protection of the reputation and rights of others

(5) The licensing of broadcasting enterprises.

Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998 provides that special regard is to be had to the right of freedom of expression in any case where it is in issue, and the public interest in disclosure of material which has journalistic, literary or artistic merit is to be considered. See Cream Holdings and Imutran v Uncaged Campaigns Limited [2001] EMLR 563 for Section 12 in application.

No interim order may be made that would infringe free speech rights without the respondent being present unless the applicant is able to furnish “compelling reasons” as to why the respondent should not be notified. The full impact of this section in injunction hearings was considered by the Court of Appeal in Douglas and Zeta Jones v Hello! Magazine, 8 May 2005 .

It is important to remember when considering the scope of Article 10 that Article 16 of the Convention also incorporated with the Human Rights Act provides:

Nothing in Articles Article 10, Article 11, and Article 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activities of aliens.

The usefulness of this provision should not be forgotten and it could in theory be used by the government to buttress the measures it wishes to take to combat incitement to arms, religious hatred etc.

Article 16 expressly authorises restrictions on the political activities of aliens even though they interfere with freedom of expression under Article 10 and other freedoms under the Convention.

• Return to Incorporated Rights Index
• Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998

The BIOT Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers  Detained Unlawfully

27 March 2025 by Tehreem Sultan

The Supreme Court in British Indian Ocean Territory ruled in December on an important issue concerning the detention of asylum seekers in Diego Garcia. While their cause has progressed (including in a settlement reached on behalf of many, and in this judgment).

Ms Justice Obi, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory, determined that the Claimants had been unlawfully detained since their arrival in October 2021.

Protocol 1 Article 1

1 June 2010 by Adam Wagner

Protocol 1 Article 1 | Right to peaceful enjoyment of property

Read posts on this Article

Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

The European Court of Human Rights has indicated that this Article contains three distinct rules ((1) Sporrong (2) Lonnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 85):

(1) The general principle of peaceful enjoyment of property (first sentence of the first paragraph);
(2) The rule that any deprivation of possessions should be subject to certain conditions (second sentence, first paragraph);
(3) The principle that States are entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose (second paragraph).

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions include the right of property (Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330). “Possessions” are not limited to physical goods: in Gasus Dosier-und Fordertechnik GmbH v The Netherlands (1995) 20 EHRR 403 it was considered immaterial that the property in issue was fully owned by the applicant, or whether it simply had a security right in it (retention of title). But to qualify under this Article the right or interest must have an economic value, or be of a pecuniary nature. In addition to property, possessions include:

1. Company shares: Bramelid & Malmstrom v Sweden, (1982) 29 DR 64.
2. Patents: Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v The Netherlands (1990) 66 DR 70;
3. Goodwill in business: Van Marle & Ors v The Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 483;
4. Licence to serve alcoholic beverages: Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden (1989) 13 EHRR 309;
5. Ownership of a debt (where it has crystallised): Agneesens v Belgium (1998) 58 DR 63;
6. An award, of court or arbitration, which is final and enforceable with no right of appeal on the merits: (1) Stran Greek Refineries (2) Stratis Andreadis v Greece (1994) 19 EHRR 293 and Pressos Compania Naviera SA & 25 Ors v Belgium (1997) 21 EHRR 301;
7. Interests in a pension scheme Wessels-Begervoet v The Netherlands (1986) (Admissibility Decision Application No. 00034462/97  October 10 2000

An additional gloss has been given to the meaning of “possessions” under this Article by the Court of Appeal in Wilson v First Country Trust [2001] 3 WLR 42 2000 – these include the rights of a leader to enforce a regulated loan agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

More recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that pension scheme regulations in Northern Ireland that required that unmarried co-habiting partners to be nominated in order to be eligible for a survivor’s pension, was interference with the appellant’s right under this provision. The requirement could not be “objectively justified” for the purposes of art 14. There was no similar nomination requirement for married or civil partner survivors (Re an application by Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] UKSC 8).

There is no possession in an item where the link between the applicant’s payment and the ultimate value of the thing is not established, so where an applicant has made contributions to a social security scheme but there is no link between the contributions and the ultimate share claimed by the applicant, this does not come within the scope of Protocol 1 Art.1 (G v Austria (1984) 38 DR 84); the same applies to contributions to pension schemes: (see X v Netherlands (1972) 38 CD 9.)

Expectation of an inheritance could not constitute a possession under Protocol 1 Art.1 : Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330.

A mere expectation that rates of fees would not be reduced by the law does not constitute a property right: Federal Republic of Germany Application No.00008410/78, (1979) 18 DR 170. Here the applicants, who were notaries, challenged regulations which obliged them to reduce fees for certain public bodies such as universities. The European Commission of Human Rights held that the claim for fees would only be considered as possessions when they came into existence on grounds of services rendered and on the basis of existing regulations.

In Matthews v MoD [2002] 3 All ER the Court of Appeal accepted that a right of action in tort was a possession.

As with the other qualified rights, most of the disputes in Article 1 Protocol 1 claims turn on the test of proportionality since the right to enjoyment of property is subject to many provisos and exceptions “in the public interest”. As a result the case law on A1P1 is a rich source of analysis on this question: see for example the Court of Appeal’s informative ruling in Sinclair Collis Ltd, R (o.t.a) v. The Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWCA Civ 437 and Lord Laws LJ’s important dissent, discussed here.

• Return to Incorporated Rights Index
• Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998

Caesarean Escalation, Judges on Human Rights and Happy Birthday – the Human Rights Roundup

8 December 2013 by Sarina Kidd

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular seasonal sack-load of human rights news and views.  The full list of links can be found here.  You can find previous roundups here.  Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Sarina Kidd. 

This week, bloggers tried to get to the bottom of the ‘forced caesarian’ case, a Supreme Court judge weighed in on the relationship between the UK and European law, and on Tuesday it’s the 65th birthday of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Continue reading →

High Court refuses to condemn US drone strikes

9 January 2013 by Shaheen Rahman

R (Khan) v Secretary Of State For Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2012] EWHC 3728 (Admin) (21 December 2012) – Read judgment

In this unsuccessful application for permission to apply for judicial review, the Claimant sought to challenge the Defendant’s reported policy of permitting GCHQ employees to pass intelligence to the US for the purposes of drone strikes in Pakistan.  The Claimant’s father was killed during such an attack in March 2011.

The Claimant alleged that by assisting US agents with drone strikes, GCHQ employees were at risk of becoming secondary parties to murder under the criminal law of England and Wales and of conduct ancillary to war crimes or crimes against humanity contrary to international law.  The Claimant sought declaratory relief to that effect and also sought a declaration that the Defendant should publish a policy addressing the circumstances in which such intelligence could be lawfully disseminated. [paragraph 6]

Continue reading →

Have MI5 “inflicted a body blow on their own reputation”?

12 March 2010 by Adam Wagner

David Pannick QC says in an article in the Times that the controversy surrounding the Binyam Mohammed case has been a disaster for the security services and has highlighted the need for more effective supervision:

The sorry saga of the Binyam Mohamed litigation has required the judiciary to strip away evasions and half-truths by the Security Services that have inflicted a body blow on their own reputation.

He concludes:

The courts, here and in the US, have performed their constitutional role of identifying and publicising unlawful acts of torture. There is now an urgent need for effective supervision and accountability of our intelligence services. Existing methods of parliamentary control have plainly been inadequate. As MI5’s in-house lawyer acknowledges in John le Carré’s novel The Russia House, his “old law tutor would have turned in his grave” at the lack of legal controls.

The full article is available here. You can read our analysis of the case here.

Supreme Court find A1P1 breach in retrospective legislation

24 April 2013 by David Hart KC

Salvesen v. Riddell [2013] UKSC 22, 24 April 2013, read judgment 

When can an agricultural landlord turf out his tenant farmer? The answer to this question has ebbed and flowed since the Second World War, but one element of the latest attempt by the Scottish Parliament to redress the balance in favour of tenants has just been declared incompatible with Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) as offending landlords’ rights to property. The Supreme Court has so ruled, upholding the Second Division of the Court of Session’s ruling in March 2012. 

The reasoning is not just of interest to agricultural lawyers either side of the border. But a brief  summary of the laws is necessary in order to identify the invidiousness of the new law as identified by the Court – and hence its applicability to other circumstances.

As will be seen from my postscript, the decision of the court below to the same effect appears to have had tragic consequences.

Continue reading →