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]
TM (Kenya) concerned a 40 year old Kenyan woman who faced deportation after her applications for leave to remain and asylum were rejected by the Home Office. She had been detained at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in advance of proceedings to remove her from the country, during which time she had been uncooperative with staff. In light of her behaviour and in advance of her removal to Kenya, she was removed from free association with other detainees. Such detention was authorised by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Manager at Yarl’s Wood, who was also the appointed “contract monitor” at the centre for the purposes of section 49 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
She sought judicial review of the decision to deprive her of free association. The initial application was refused. She appealed to the Court of Appeal where she advanced three grounds, including that her detention was not properly authorised.
The court found no conflict in the dual positions held by the manager at Yarl’s Wood. The Home Secretary had legitimately authorised her detention under the principles described in Carltona Limited v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560. In addition, there was no obligation to develop a formal policy concerning removal from free association, as Rule 40 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 was sufficiently clear to meet the needs of transparency. Continue reading →
In Delve and Anor v SSfWP [2020] EWCA Civ 1199, the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge brought against the series of Pensions Acts between 1995 and 2014 which equalised the state pension age for women with that of men by raising the state pension age for women from 60 to 65 and then raising the age at which both men and women can claim their state pension.
The Appellants were two women born in the 1950s, whose pension age has been raised to 66. They contended that although one of the aims of the Pensions Act 1995 was to end the discrimination based on gender, “this equalisation has run ahead of actual improvements in the economic position of women in their age group.” [2]
It was their contention that this gives rise to:
1. direct age discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1); and
2. indirect sex discrimination contrary to EU law and indirect discrimination contrary to Article 14 on grounds of sex or of sex and age combined.
It was also argued that the Secretary of State failed in her duty to notify them far enough in advance of the fact that they would not, as they expected, start receiving their pension at age 60.
Silih v Slovenia (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 37 – Read judgment, McCaughey and Quinn’s Application [2010] NICA 13 – Read judgment
This is Part I of Matthew Hill’s feature. Click here for Part II.
A recent decision of the Strasbourg Court has reopened the issue of the State’s obligation to investigate deaths under the European Convention on Human Rights, leaving a tension between the European Court’s view and that of the highest UK court.
In Silih v Slovenia (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 37, the European Court looked again at the question of whether the investigative obligations under Article 2 ECHR have retrospective effect in domestic law. A majority of the Court held that Slovenia’s failure to provide an effective independent judicial system to determine responsibility for the death of a patient receiving medical treatment violated Article 2 even though the death itself took place before the Convention came into force in that state.
It has been widely reported that Learco Chindamo, who was convicted of killing headmaster Philip Lawrence in 1995, has been rearrested only months after being released from jail. The story has reopened a debate over the Human Rights Act, on the basis that it prevented Chindamo from being deported to his native Italy. But did it?
In fact, what the case really highlights is that the unpopularity of the Human Rights Act is in part due to inaccurate media reporting of human rights cases, even 10 years after it came into force.
The Telegraph reported at the end of last week that Frances Lawrence, Philip Lawrence’s widow, has urged the prime minister to act on his previous pledges to scrap the Human Rights Act, as
Delve & Anor, R (On the Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] EWHC 2552 (Admin) – read judgment
In
a judgment handed down on 3rd October, the High Court has ruled that
successive statutes between 1995 and 2014, which legislated to equalise the
state pension age between men and women were not discriminatory. The High Court
also determined that it was not a matter for the courts to conclude whether the
steps taken to inform those affected by the changes in the state pension age
for women were inadequate or unreasonable.
Background
The
origins of this claim rest in the Old Age and Widows’ Pension Act 1940, where
the state pension age for women was lowered from 65 to 60 in response to a
campaign by unmarried women in the 1930s. The policy created a relative
disadvantage to men, justified by the social conditions at the time.
The
Pensions Act 1995 was enacted to equalise the age discrepancy and the
methodology followed in subsequent legislation was to stagger the advancement
of the pension age by reference to age cohorts. The first change to women’s
state pension age contained in the 1995 Act would take effect in 2010, 15 years
later.
The UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Cranston J, 10 July 2013read judgment
Interesting alignment of parties in this challenge to Defra’s new system of allocating fish quota brought by an industry body (UKAFPO), in practice representing the larger fishing fleet – vessels over 10 metres in length – Defra was supported by Greenpeace (how often does that happen?), and by the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association. And this was because Defra had transferred some fishing quota from the larger to the smaller fishing fleet, namely those under 10 metres in length who fish inshore waters.
The first claim was that UKAFPO had a substantive legitimate expectation in their favour which was unlawfully frustrated by Defra’s change of policy. The second was that there was a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of ECHR, or its EU analogue, Article 17 of the Charter. The third was that UKAFPO was being discriminated against unlawfully – comparable situations must not be treated differently under EU law, and only English fishermen who were members of English fish producers organisations were affected.
Welcome back to the human rights roundup, a regular bulletin of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.
by Melinda Padron
In the news
Hissing “Catgate” / “Catflap”
As you will probably know, the Home Secretary Theresa May has been criticised for erroneously claiming that an illegal immigrant avoided deportation because of his pet cat. The episode came to be known as “Catgate”/”Catflap”* and was widely covered both in the mainstream press and the legal blogs; our blog in particular posted four articles. Here are just some of the many articles about the incident (or related to it):
A new report has argued that the practice of turning back asylum seeker boats at sea is illegal under international law, and does not deter others from making the journey.
Updated | Recent weeks have seen some interesting developments in the debate over freedom of expression of the press.
Last week saw a decision of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands. The case related to the protection of journalistic sources, and has been described as a “victory for press freedom”.
The court held that an order for the compulsory surrender of journalistic material which contained information capable of identifying journalistic sources requires legal procedural safeguards commensurate with the importance of the principle at stake. The Dutch prosecutors in the case, which had ordered the production of a CD-ROM containing potentially incriminating photographs of participants in an illegal race, had therefore breached Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Bournemouth Borough Council v PS and another [2015] EWCOP (11 June 2015) – read judgment
Mostyn J in the Court of Protection was asked to determine whether care arrangements in place for a 28-year-old man (BS) with severe autism and who lacked capacity constituted a deprivation of his liberty. He concluded that the care arrangements in place were in his best interests and did not constitute a deprivation of his liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR. Although he was subject to observation and monitoring in his own home he was not under continuous supervision and he was afforded appreciable privacy; there were no locks on the doors and he was free to leave.
Interestingly, comments made in this case shows that judges, or some of them, do engage with what is being said about them in the blogosphere. Continue reading →
Humphreys (FC) (Appellant) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 18 On appeal from the Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 56 – read judgment
It has been accepted for some time that the rule discriminates indirectly against fathers, because experience shows that they are far more likely than mothers to be looking after the child for the smaller number of days in the week. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether this discrimination is justified or whether the refusal of CTC to a father who looks after his children for three days a week is incompatible with his Convention rights. The Court ruled that in the light of the policy behind CTC, the reduction of child poverty, the discrimination was justified.
On Friday, A 17-judge panel at the International Court of Justice delivered an interim ruling imposing provisional measures on the state of Israel in order to alleviate the ‘catastrophic humanitarian situation’ in Gaza. Though stopping short of calling for the complete suspension of military operations requested by South Africa, the court ordered that Israel must do everything in its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide. President of the Court, Judge Joan E Donoghue, emphasised in judgment that the court does not need to find that Israel has broken the Genocide Convention in order to impose provisional measures. Rather, they must only find that Israel’s acts are ‘capable of falling within’ the remit of the Genocide Convention, and that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide was plausibly under threat. The Court held that this was the case, and that there was a risk of the situation deteriorating further before final judgment could be delivered.
16 members of the court, including Israel’s own Judge Aharon Barak, voted that Israel must take ‘immediate and effective measures’ to address the ‘adverse conditions of life’ in the Gaza strip. The Court also directed that Israel produce a report within one month on the actions it has taken to give effect to the order. Judge Donoghue concluded by reiterating that this interim ruling ‘in no way prejudges’ the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the case, or the merits of the case itself – a case which may take years to reach final judgment.
In Other News
During the ECHR’s annual press conference on Thursday, President of the ECHR Síofra O’Leary reminded the UK Government of its duty to comply with the Rule 39 injunction against flights to Rwanda. This comes as the House of Lords are due to discuss the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill on Monday, a bill which clearly provides that it is at the discretion of ministers whether they comply with the injunction. The Rwanda Scheme has come under further scrutiny this week after it has been reported that the housing secured by the UK Government for refugees has been sold on or reserved for Rwandan nationals. An undercover reporter at openDemocracy, posing as an international investor, was told at a meeting with the sales team of the housing developer that the homes were ‘not for refugees’.
The UK and the US jointly launched a second set of air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen on Monday night. As ships affiliated with Israel and the West travelling through the Red Sea trade route continue to be attacked, the UK Government has released a statement on the legality of military action against Houthi targets. A letter sent by the Houthi-controlled Foreign Affairs Ministry to the UN’s humanitarian coordinator for Yemen on Wednesday has ordered US and British nationals, including all humanitarian aid workers, to leave the country within one month. The removal of aid workers is likely to cause further deterioration of the fragile humanitarian situation in Yemen, with opposition leader Keir Starmer asking what steps are being taken to materially support Yemenis who have already “suffered terribly as a result of that country’s civil war”. UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron is planning to visit the region in the coming days.
Commentators are claiming a ‘blow to the rule of law’ as Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal overturned the acquittal of pro-democracy protester and human rights barrister Chow Hang-tung last week. Chow had originally been convicted of ‘inciting others to take part in an unauthorised assembly’ following her involvement in organising and hosting the Tiananmen Vigil in 2021, a vigil which had been held annually for the last thirty years. Despite being later acquitted, the prosecution successfully appealed the decision. The Court of Final Appeal found by a 3-2 majority that the prohibition of the vigil had been a lawful and proportionate restriction of freedom of assembly, thereby reinstating Chow’s conviction. She remains in a maximum-security prison and is now facing a potential life sentence under a separate national security charge.
In the Courts
The High Court held this week that the Home Secretary’s withholding of decisions on leave to remain for victims of trafficking was in breach of articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The Home Office had neglected to issue decisions on leave to remain for victims of trafficking who had applied for asylum while the seminal case of R (KTT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 2722 Admin progressed through the upper courts. The High Court and Court of Appeal had found in KTT that in order for the United Kingdom to comply with its duties under the European Convention Against Trafficking, confirmed victims of trafficking who are claiming asylum in the UK (at least in part for fear of re-trafficking) must be granted leave to remain while their asylum case is being decided. The Home Secretary was seeking to appeal this decision, though permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was eventually refused in October 2022.
Judgment was handed down on Tuesday in the case of XY v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 81 (Admin), where a confirmed victim of trafficking had been denied a decision on his leave to remain while his asylum case was decided for over 18 months. Consequently, the claimant was unable to rent a property, open a bank account, or otherwise fulfil the necessary prerequisites to participating in society. Lane LJ held that this amounted to a breach of Article 8(1) ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life. A breach of Article 14 (protection from discrimination) was also found on the grounds of the differential treatment between trafficking victims who had applied for asylum and those who had not, given that both groups had equal need for a decision on leave to remain.
As of 30th January 2023, decisions on leave to remain for trafficking victims are now made according to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
And do listen to the latest episode of Law Pod UK, in which Rachel Marcus and Marcus Coates-Walker of 1 Crown Office Row join Lucy McCann to explore the principle of the scope of duty in the context of clinical negligence claims.
Fish Legal v Information Commissioner and others (Information rights practice and procedure) [2015] UKUT 52 (AAC) Charles J – read judgment
Water and sewage utility companies are “public authorities” for the purposes of the environmental information regulations, and are bound by them accordingly, the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has ruled.
Fish Legal is the legal arm of the Angling Trust. In 2009 it asked United Utilities Water plc and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd for information relating to discharges, clean-up operations, and emergency overflow. Emily Shirley is a private individual. Again, she asked Southern Water Services Ltd for information relating to sewerage capacity for a planning proposal in her village. All three companies denied that they were under a duty to provide the information under Environmental Information Regulations. Both Fish Legal and Mrs Shirley complained to the Commissioner. In 2010 the Commissioner replied, explaining that as the companies were not public authorities for the purposes of EIR, he had no power to adjudicate the complaints. Continue reading →
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, United States Supreme Court – Read judgment
The US Supreme Court has ruled that it does not violate the US Constitution for the government to block speech and other forms of advocacy supporting a foreign organization that has been officially labeled as terrorist, even if the aim is to support such a group’s peaceful or humanitarian actions.
The judgment does not, of course, have any direct effect on the UK. But UK anti-terrorism legislation already provides the police with broad powers to prosecute those who support terrorist groups. The UK Government is likely to be keeping a close eye on the United States in order to guide future policy, in terms of what is and what is not beyond the pale in restriction freedom of expression.
Othman (Abu Qatada) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (appeal allowed) [2012] UKSIAC 15/2005_2 – read judgment
Angus McCullough QC appeared for Abu Qatada as his Special Advocate in these proceedings before SIAC. He is not the author of this post.
Earlier today, Abu Qatada was released from Long Lartin prison following his successful appeal before the Special Immigration Appeal’s Commission (SIAC). Qatada was challenging the decision to deport him to Jordan, where he faces a retrial for alleged terrorism offences.
For most of the last decade, Abu Qatada has been detained pending deportation to his home country. At his two original trials, he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to full life imprisonment with 15 years’ hard labour.
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.
Welcome back to the human rights roundup, a regular bulletin of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts. The full list of links can be found 
Othman (Abu Qatada) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (appeal allowed) [2012] UKSIAC 15/2005_2 – 
Recent comments