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]
A recent decision of the High Court concerning the Manchester Arena Inquiry highlights an interesting question about public inquiries, the role of survivors and the protections offered by the European Convention.
A succinct summary of the decision and its context is set out by Matthew Hill here. As he explains, permission was refused on a number of grounds, including that the challenge was brought late. But it is the Court’s analysis of the obligations imposed by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) which is of interest to this article.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber, has found that five men accused of serious terrorist activities can be extradited from the UK to the US to face trial.
They had argued that their article 3 rights (article 3 prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) would be violated if they were extradited and convicted. A sixth man’s case has been adjourned pending further submissions from the parties to the proceedings.
Our attitude to anti-terror policing is very strange indeed. In many ways, it is like a magician’s trick. We (the public) turn up at the show with the full intention of suspending our disbelief so as to be entertained and entranced. The magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat, or makes the Statue of Liberty disappear. We applaud, we are entranced.
But we know , somewhere in the back of our minds, that we are being fooled.
As with our safety from terror. We are happy because major terrorist attacks in the UK or US are thankfully rare. We are told about countless attacks which have been thwarted. We applaud, we are entranced. But we know, somewhere, that there must be a price.
That price is our civil liberties. More accurately, that price is the civil liberties of others, who we don’t know but whose faces occasionally drift through the public conscience. Binyam Mohamad, who was tortured by the CIA, apparently with collusion by our own Security Services. Shaker Aamer, who has been detained in Guantanamo Bay without charge for almost 12 years. And it is no secret that many anti-terrorism laws are draconian and involve a huge potential for abuse.
The Supreme Court has upheld challenges to the legal regimes for disclosing criminal records in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, finding them to be incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
R (P, G and W) and Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Anor [2019] UKSC 3 – Read Judgment
In a long-awaited decision on country guidance on Iraq, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has held that the degree of indiscriminate violence in Iraq is not so high that the appellants were entitled to subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) Qualification Directive.
However, the IAT indicated that, should the degree of violence become unacceptably high, Article 15(c) might be engaged. The Upper Tribunal also used the opportunity to provide general advice as to how to approach country guidance cases.
A High Court judge has raised the prospect that national security implications may necessitate the closed material procedure (CMP) in a case being brought against the Foreign Office by the son of a drone strike victim, the Telegraph reports today.
Mitting J has made a “rare order” that a two-day High Court hearing must take place in which both sides tackle the issue of whether the full case could go ahead in public, or whether it would require a CMP.
Background
On 12 March legal proceedings were issued against the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on behalf of Noor Khan, whose father was killed last year in a drone strike on a Jirga – or council of elders – in North West Pakistan. The case is highly sensitive because it would involve the disclosure of information supplied by British intelligence agencies to the CIA on the whereabouts of alleged Pakistani militants. Continue reading →
Remember the three girls from Bethnal Green Academy, who in February slipped through Gatwick security to join so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)? If, watching the footage, you exclaimed, “how can we stop this?”, then read on. Eight months and a massacre in Tunisia later, the Courts have intervened in more than 35 cases to prevent the flight of children to Syria or to seek their return.
In the very first cases, in which Martin Downs of these Chambers appeared, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction was invoked to make the children wards of court. The value of this mechanism, previously used in child abduction cases and to thwart forced marriages, is that the ward requires permission of the Court to leave the jurisdiction, and passports can be seized. (See, for example, Re Y (A Minor: Wardship) [2015] EWHC 2098 (Fam)). Continue reading →
Last week, the Government published the new Employment Rights Bill – a bill Deputy PM Angela Raynor has said seeks to “turn the page on an economy riven with insecurity, ravaged by dire productivity and blighted by low pay”. Among the measures included are steps towards ending “exploitative” zero-hour contracts, the introduction of a statutory probation period for new hires, and the removal of the two-year qualifying period for claims to unfair dismissal. The bill places significant emphasis on flexible working as the future of employment, stating that it will be “default for all, unless the employer can prove it is unreasonable”. With various aspects of the bill strengthening protections to women in the workplace, Jemima Olchawski, CEO of the Fawcett Society, has called the bill “a win for women”. However, the bill is not without its critics. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite union, claimed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill has “more holes than Swiss cheese”, leaving loopholes for employers to evade the provisions on zero-hour contracts and fire & rehire. Whistleblowing charity Protect have also expressed regret that the bill does not go far enough to strengthen protections for whistleblowers.
The Tory leadership race continued last week as the candidates were whittled down to a final two: Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, both considered to be on the right of the party. Membership of the ECHR has become an increasingly central issue in the race. While Jenrick has promised to leave the ECHR immediately if ever elected PM – calling the issue one of “leave or remain” – Badenoch told Sky News she believes that focusing on the ECHR “shuts down the conversation we need to have with the entire country” about migration. Both candidates have been the subject of criticism for comments made during the party conference. Jenrick, in support of his campaign to leave the ECHR, has controversially claimed that special forces are opting to kill instead of catch terrorists as otherwise the “European Court will set them free”. The charity Action on Armed Violence have stated that Jenrick’s comments “do a disservice to the serious allegations at hand” in the inquiry into SAS killings in Afghanistan, which must be “allowed to proceed without political interference”. Badenoch has come under fire for comments insinuating that maternity pay is “excessive” and that “about 5 to 10%” of civil servants are so bad that they “should be in prison”. She has backtracked on both fronts, claiming her comments were “misrepresented”.
In Other News
A UN report published last Thursday – three days after the one-year anniversary of the October 7th attacks – contains findings that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system”, committing war crimes in doing so. The report further states that Israeli security forces have “deliberately killed, detained and tortured medical personnel”, with children having “borne the brunt” of the health system’s “collapse”. It was further found that the “institutionalised mistreatment” of Palestinian detainees had taken place under direct orders from Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israeli National Security Minister. On Friday, in a statement from its mission in Geneva, Israel took strong objection to the report, calling its conclusions “outrageous” and a “blatant attempt to delegitimise the very existence of the State of Israel and obstruct its right to protect its population, while covering up the crimes of terrorist organisations”. Israeli representatives have accused the commission behind the report, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, of creating an “alternate reality” and refused to cooperate with the investigations preceding the report’s compilation.
On Wednesday, the United Nations Human Rights Council in their 57thsession adopted a resolution on Afghanistan in response to the escalating crisis in the country, extending the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan. The report resulting from resolution 54/1 to carry out a “stocktaking” of accountability options on Afghanistan was also presented at the session. The report detailed a variety of recommendations to Afghan de facto authorities, including the establishment of a moratorium on executions and the implementation of victim-centred transitional justice measures. While Amnesty International celebrated that the stocktaking marked the “first time in recent years that the UN is debating how to address serious accountability gaps”, the measure was nevertheless “inadequate” in the face of the crimes under international law being committed in Afghanistan. Amnesty also criticised the resolution adopted this week, claiming the council have “shied away from sufficiently supporting justice for the people of Afghanistan who have placed their hopes in the international community” by failing to establish an independent international accountability mechanism.
In the Courts
Last week, the European Court of Justice ruled that European Member States are obligated to recognise legal gender identity changes conducted in other Member States. The Court held that Romania’s refusal to recognise the applicant’s UK Gender Recognition Certificate constituted a violation of his right to move and reside freely within the Member States of the European Union. In a press release accompanying the ruling, the CJEU stated that “gender, like a first name, is a fundamental element of personal identity; […] a divergence between identities resulting from such a refusal of recognition creates difficulties for a person in proving his or her identity in daily life as well as serious professional, administrative and private inconvenience”. The applicant’s legal counsel, human rights lawyer Iustina Ionescu, told charity Transgender Europe that the “verdict has shown that trans people are equal citizens of the European Union”.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Cyprus’ immediate return to Lebanon of Syrian asylum seekers intercepted at sea constituted a violation of their human rights – in particular, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. There had also been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of the collective expulsion of aliens). Cyprus had failed to consider the risk of lack of access to asylum in Lebanon, the risk of refoulement, and the individual situations of the asylum seekers. The Court paid significant attention to a Human Rights Watch report published in September 2020 which revealed systematic mistreatment of asylum seekers by Cypriot authorities. The report had been referenced in the applicants’ arguments and was not challenged by counsel for the Government. Cypriot Government spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis has stressed that the events concerned occurred in 2020, under the previous administration, and has denied the allegation that the government has been carrying out further refugee pushbacks since the ruling.
Stephen Kinzer, a New York Times journalist and author, has written a scathing article on the efforts of international human rights groups on Guardian.co.uk. The article has generated controversy but in fact keys into a long-standing debate with important implications for the future of the international human rights movement.
The Kinzer article has predictably generated significant debate, with over 300 reader comments so far. Many of the commenters are critical, as is to be expected.
Whilst the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions are nuanced in respect of blocking sites or providing limited access, he is clear that restricting access completely will always be a breach of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to freedom of expression.
But not everyone agrees with the United Nations’ conclusion. Vinton Cerf, a so-called “father of the internet” and a Vice-President at Google, argued in a New York Times editorial that internet access is not a human right:
It was reported on Thursday, 5 July 2018, that three core participants in the Undercover Policing Inquiry are intending to launch a legal challenge against the Home Secretary’s decision not to appoint a panel to sit with the Chair, Sir John Mitting.
They say a diverse panel is needed who will better understand the issues of racism, sexism and class discrimination that the inquiry will inevitably raise. So where has this challenge come from, and is it likely to succeed?
Background
Three years ago, Home Secretary Theresa May announced the establishment of the Inquiry, amid great controversy concerning the conduct of undercover police officers over a number of decades. Lord Justice Pitchford was appointed as chairman, but as a result of ill-health, he had to step down in 2017 and was replaced by Sir John Mitting (a judge of the High Court).
Mitting J has experience of surveillance and the security services, having been Vice-President of the controversial Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Chairman of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
However, his chairmanship of the inquiry has been mired in dispute, starting with a series of decisions to grant anonymity to many officers because public disclosure of their real names would breach their Article 8 rights to private and family life. Some had also raised concerns about Mitting J’s membership of the all-male Garrick Club.
Compounding matters, at a hearing on 5 February 2018, Phillippa Kaufmann QC, counsel for the victims (who had core participant status at the Inquiry), made the point that it was impossible to rule out wrongdoing, including deceptive sexual activity, on the basis of an individual’s personal or family circumstances. Mitting J responded:
Of course it is impossible to rule it out, but you can make a judgment about whether or not it is more or less likely. We have had examples of undercover male officers who have gone through more than one long-term permanent relationship, sometimes simultaneously. There are also officers who have reached a ripe old age who are still married to the same woman that they were married to as a very young man. The experience of life tells one that the latter person is less likely to have engaged in extramarital affairs than the former.
The comments were not well received and, later in the hearing, Mitting J acknowledged that he “may stand accused of being somewhat naive and a little old-fashioned” but that he would “own up to both of those things” and would take it into account and revisit his own views.
The first concerns the failure to ensure that the Inquiry is heard by exactly that, a panel representing a proper cross-section of society and in particular — and this is absolutely essential for reasons I’m going to come to — including individuals who have a proper informed experiential understanding of discrimination both on grounds of race and sex. Two issues that lie absolutely at the heart of this Inquiry. I’m sorry to say this, but instead we have the usual white upper middle class elderly gentleman whose life experiences are a million miles away from those who were spied upon. And the very narrow ambit of your experience is not something I’m simply creating out of thin air. It has been exemplified already in the way that you have approached these applications.
She then referred to Mitting J’s comments at the February hearing and concluded by inviting him to either recuse himself or appoint a panel to sit alongside him. She then walked out of the hearing, accompanied by her legal team and the core participants.
Theresa May resigns during a speech in Downing Street, May 24th 2019. Credit: The Guardian
It would be virtually impossible for readers of this blog, unless they have recently returned from the International Space Station, awoken from a coma or been rescued after two weeks in the Hawaiian jungle, to have failed to notice this week’s political developments. Dispensing with them briefly, this week saw the Prime Minister announce her departure, and the subsequent commencement of a Conservative leadership campaign to appoint a new PM. Into this mix was thrown Sunday’s European Parliament elections, which saw Nigel Farage’s World Trade Organisation terms advocating Brexit Party finish first, albeit in a poll that saw advocates of a “no-deal” Brexit obtain fewer votes than those committed to preventing Brexit, if you take the combined Brexit Party and UKIP vote compared to combined Liberal Democrat, Green Party and Change UK vote.
More on Britain’s political machinations can be found courtesy of wall-to-wall coverage available pretty much everywhere. Continue reading →
Secretary of State for Home Department (Respondent) v AP (Appellant) (no 2) [2009] EWCA Civ 731 Supreme Court 23 June 2010
AP, who had been subject to a control order and who now continued to live at the same address under bail pending a deportation decision on grounds of national security, was entitled to continuing anonymity because of the risks he faced if his identity were revealed – read judgment
We posted recently on a ruling by the Supreme Court that the social isolation of a suspected terrorist suspect subject to a control order rendered the order unlawful. It will be remembered that the appellant, an Ethiopian national, had been suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Secretary of State only withdrew her decision to exclude him from the UK when she was granted permission to make a control order against him, which was later modified to prevent him from contacting extremist affiliates in London by moving him to an address in the Midlands.
This post is adapted from a presentation given at the Justice Human Rights Law Conference, and will be split into four parts.
This post is adapted from a presentation given at the Justice Human Rights Law Conference, and will be split into four parts. Part 1 can be found here and part 2 here.
Today I concentrate on Article 6: the right to a fair trial (click here for previous posts on Article 6).
Knowles and another, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 19 (Admin) – read judgment
The High Court has rejected a claim that Gypsies occupying caravans on private land were discriminated against by legislation which resulted in them not being able to claim full Housing Benefit to cover their rent.
Occupiers of caravans on a site owned by a local housing authority receive a Housing Benefit rent rebate of the whole of the rent charged. But if the caravan is on a private site, then the rent on which HB can be claimed is subject to determination by a rent officer, and that is normally substantially less than the full contractual rent charged. The claimants maintained that this scheme fails to meet the essential housing needs of Gypsies on private sites, who have particular site infrastructure and management needs – which result in additional costs, and hence a legitimately higher rent, not reflected in the HB awarded. They contended that the scheme was therefore discriminatory, and in breach of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, when read with article 1 of the First Protocol 1 (the right to property) and article 8 of the substantive Convention (the right to respect for family and private life). Continue reading →
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.
Stephen Kinzer, a New York Times journalist and author, has written a 
A recent 
It 
Recent comments