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: prisoner voting/page/17/ministers have been procrastinating on the issue, fearing that it will prove unpopular with the electorate.
This was not a class action but a representative action, pursuant to what is now Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 19.8, for the tort of misuse of private information against the respondents Google UK Limited (Google) and DeepMind Technologies Limited (DeepMind). The action was on behalf of Mr Prismall and a class of persons said to number approximately 1.6 million.
The appeal was against the striking out of his representative claim for misuse of private information in the court below. In a representative action like this the task before the judge is to establish whether the “lowest common denominator” claimant in the class would fail to make their claim. The judge found that the lowest common denominator claimant in the group of persons represented did not have a realistic prospect of success.
Details of the Case
The claim was for damages in respect of both the one-off transfer by the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (the Royal Free Trust) of data in October 2015, and the continuing transfer of data thereafter until 29 September 2017 pursuant to a live data feed. The data which was transferred took the form of patient-identifiable medical records held by the Royal Free Trust of patients, including Mr Prismall, who had attended hospitals in the Royal Free Trust or had blood tests processed by laboratories operated by the Royal Free Trust between 29 September 2010 and 29 September 2015. Google and DeepMind used the data for the purposes of developing an app called “Streams” which was intended to be used to identify and treat patients suffering from Acute Kidney Injury. Google and DeepMind also had, however, a contractual entitlement to use the data for purposes wider than direct patient care and to develop and prove capabilities to enhance future commercial prospects.
At first instance the judge found that each member of the class did not have a realistic prospect of establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their medical records or of crossing the de minimis threshold in relation to such an expectation such that there was no realistic prospect of establishing misuse of private information of each member of the class, or a realistic prospect of establishing an entitlement to damages for loss of control. The lowest common denominator was a notional claimant in the class whose claim represented the “irreducible minimum scenario” for a claimant in the class of persons. The judge’s lowest common denominator claimant was premised on the basis that there was one attendance at a trust hospital, which was an attendance not concerning “a medical condition involving any particular sensitivity or stigma” and there being “no specific reference to the medical condition that had prompted the attendance”. The judge had identified for the irreducible minimum scenario for the lowest denominator claimant that “no upset or concern was caused by the data transfer”. The judge found that the lowest common denominator claimant’s claim would fail.
Grounds of claim
Mr Prismall’s claim related to the wrongful use of private patient information by Google and DeepMind in: (1) obtaining patient-identifiable medical records with a contractual entitlement under the Information Sharing Agreement which was wider than direct patient care and the Streams project;
(2) storing the medical records prior to Streams becoming operational;
(3) using the medical records in the research and development of Streams; and
(4) developing and providing their general capabilities by the use of the medical records for the purposes of future commercial prospects. Damages were claimed for loss of control of the private information only.
The judge said that it was “also well-established that not every disclosure of medical information will give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or involve an unlawful interference.” If anodyne or trivial information about a brief hospital visit was made public by a patient, the judge saw no reason why that information would attract a reasonable expectation of privacy by dint of it being recorded in a medical record.
TM (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2010] EWCA Civ 916 – Read judgment
Is it reasonable to expect an asylum seeker on their return to their home country to lie about their political beliefs and thereby avoid persecution? This question was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in light of a potentially wide-ranging decision of the Supreme Court relating to gay refugees.
Last month the Supreme Court held in HJ (Iran ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 that to compel a homosexual person to pretend that their sexuality does not exist is to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is (see our post). When an applicant applies for asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of persecution because he is gay, if the tribunal concludes that a material reason for his living discreetly on his return would be a fear of the persecution which would follow if he were to live openly as a gay man, then his application should be accepted [para 82].
This week, the mosaic shrine adorning the wall outside Stockwell underground station once again became the focal point for difficult questions surrounding the police response the terrorist attacks of 2005.
The judgment of a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Da Silva v the United Kingdom draws a line under a long legal battle mounted by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the young Brazilian electrician shot dead by the Metropolitan Police on 22 July 2005 having been mistaken for a suicide bomber. Continue reading →
Vinkov v Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost, Case C-27/11 – read judgment
Buried in the somewhat obscure details of this reference for a preliminary ruling is a hint of how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is approaching arguments based on human rights principles as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). Put briefly, there has to be a very clear involvement of EU law before a case can be made out under any of its human rights provisions or principles.
The Bulgarian Court of Appeal referred to the CJEU a question for a preliminary ruling arising out of a dispute over penalty points which triggered automatic disqualification from driving under Bulgarian law. Continue reading →
Conor Monighan brings us the latest updates in human rights law
In the News:
The CPS has said there is enough evidence to charge two Russian men with conspiracy to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Although the Skripals survived, another lady called Dawn Sturgess later died of exposure to Novichok.
The two men visited Salisbury last March, at the same time the nerve agent attack took place. It is believed the two men, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, are military intelligence officers for GRU, the Russian security service. The CPS has not applied for their extradition because of Russia’s longstanding policy that it does not extradite its own nationals. A European Arrest Warrant has been obtained in case they travel to the EU.
In response, the two men have claimed they were merely tourists. In an appearance on Russia Today (RT), they said the purpose of their visit to Salisbury was to see its cathedral. Arguing that their presence was entirely innocent, the two men said they were following recommendations of friends. Petrov and Boshirov went on to say that, whilst they had wanted to see Stonehenge, they couldn’t because of “there was muddy slush everywhere”. The men insisted they were businessmen and that, whilst they might have been seen on the same street as the Skripals’ house, they did not know the ex-spy lived there. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has said they are “civilians” and that “there is nothing criminal about them”. Continue reading →
Transport for London (TfL) v Griffin & Ors [2012] EWHC 1105 (QB) – Read Judgment
Transport for London (TfL) have succeeded in their High Court application for an injunction restraining Addison Lee Taxis from encouraging drivers to use London bus lanes. Mr Justice Eder ruled that the injunction would not breach Addison Lee Chairman John Griffin’s free expression rights.
This case is about traffic regulation orders (TROs) made by TfL dealing with the use of designated bus lanes. TfL’s policy is that private hire vehicles (PHVs – or mini-cabs in ordinary parlance) can only enter bus lanes to pick up or set down whereas taxis can use them as a through-route. The adopted definition of “taxi” means only Hackney Carriages qualify (reg. 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions). Failure to comply with, or acting in contravention of, TROs is an offence under s8(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant); R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2011] UKSC 45 – read judgment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Home Secretary’s refusal to grant visas to non-resident spouses under a certain age breached their right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention. A strong dissent from Lord Brown touches on the raw nerve of judicial competence and the role of Article 8 in policy making.
The Supreme Court press summary sets out the factual details of the two cases. Essentially, the issue was whether the ban on the entry for settlement of foreign spouses or civil partners unless both parties are aged 21 or over, contained in Paragraph 277 of the Immigration Rules, was a lawful way of deterring or preventing forced marriages, or at least those associated with assisting a claim for UK residency and citizenship. The minimum age requirement – recently raised from 18 to 21 – was designed to prevent young women who have UK citizenship or residence permission from being pressurised into sponsoring a fiancée or spouse seeking admission to this country. Continue reading →
R (o.t.a A and B) v. Department of Health [2017] UKSC 41, 14 June 2017 – judgment here; previous post here.
Update: the government has announced its intention to make funding available for women travelling from Northern Ireland to have free termination services on the NHS in England (29 June 2017).
Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled women who were citizens of the UK, but who were usually resident in Northern Ireland, to undergo a termination of pregnancy under the NHS in England free of charge?
No, said the Supreme Court (Lord Wilson, who gave the lead judgment, and Lords Reed and Hughes, but with Lord Kerr and Lady Hale dissenting).
Background law and facts
The law on abortion in Northern Ireland is governed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Abortion is only lawful there if there is a threat of long term psychiatric or physical injury to the mother. As this is difficult to prove, a steady stream of women come from Northern Ireland to secure abortions, mostly from private clinics that charge a fee for the service as they are unable to obtain a termination free of charge under the English NHS. Continue reading →
The United Kingdom and other NATO allies have begun ramping up arms deliveries to Ukraine to assist them in the ongoing conflict against Russia. Deliveries of hitherto purely ‘defensive’ weapons systems will now be bolstered by armoured vehicles and long-range artillery. The UK has also provided cutting edge portable Starstreak air defence systems to Ukraine, with a verified report on Saturday confirming that a Russian helicopter had already been destroyed by the system. The Starstreak system is developed by Belfast-based Thales Air Defence Limited, which specialises in short-range air defence weapons. Starstreak launchers can be shoulder-mounted, attached to a vehicle, or fired from a ground launcher, but the UK has only sent units of the shoulder-mounted version to aid rapid deployment. These weapons follow lethal aid already sent to Ukraine by the UK, including over 4,000 Swedish made NLAWs and some US produced Javelin missiles, both powerful anti-tank weapons capable of destroying heavily armoured Russian main battle tanks.
Last week’s human rights news received an enormous amount of coverage, which means that we were unable to fit all of them within this humble post. However, we do recommend that you click here to access the full list of some of our favourite articles pertaining to last week’s hotly debated topics.
by Melinda Padron
The week started off with a Twitter account supposedly “outing” a number of individuals who had taken injunctions with anonymity clauses or “superinjunctions”. As we all know, this topic has been the subject of attacks by the press and politicians over the past few weeks. Judith Townend wrote an insightful post on the incident for the Inforrm’s Blog, which contained opinions from media lawyers and experts, and also links to many of the articles featured in newspapers and law blogs alike.
Laura Profumo serves us the latest human rights happenings.
In the news:
Lurid show-trial of a vulnerable man, the timely vindication of justice being done, and being seen to be done, a CPS volte-face.
Whatever you think of the Janner trial, it’s now in full swing. The former Labour Peer made his first appearance in court on Friday, facing 22 historic child sex abuse charges. The 87 year old’s committal hearing lasted some 59 seconds, after weeks of legal grappling with his defence lawyers. Any doubt over Janner’s dementia was “dispersed instantly” by his arrival, writes The Telegraph’s Martin Evans: flanked by his daughter and carer, Janner appeared frail and “confused”, cooing “ooh, this is wonderful” as he entered the courtroom. The case will now pass to the Crown Court, with the next hearing due on September 1, where a judge will decide whether the octogenarian is fit to stand trial, or whether a trial of fact is a suitable alternative. If the latter course is taken, a jury will decide if Janner was responsible for his charged actions – no verdict of guilt will be found, and no punishment will be handed down. Continue reading →
In R (Anaesthetists United Ltd and Others) v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2270 (Admin) (“Anaesthetists United”), Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed a judicial review claim brought by the claimants against the defendant regulator for Physician Associates (“PAs”) and Anaesthesia Associates (“AAs”) – collectively referred to hereafter as “Associates” – in the UK.
The claim is the most recent instalment in a brewing saga over the continued use and regulation of Associates in the UK’s healthcare system:
In April 2025, Lambert J dismissed the British Medical Association (“BMA”)’s judicial review challenge (R (British Medical Association v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin)) to the GMC’s decisions to (i) apply the same basic professional standards to doctors and Associates, and (ii) refer to all three professions collectively as ‘medical professionals’.
Just prior to the handing down of Anaesthetists United, Professor Gillian Leng released her final report following the conclusion of her independent review into the Associate professions.
A bill in Georgia demanding that all foreign entities and NGOs which receive more than a fifth of their funding from international sources must be labelled as ‘bearing the interests of a foreign state’ passed its third and final reading in the Tbilisi Parliament. Such organisations would be subjected to increased scrutiny by the Georgian Justice Ministry and could be subjected to fines if they fail to disclose sensitive information that is requested of them. There are fears that the bill may be used to silence dissidents and will harm Georgia’s chances of joining the EU. The High Representative of the European Commission has confirmed that “the adoption of this law negatively impacts Georgia’s progress on the EU path. The choice on the way forward is in Georgia’s hands”. The US State Department has also said it is “gravely disappointed” by the advance of the bill, which it has called “Kremlin-inspired”. Major protests against the bill have been ongoing for nearly a month, and there is little indication they will die down. The protestors have been met with riot police, leading to violent altercations. The British Embassy in Tbilisi has called for an end to the “unlawful intimidation” of protestors, suggesting tactics such as “threatening phone calls, unlawful detention, beatings and personalised posters portraying civil society members as traitors” have been deployed by police. Georgia President Salome Zourabichvili – an opponent of the Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze who supports the bill – told the BBC she would veto the law. However, the Prime Minister’s party Georgian Dream has sufficient numbers to overrule her, having just backed the bill in its final reading by 84 votes to 30.
The New Yorker is in hot water following the publication of a story on the upcoming retrial of Lucy Letby, who was convicted in August 2023 of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of a further six. The jury failed to return a verdict on a further six counts of attempted murder, one of which will be the subject of the retrial in June. The Court has ordered reporting restrictions in the lead up to the retrial in order to prevent the trial being prejudiced and to protect the integrity of the jury. The New Yorker article was in contravention of these restrictions – which could amount to contempt of court. The article has now been blocked online and is inaccessible to UK readers, but print editions featuring the story on the cover were circulated last week. While the New Yorker does not have an incorporated entity in the UK against whom contempt orders can be enforced, its parent company Condé Nast does. It remains to be seen whether action will be taken. Conservative MP David Davis queried the blocking of the article in the UK, stating it seems “in defiance of open justice”. Other commentators have suggested the opposite, that the purpose is to ensure Letby receives the fair trial to which she is entitled.
In the Courts
The High Court has declared that parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 are incompatible with the human rights of travellers. The Act provided for an increase in the duration for which police can ban travellers from an area from 3 to 12 months, as well as conferring powers upon police to seize homes and fine, arrest, or imprison those living in unauthorised encampments. Gypsies, Roma, and travellers are considered a distinct racial group and are thus protected from discrimination on grounds of their identity. The Court found that the increase in the no-return period constituted a disproportionate interference on the travellers’ Article 14 ECHR rights (freedom from discrimination) when read with Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) as a result of the unavailability of transit sites where travellers can stay without fear of a criminal penalty. The Court issued a rare declaration of incompatibility, which prompts Parliament to examine the offending legislation and consider amending it in order to achieve compatibility with the ECHR. Marc Willers KC, lead counsel for the Claimant, said: “This is hugely significant judgment. In granting the declaration of incompatibility, the court recognised that there is a lack of lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers and that unless the government increases provision, the law as currently drafted will amount to unjustified race discrimination.” The charity Friends, Families, & Travellers who acted as intervenors in the case have called the judgment a “serious” blow to the Police Act 2022.
The High Court in Northern Ireland has upheld a previous ruling that parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and further declared that the offending sections of the Illegal Migration Act are incompatible with the ECHR. Article 2 WF provides that there must be no diminution of rights conferred under the Good Friday Agreement as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Windsor Framework is legally ‘supreme’, meaning any legislation with which it conflicts must be disapplied. Every provision challenged before the Court was found to cause a diminution in rights and has therefore been disapplied in Northern Ireland. This includes a number of significant provisions, including on detention and removal. A declaration of incompatibility was also issued in respect of various provisions of the IMA, declaring the provisions to be incompatible with ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 4 (prohibition of slavery), & 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Although Humphreys J acknowledged the status of declarations of incompatibility as “a measure of last resort”, the making of one was justified on account of the “significant nature of the violations identified”. DUP leader Gavin Robinson told Good Morning Ulster that he believes “if the government do not assert the sovereignty of Parliament and ensure a UK-wide immigration system”, Northern Ireland risks becoming a “magnet” for migrants. Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, stated to the House of Lords that “the Government will take all steps to defend their position, including through an appeal”. PM Rishi Sunak has suggested that the ruling will not affect the Government’s efforts to remove migrants to Rwanda.
A whistleblower who leaked documents revealing war crimes committed by the Australian military in Afghanistan has been sentenced to prison. David McBride pled guilty to the charges after the evidence supporting his whistleblowing defence was struck out on grounds of national security. McBride had been a military lawyer who did two tours of Afghanistan, including one with the Australian special forces where he became concerned with the conduct of commanders towards their officers. Having tried internal procedures and reporting to the defence and police minister, McBride eventually leaked documents he had covertly copied to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation believing they would prove that Australian commanders were scapegoating their officers in an attempt to escape allegations of unlawful killings. Instead, the dossier included The Afghan Files, a series of reports which revealed the commission of war crimes Australian forces in Afghanistan. The Brereton Report has since found credible evidence of the war crimes revealed within the documents. Despite this, calls to drop the charges against McBride were refused. Mossop J during sentencing emphasised the severity of the offences charged – stealing Commonwealth property, breaching the Defence Act and disclosing confidential information – and placed weight upon the fact that McBride’s actions constituted a “gross breach of trust” for which he shows “no contrition”. He has been sentenced to 5 years and 8 months. The sentence has led to calls for increased whistleblower protection in Australia. The Asia Director at Human Rights Watch has called it “a stain on Australia’s reputation that some of its soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, and yet the first person convicted in relation to these crimes is a whistleblower not the abusers”.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly bulletin of human rights news. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.
In the news
Whilst the eyes of the world are on London’s Olympic Games, the eyes of this blog are on a series of important rulings which our judges produced last week just before they took the short stroll from the Royal Courts of Justice to Horse Guards Parade watch the beach volleyball. There were three particularly important decisions: firstly, Paul Chambers won his appeal against criminal conviction following a Twitter Joke. Secondly, the recent Alvi case clarified the meaning of the word “rule” in immigration law as a response; and finally the RT (Zimbabwe) case established that a person subject to deportation is not to be expected to lie about one’s beliefs (or lack thereof) to avoid persecution.
Eon v France, no. 26118/10 14 March 2013- read judgment (in French only)
The applicant, Hervé Eon, is a French national, a socialist and anti-GM activist living Laval (France). The case concerned his conviction for insulting President Sarkozy.
During a visit by the President to the département of Mayenne on 28 August 2008, Mr Eon had waved a placard reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”), a phrase uttered by the President himself several months previously when a farmer had refused to shake his hand at the International Agricultural Show. The utterance was widely disseminated in the media and on the internet, attaining the status of a slogan. 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.
This week, the mosaic shrine adorning the wall outside Stockwell underground station once again became the focal point for difficult questions surrounding the police response the terrorist attacks of 2005.
Transport for London (TfL) v Griffin & Ors [2012] EWHC 1105 (QB) – 
Last week’s human rights news received an enormous amount of coverage, which means that we were unable to fit all of them within this humble post. However, we do recommend that you 
Recent comments