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/39/ministers have been procrastinating on the issue, fearing that it will prove unpopular with the electorate.
MM and AO (a child), R(on the application of) v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) – read judgment
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into a 2009 protest at an Immigration Detention Centre.
This interesting case explores the scope of the investigative duty under Article 3 of the Convention and its limited nature when compared to the analogous duty under Article 2, where the victim is no longer around to take action for him or herself. On the facts of this case, where there was no allegation of systemic failings, there was no obligation under Article 3 to arrange such an inquiry and the claim for psychiatric damage by the children who became separated from their parents during the protest was dismissed.
Background
The claimants, an adult and child respectively, had been detained amongst others at a removal centre. In 2009 there as a protest by some of the detainees after which the United Kingdom Borders Agency (UKBA) which ran the centre intervened, attempting amongst other things to remove the children from the fray by gathering them in a classroom. Afterwards, there was a dispute as to the degree of force used during the intervention and the distress caused to the children. An investigation by UKBA’s own Professional Standards Unit concluded that the intervention had been necessary. However, it was claimants’ case that an independent investigation was required to comply with the procedural obligations under the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3. When dealing with a mass protest involved careful planning and execution, the claimants submitted that it was particularly important that lessons be learned by the state from events as serious as these. Continue reading →
David Mead, in an interesting post – here – about “publicness” in section 6 of the Human Rights Act, looks at a case in which the Olympic Delivery Agency got an injunction against protesters: Olympic Delivery Authority v Persons Unknown . The ODA was a public authority, and the protesters were advancing defences under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association). Arnold J dismissed the defences on the basis that these rights needed to be balanced against the ODA’s rights to property under A1P1.
As Mead points out, the judge was probably wrong to do so. On the face of it, the ODA had no rights under the Convention, under A1P1 or otherwise, because it was a public authority, and was likely to be acting as such in its protester-clearing role. One can perhaps save the judge’s blushes, by a slightly different route. The right of free speech under Article 10(1) has to be balanced against the protection of the rights of others under Article 10(2), and the latter would cover the ODA’s property rights which it was enforcing.
But the more fundamental question is why public authorities (think local authorities or NHS Trusts) cannot complain that they are HRA victims. After all, they can be unfairly dumped on by central government, can be lied about, can have their finances cut, their functions or their premises taken away (hospital unit closures), can receive an unfair trial, and ultimately lose their “life” in some governmental reorganisation.
Ben King and Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 2522 (Admin) – Read Judgment
True or False: 1. A non-independent tribunal can determine your civil rights? 2. A non-independent tribunal can curtail your civil rights?
The high court has answered “true” to both of these questions . The non-independent tribunal in this case was the adjudication system in young offender institutions (YOI). The high court ruled that whilst the governor adjudicator was not an independent tribunal for the purposes of Article 6(1) ECHR, it could still determine and ultimately curtail an inmates civil rights.
The case of “King” raises important issues concerning the regime for adjudication of disciplinary charges brought against inmates at prisons and young offender institutions across England and Wales. In 2008 alone 190,192 punishments were imposed for disciplinary offences in young offender institutions.
Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates and Gard – [2017] EWHC 1909 (Fam) – read judgment
“A lot of things have been said, particularly in recent days, by those who know almost nothing about this case but who feel entitled to express opinions. Many opinions have been expressed based on feelings rather than facts.”
So said Francis J, when dealing with an unusual application by Great Ormond Street Hospital (Gosh) asking for an order, rather than a declaration, that Charlie Gard should be allowed to slip away quietly. The involvement of the White House, the Vatican, the Bambino Gesu Children’s Hospital in Rome and Dr. Hirano and the associated medical centre in the USA in this story demonstrates the fact that a mere declaration carries too much ambiguity to allow the hospital staff to do what the courts have approved. The terms in which Gosh put its application were unambiguous indeed:
Therefore orders are sought to remove any ambiguity; orders are enforceable. Despite all of the hospitals best endeavours, this appears as potentially necessary. Not for the first time the parents through their solicitors raised the prospect of criminal proceedings against the hospital and its staff. The Hospital understands that no court order best interests proceedings can afford it or its staff from prosecution.
Riots continued throughout the UK last week, sparked by the attack and murder of 3 children in Southport on July 29th. The riots have been linked to a widely circulated online rumour falsely identifying the perpetrator as a Muslim asylum seeker. UK Chief Executive for Amnesty International, Sacha Deshmukh, has stated the riots to be caused at root by “racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia”. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called the rioting an “assault on the rule of law and the execution of justice” and made clear that those involved will not “be allowed to hide behind the legitimate right to protest”. The Crown Prosecution Service revealed on Friday via a post on X (formerly Twitter) that 159 individuals have been charged in connection with the “violent disorder” across the country, with a total of 741 arrests having been made. The news follows Justice Minister Heidi Alexander’s announcement that the process of opening 500 prison places for those involved in the riots is underway.
On Friday, the UK Government announced fresh sanctions against Belarus in response to ongoing human rights violations in the country. The sanctions have been announced on the four-year anniversary of the “deeply flawed” 2020 presidential elections in Belarus; elections which Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated have resulted in “over 40,000 citizens arrested on trumped up political charges, civil society and independent media trampled and a regime with no regard for democracy or human rights”. The Viasna Human Rights Center, a Belarusian NGO, claims that as of August 11, Belarus holds 1385 political prisoners including journalists and human rights activists. The new sanctions raise the total number against Belarus to over 200 individuals and entities. The announcement also revealed a funding package of £2.5 million to support human rights and civil liberties in Belarus.
In Other News
Unrest continues in Venezuela following the contested re-election of President Nicolas Maduro on July 28th. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has published a statement arguing that there is “overwhelming evidence” that the opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, was the true victor. The statement cites the fact that the opposition have published over 80 percent of the tally sheets from polling stations across Venezuela showing Urrutia to have won by an “insurmountable margin”, further corroborated by exit polls. The announcement of Maduro’s re-election sparked protests across the country which have continued into this week. In a press conference on Tuesday, Maduro announced that over 2229 individuals had been arrested in connection with the protests, calling those involved “terrorists”. In a press conference last week, a spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk expressed concern over the “numerous cases of arbitrary detention”, including that of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders, children, and journalists. Amnesty International sent an open letter on Friday to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court calling for his “resolute and immediate action” against the crimes being committed under international law by Venezuelan authorities. Amnesty argue in the letter that the ongoing “tragedy is a consequence of the impunity for serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity that Maduro’s government has been committing for years.”
Reports have surfaced that in only two days last week, Iranian authorities executed a minimum of 29 individuals. The UN Office of the High Commissioner have verified that a further 38 people were executed in Iran over the course of July, raising the total for 2024 thus far to 345. The Office raised concerns in particular about the “lack of due process and fair trial standards”, with several executions occurring with “neither the prisoner’s family nor legal counsel being informed”. NGO Iran Human Rights has reported that 26 men were executed in a group hanging outside Ghezelhesar Prison – an execution the scale of which has been unparalleled since 2009. Amnesty have revealed that at least one of the prisoners executed in the spree was imprisoned in connection with the Woman Life Freedom protests that erupted following the murder of Mahsa Amini in 2022.
The Bulgarian Parliament passed an anti-LGBT amendment last Wednesday to the country’s education laws, banning the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one.” The amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority with 159 votes in favour and only 22 against. LGBT rights group Forbidden Colours have stated they believe the move represents Bulgaria “adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook”, a development they call “deeply troubling”. The organisation have also raised questions about the swiftness with which the amendment occurred, both readings occurring on a single day – raising “serious concerns about the legislative process and the intent behind such haste”. A spokesperson for the EU Commission told POLITICO last Thursday that while the EU is aware of the amendment, they were unable to comment. The spokesperson however reiterated that the Commission “remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling discrimination, inequalities and challenges faced by LGBTIQ individuals.”
In the Courts
Last Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court rejected Shamima Begum’s permission to further appeal the removal of her British citizenship. Ms Begum appealed on four grounds: trafficking, invoking Article 4 ECHR; deprivation of the right to make representations; a failure to ensure good community relations, required per s.149 of the Equality Act; and de facto statelessness. Permission to appeal was refused on all four grounds, concluding that “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”. In response to the ruling, Maya Foa, director of human rights NGO Reprieve, has stated that “exiling British nationals like Ms Begum is about politics, not the law”. The decision signifies the exhaustion of Ms Begum’s legal remedies in the UK. However, Ms Begum’s lawyers told the BBC that they intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The Dublin High Court found last week that the Irish Government’s treatment of asylum seekers breaches the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell stated in judgment that in failing to support the accommodation needs of applicants for asylum, “the State has breached the rights of those persons as provided for in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” – the right to human dignity. It was held that central to respecting the human rights of asylum seekers is the maintenance of “an adequate standard of living which guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health where they do not have the means to provide for themselves”.The judgment has been welcomed by the UN Refugee Agency, who have now called on the Irish Government to take “immediate action”. The Court did, however, decline to grant the mandatory orders sought by the applicants, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, on the basis that it was not satisfied that there was evidence the Government would ignore its obligations.
US federal judge Mark Walker ruled last Thursday in Claire v Florida DMS that Florida’s ban on transgender healthcare access for state employees violates their civil rights. Florida has had a categorical ban on coverage of healthcare for “gender reassignment or modification services or supplies” of state employees for decades, which has now been found to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a form of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex since it denies transgender employees coverage for medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria. Quoting a judgment from 2020, Judge Walker reiterated that “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex” as “the first cannot happen without the second”. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the judgment in a press release, with Staff Attorney Samantha Past stating that “discrimination has no place” in Florida. The ACLU “are hopeful that this decision will encourage a commitment from the state to treating members of the transgender community with the respect they deserve”.
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.
Despite the Leveson Report, the Daily Mail’s brief flirtation with the Human Rights Act has not even lasted a month. This article by Home Affairs Correspondent Jack Doyle (Twitter: @jackwdoyle) is a weird one, even by the Mail’s standards. Here is the headline:
£500,000 a week in legal aid for prisoners’ human rights claims: YOU pay for them to seek easier life or early release
Clear, right? We are apparently spending £26m per year on prisoners’ human rights claims. And here is the first line:
Taxpayers are handing nearly £500,000 a week in legal aid to prisoners to help them make human rights claims.
That’s sounds like a lot of money to spend on prisoners’ human rights claims! But wait, there’s more… Continue reading →
This post is adapted from a presentation given at the Justice Human Rights Law Conference, and will be split into four parts.
I aim to summarise the most important judicial review cases concerning Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the ECHR during the last year. I have also included two other cases of interest, although they cannot be categorised under any of these Articles. Today, Article 2: the right to life (click here for previous posts on the right to life).
The substantive Article 2 duty owed to mental patients
The CA have clarified the scope and application of Savage. The HL in Savage had left unclear – to say the least – whether its finding that an operational ‘Osman’ type duty applied to a compulsorily detained mental patient extended to a voluntary mental patient.
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 →
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, updated each day, can be found here.
by Melinda Padron
Beginning with sad news, Lord Alan Rodger of Earlsferry, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, died yesterday. A detailed obituary has been published by HeraldScotland.
Last week Ken Clarke’s criminal justice system reform proposals were hit by a change of mind/u-turn (or as Prime Minister David Cameron put it, ‘a sign of strength’) on the part of Government. The most radical features of the proposed criminal justice reforms were dropped, chiefly amongst them the attempt to increase the 33% discount to sentences for guilty pleas to 50%. The move was arguably made as a result of public consultations and in particular pressure from the tabloid press. The announcement came alongside the publication of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Joshua Rozenberg gives a brief outline of some of the new proposals which seek to lower the statistics on reoffending.
Lord Phillips, former Supreme Court President, gave a thoughtful speech at Kings College on whether human rights are a “force for good or a threat to democracy”. He expressed quite significant concerns over some recent Strasbourg decisions on jurisdiction, prisoner votes etc. (you know the drill – see Rosalind’s post on the other senior judges/former judges speaking their minds).
The conclusion he reaches, on balance but also with “no hesitation” is that “Europe needs the Convention and Europe needs the Court. … Strasbourg is a powerful force for good.”
I really must do a chart of the senior judiciary and ex-judiciary’s positions on Strasbourg. They are falling over themselves to express a view.
It’s time for 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, updated each day, can be found here.
by Graeme Hall
In the news:
Joshua Rozenberg, critical of the decision to appoint Jonathan Sumption QC to the Supreme Court, reports that Parliament is consulting on whether it should intervene in judicial appointments. Indeed, a guardian.co.uk Editorial has suggested that the best way for the judiciary to defend itself against accusations by Parliament of over-stepping its authority, is to make itself more diverse. Adam Wagner has previously blogged about the (lack of) diversity in the upper echelons of the judiciary and has also published a two-part series on the power of unelected judges here and here.
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.
by Wessen Jazrawi
In the news
Glenn Mulcaire lost his appeal before the Supreme Court in the phone-hacking scandal this week. He was appealing orders that he answer questions relating to his activities, including questions concerning the identity of the person instructing him to intercept the messages, on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination. In other news, the CPS has issued new guidance in rape and murder cases, and 1 Crown Office Row is recruiting to fill one third-six pupillage vacancy.
1 Crown Office Row recruiting
1 Crown Office Row is recruiting to fill one third-six pupillage vacancy – the deadline is Wednesday 11 July at 4 pm. See here for further details, including how to apply.
McLoughlin, R v [2014] EWCA Crim 188 (18 February 2014) – read judgment
The Court of Appeal has today ruled that judges can continue to impose whole life orders in accordance with Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
On the facts of two individual cases, the Court increased the sentence of Ian McLaughlin to one of a whole life term for the murder of Graham Buck. The Court dismissed an appeal by Lee Newell against his whole life order for the murder of Subhan Anwar.
The following is based on the Court of Appeal’s press summary. Continue reading →
Art.3 European Convention on Human Rights provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
This provision corresponds with Art.4 of the EU Charter which has the same wording.
Theoretically, treatment must reach an intense level of severity for a challenge under this provision to succeed. The Strasbourg authorities originally set a high threshold for treatment falling within the scope of Art.3 ; it must exceed “a certain roughness of treatment” (The Greek Case (1969) Application Nos 00003321-3/67, 11 YbK of the ECHR 501).
In principle the rule is that conditions in the home State, however appalling, do not engage the responsibility of the deporting country. However, Art. 3 is often cited in deportation and asylum cases and allegations of institutional “torture” and “degrading treatment” in the receiving states, advanced by intervening NGOs, are hard to disprove.
Following the judgment in D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423, that an HIV patient could not be returned to a state of origin where medical treatment was inadequate, Art. 3 has been extended to cover conditions of impoverishment and social decay in non-Convention states. In R(Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v Home Secretary [2005] UKHL 66 the House of Lords applied this extended right to overrule legislation denying social support to asylum seekers who fail to submit their claims as soon as “reasonably practicable”. That the denial of social support was deemed to amount to torture and inhuman treatment shows how far the Convention has developed its reach as a social and economic rights instrument, where claims to social services, accommodation and a high standard of medical care can be made out under the prohibition that was drafted into the Convention in order to prevent the repeat of the sort of atrocities perpetrated in Nazi Germany. Indeed, in 2008 the Strasbourg Court stated in terms that the prohibtion on deportation extends to
the expulsion of any person afflicted with any serious, naturally occurring physical or mental illness which may cause suffering, pain and reduced life expectancy and require specialised medical treatment which may not be so readily available in the applicant’s country of origin or which may be available only at substantial cost.(N v UK, 27 May 2008)
The Strasbourg Court has recently started to distinguish “torture” from “inhuman and degrading treatment” as separate elements of Article 3 although the results in practice are the same. In the case of Gäfgen v. Germany (1 June 2010) the Grand Chamber considered that police officers threatening the applicant imminent pain for the purpose of extracting information constituted “inhuman treatment” falling within the scope of Article 3. But they also held that this method of interrogation did not reach the level of cruelty to attain the threshold of torture under that provision. On the other hand, the bar for offending treatment may being set somewhat lower according to more recent case law from Strasbourg. For example, the Court found degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 when a person was deprived of his spectacles (Slyusarev v Russia 20 April 2010) even though there was no evidence of impairment to the eyes caused by the delayed replacement. The fact that the applicant could not read or write normally was sufficient to amount to treatment in breach of Art.3. When riot police burst into schools used as shelters by G8 protestors and meted out punishment with riot sticks, this was found to have reached the level of torture under Art.3: Cesaro v Italy, 7 April 2015. Where a prisoner with chronic health conditions and a medical note recommending the avoidance of cigarettes was confined almost all day in overcrowded cells where the other occupants smoked, the passive smoking element was relevant in the finding of conditions incompatible with Art. 3 (Florea v Romania 14 September 2010). The Court has also stated that states are under an obligation to take measures to protect prisoners from passive smoking where their state of health so requires (Elefteriadis v Romania, 25 January 2011).
Article 3 imposes an obligation on the state to ensure the health and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, although they are not expected to provide equivalent health care in prisons as compared with the outside world (Aleksanyan v Russia, 22 December 2008). In McGlinchey v UK the failure by the prison medical staff to properly monitor the state of the applicant, who was vomiting repeatedly under withdrawal symptoms, and suffering from dehydration, disclosed treatment in breach of Article 3 (29 April 2003). Outside the prison walls there is less case law, and the threshold is higher; for example lack of access by cancer patients to potentially life-saving experimental drugs which were not yet authorised did not amount to treatment in breach of Art.3 (Hristozov v Bulgaria, 13 November 2012). Leaving an asylum seeker to fend for himself on the street for over a year, without provision for shelter, food or other needs, breached Art.3 in MSS v Greece and Belgium (2011).
Domestic courts may be rowing back from their earlier generous approach to Article 3 claims – see R (on the application of EW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2009] EWHC 2957 and our post on the case. More recently, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that foreign nationals may be removed from the UK even where their lives will be drastically shortened due to a lack of healthcare in their home states. Removal in those circumstances does not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR except in the most exceptional cases (GS (India) and Ors v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 40. D v UK is rarely followed in current times, as signatory states’ medical and social services become more pressed and cash strapped.
However it remains the case that Article 3 has been interpreted to cover not only state sponsored persecution but the acts of private individuals as well, since it obliges governments not to return or deport anyone to a destination country where they might be exposed to danger, whether at the hands of state agents or rebel groups. This interpretation of Article 3 has prevented the deportation of a convicted armed robber to Somali because of the risk that he might get caught up in the civil war there – see Ahmed v Austria (1997) 24 EHRR 278.
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 set a strong precedent for preventing states from deporting individuals to countries where they risk treatment in breach of Article 3. In Saadi v Italy (2008) No. 37201/06 the Court emphasised that Art.3 imposes an obligation not to extradite or expel any person who, in the receiving country, would run the real risk of being subjected to inhumane treatment. The conduct of the person concerned, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be taken into account. The prospect that he may pose a serious threat to the community if not returned does not reduce in any way the degree of risk of ill treatment that the person may be subject to on return. In Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2012] ECHR 56 the Court accepted that the UK and the Jordanian governments had made genuine efforts to provide detailed assurances that the applicant would not be ill treated on his return to Jordan; although in fact the applicant won on the basis of Article 6, as the Court found that he faced a flagrant denial of his right to a fair trial if deported.
The Strasbourg Court has also attracted criticism from high places for applying Article 3 to the way Parliament regulates the “reasonable chastisement” of children by their parents in the home (A v UK (1999) 27 EHRR 611).
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.
MM and AO (a child), R(on the application of) v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) – read judgment
Despite the 
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, updated each day, can be 
Two fascinating speeches to recommend.
It’s time for 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, updated each day, can be 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly bulletin of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Recent comments