Search Results for: prisoners/page/27/ministers have been procrastinating on the issue, fearing that it will prove unpopular with the electorate.
24 March 2025 by Rosalind English
Non-human animals lack agency. They’re not legal entities. They’re mere possessions, like furniture. Of course, there are laws around to stop us trashing them like furniture. How well those laws are enforced is a big question. Another challenge is the purpose for which these animals are kept. Companion animals enjoy much better protection under the law than animals kept for commercial purposes such as food. When this country left the EU the recognition of animal sentience under Article 13 of the EU Treaty was not kept as part of retained EU law. The government at the time made it clear that the reason that they didn’t want to retain it is because they wanted to do something different. And that is the recognition of animal consciousness in the Animal Welfare (Sentience Act) 2022 with a committee that is dedicated to looking at policy and deciding whether ministers have had due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings in formulating that policy.
Has this legislation made any difference to the animals hidden from sight in the farming industry? In Episode 217 of Law Pod UK Rosalind English talks to Edie Bowles of the Animal Law Foundation and Dr Rachel Dunn from Leeds Beckett University, both experts in this area, about the difficulties of compliance and enforcement of animal welfare legislation and the general hoodwinking of the purchasing public by misleading labelling and misinformation about farmed animals in the media.
Here is a short animation from the German studio Kurzgesagt which is rich in information on the subject of food animals: This is not an anti-meat video
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 January 2011 by Adam Wagner
Don't get fired
The future of the employment tribunal system is under review by the coalition government, and the players who are to win and lose from the changes are setting out their positions.
Depending on where you stand, the employment tribunal system is either a refuge for greedy lawyers and scurrilous claimants, or an essential bulwark against workplace abuses. In reality, like the rest of the court system, it can be both but is usually something in between. As such, the coalition should consider its options carefully, and listen to both sides of the debate, before making any decisions on reform.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 June 2015 by Thomas Raine
Main v Scottish Ministers [2015] CSIH 41, 22nd May 2015 – read judgment
The Court of Session’s appeal chamber – the Inner House – has had to decide whether the scheme of indefinite notification requirements for sexual offenders in Scotland is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
11 July 2017 by Rosalind English
Campaign against Arms Trade, R(on the application of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade [2017] EWHC 1754 (Admin) – read judgment
Angus McCullough QC acted as Special Advocate supporting the Claimant in this case. He is not associated with the writing of this post.
A challenge to the legality of UK’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia has failed. The claim sprang from the conflict in Yemen and the border areas of Saudi Arabia. It focussed on airstrikes conducted by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia in support of the legitimate government of Yemen against the Shia-led Houthi rebellion. UK arms export policy states that the government must deny licenses for sale of arms to regimes if there is a ‘clear risk’ that the arms ‘might’ be used in ‘a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law. This in turn is based on the EU Common Position 2008/944/CFSP on arms export control, which explicitly rules out the authorising of arms licences by Member States in these “clear risk” circumstances.
The claimant argued that the body of evidence available in the public domain not only suggested but dictated the conclusion that such a clear risk exists. It was therefore no longer lawful to license the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.
The High Court dismissed their claim. The CAAT intends to appeal this decision.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
13 September 2022 by Matthew Johnson
In the news
One of the first decisions taken by the new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has been to halt Dominic Raab’s Bill of Rights plan. The bill would have given legal supremacy to the UK Supreme Court, explicitly entitling it to disregard rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The bill is now ‘unlikely to progress in its current form’, a Whitehall source of the BBC has expressed, leaving doubt over whether Raab’s attempts to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 will materialise. Vice President of the Law Society, Lubna Shuja, said that ‘the only smart way to proceed would be to go back to the advice of the independent review it [the Government] commissioned.’
The legal challenge against the Rwanda asylum plan is being heard before the High Court. While the trial is ongoing, and no judgment will be handed down for some time, the Government’s legal arguments defending the plan are now known. Part of the defence advanced by Lord Pannick KC, counsel for the Government, relies on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, which confers on ministers the power to send asylum seekers to safe countries. If they are of the opinion the asylum seekers will be safe and not put in danger, the Home Secretary can transfer them to other states. The main hurdle for the Government in this defence will be the UN Refugee Agency’s declaration that Rwanda is an unsafe place for migrants. The Court has asked for a detailed response to this critical point.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
20 October 2025 by Benjamin Savill
In the news
The International Federation for Human Rights (Féderation Internationale pour les droits humains, FIDH) has published a report sharply critical of French, German, UK and US state and media responses to pro-Palestine movements between October 2023 and September 2025, in what it calls “a profound crisis”, “not only under authoritarian regimes, but also in liberal democracies that have long claimed to uphold human rights.” Co-signed by the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (France), the Center for Constitutional Rights (US) and the Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland), the report compares “violations to the rights of freedom of opinion and expression” across the four jurisdictions, particularly through what it perceives as direct and indirect media censorship and “systematic bias in reporting”; “violations against activists, NGOs, and civil society”; “violations against academic freedom”; and restrictions to “freedoms of peaceful assembly and association” (with blanket bans on protests in France and Germany coming under particular criticism for failing to meet tests of necessity and proportionality). FIDH claims that diverse measures “directly violat[ing] international human rights obligations… have created a widespread chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate” in the countries concerned, “further undermining democratic participation and the voices of minority groups.” Among the report’s recommendations directed at the UK are a review of public nuisance orders, and the creation of an independent body to oversee police practices during demonstrations, based on the model of the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland.
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, has published two separate letters on human rights concerns in the UK: one regarding protest policing, the other the “situation of trans people”. The first letter, addressed to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, notes the “ever more prominent” policing of protests in the UK since the Commissioner’s visit in July. It urges a “comprehensive review of the current legislation on the policing of protests within the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations” (referring specifically to the Terrorism Act 2000, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023). Further concerns are expressed about the prohibitions of assemblies “in the vicinity of a place of worship” and of the wearing of masks in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently before the House of Lords. In the second letter, addressed to the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Women and Equalities Committee, O’Flaherty draws attention to the guidance provided by Strasbourg case law on the rights of trans people: “this is particularly important as the Supreme Court [in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16] did not engage with these human rights issues.” Speaking of the fallout of the Supreme Court case, the Commissioner warns against “a tendency to see the human rights of different groups of people as a zero-sum game. This has contributed to narratives which build on prejudice against trans people and portray upholding their human rights as a de facto threat to the rights of others.”
In the courts
The Home Secretary has lost her appeal against the decision to grant one of the founders of Palestine Action permission for judicial review of the group’s proscription under the Terrorism Act. In R (Huda Ammori) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311, Lady Carr CJ held that the fact there was a route open for Palestine Action to seek “deproscription” through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission did not rule out a challenge to the original proscription by way of judicial review. “We consider that the fact that judicial review would be a more expeditious means of challenging the Order, given the public importance of issues raised, and, in particular, the fact that persons were facing convictions for acting in ways that were made criminal as a consequence of the Order, justified using judicial review” ([59]). The Court of Appeal also granted Ms Ammori permission to apply for two further grounds of review: that the Home Secretary failed to have regard to relevant considerations, and that she did not follow her published policy. These are in addition to the two grounds already permitted by the High Court on 30 July: that the Home Secretary’s Order was unlawful as a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention (freedom of expression and assembly), and that the Home Secretary should have consulted Palestine Action before making the Order, and by failing to do so was in breach of natural justice and Article 6 of the Convention (right to fair trial). The judicial review hearing is due to commence at the High Court on 25 November.
Like this:
Like Loading...
25 April 2025 by Jennifer Zhou
In UK News:
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The appeal in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 concerned revised statutory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The revised guidance defines ‘woman’ as including a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate. These Certificates are issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) and change the recipient’s gender ‘for all purposes’ (section 9(1)); however, the GRA 2004 also provides that s9(1) can be disapplied by other legislation. This was termed a ‘carve out’ power in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The Supreme Court held that the carve out applies to the EA 2010. In interpreting EA 2010, the Court looked to which definition of sex would make its provisions coherent and workable. A certificated-sex approach would create two sub-groups within the transgender community: those with a GRC would be entitled to greater rights than those without. The Court saw ‘no good reason’ why Parliament would intend this inequality of status. The Court also anticipated that parties seeking to fulfil their bifurcated duties under the EA 2010 would also face practical difficulties: there is no obvious outward difference between trans people with and without a GRC, and duty-bearers cannot ask whether a GRC has been obtained because it is confidential information.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
1 July 2014 by Guest Contributor
Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading. Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.
Metaphors were rife. Descriptions of the Government’s proposals ranged from Lord Woolf’s invocation of the image of Governmental wolves among some unlikely judicial sheep, to the titular and topical tennis imagery used with devastating effect by Lord Brown of Eaton –under-Heywood:
“More and more areas of our lives are controlled by public authorities. At the same time we have become understandably, I suggest, less trusting and certainly less deferential towards those with authority over us. I sometimes wonder whether it did not all start with John McEnroe’s outraged questioning of line calls at Wimbledon way back in the 1970s. However, we should consider how in the long run his behaviour has contributed to the hugely improved policing of those lines that is in operation today…By the same token, the use of judicial review has to my mind undoubtedly raised the standards of public decision-making in recent years.” (Col 1591)
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
19 May 2025 by Jennifer Zhou
In UK News:
The Prime Minister vowed to stop Britain from becoming an “island of strangers” as the government released its immigration White Paper. Key measures include: increasing the threshold for skilled worker visas; only allowing a narrow list of occupations onto the Temporary Shortage List; ending the social care visa route; restricting the ability to bring dependants to Britain; and increasing English language requirements for visa holders and dependants.
The Assisted Dying Bill has returned to Parliament; if approved, it would allow terminally ill adults with less than 6 months to live to commit medically assisted suicide. In the committee stage, over 500 amendments to the Bill were considered and about a third approved. The changes include removing the need for High Court approval and increasing the commencement period from 2 years to 4. A second debate is scheduled for 13 June. If you want to hear more about the AD bill, particularly its “six month” clause and what that will mean in practice, tune in to Law Pod UK Episode 218 and Episode 219.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
6 April 2013 by David Hart KC
Julius Kloiber Schlachthof GMBH and others v. Austria, ECtHR, 4 April 2013, read judgment
These ECtHR decisions are the latest in a number of claims by slaughterhouses that their rights were infringed by the exaction of a surcharge by the Austrian national agricultural board. The Court decided that (a) the process of surcharging by administrative bodies engaged the criminal part of Article 6 and (b) the Austrian courts hearing appeals against the surcharges did not have the jurisdiction to carry out a “full review” of the decision to surcharge; only that way could one turn the combination of administrative decision and court decision into a decision by a “tribunal” complying with Article 6.
Now to unpack these complex but important ECtHR rules, and to look at how they play out domestically.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 January 2012 by Rosalind English
Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom – read judgment | updated (7/2/2012): Abu Qatada is expected to be released from Long Lartin maximum security jail within days. the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) ruled on Monday that Qatada should be freed, despite the Home Office saying he continued to pose a risk to national security.
Angus McCullough QC appeared for Abu Qatada as his Special Advocate in the domestic proceedings before SIAC, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. He is not the author of this post.
The Strasbourg Court has ruled today that whilst diplomatic assurances may protect a suspected terrorist from torture, he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him.
The following summary is based on the Court’s press release.
The applicant, Omar Othman (Abu Qatada), is a Jordanian national, currently detained in Long Lartin prison. He is suspected of having links with al-Qaeda.He arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1993 and made a successful application for asylum, in particular on the basis that he had been detained and tortured by the Jordanian authorities in 1988 and 1990-1. He was recognised as a refugee in 1994, being granted leave to remain until June 1998.
While his subsequent application for indefinite leave to remain was pending, he was detained in October 2002 under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. When that Act was repealed in March 2005, he was released on bail and made subject to a control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. While his appeal against the control order was still pending, in August 2005 he was served with a notice of intention to deport him to Jordan.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 March 2020 by Thomas Hayes
NHS Staff. Credit: The Guardian.
Thomas Hayes is a specialist registrar in vascular surgery and forthcoming pupil at 1 Crown Office Row
As teased earlier, the Covid-19 pandemic gives rise to such a volume of material as to justify a slightly more detailed examination of its consequences. In time, the response of governments across the globe to the disease will no doubt be the subject of detailed study by academics across the fields of biology, history and law. For the time being, however, blog readers will have to tolerate the following words of speculation, much of which will probably suffer the cruel fate of being shown to be out of date and/or inaccurate within hours of publication…
The government has announced its intention to bring before Parliament this week emergency laws to help control the outbreak. Whilst at the time of writing, such draft legislation had not been published, press reports suggested it would include new powers to allow the police to detain those breaking quarantine measures. Where the police might take such recalcitrant citizens is not known, however the prospect of detaining in close proximity those suspected of carrying the highly infectious airborne disease presumably fills neither the police nor public health officials with much joy…
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 June 2011 by Rosalind English
In her lecture at Gresham College last week Baroness Hale speculated how high the human rights tree might grow before it presents a threat to the surrounding constitutional ecosystem. Our words, not hers, but she preferred the arboreal image to the more established but inherently nonsensical notion of a “living instrument” as an expression of the Convention’s adaptability over time. This tree, she suggested, should not be allowed to transmogrify in to a gigantic beanstalk, crashing through the sky, inspiring false dreams and unrealisable ambitions.
The seeds of this tree – or treacherous beanstalk, whichever way one prefers to look at it – were sown in the seventies when the Strasbourg Court chose a “purposive” rather than a literal construction of the language used in the Convention. This means that judges enforcing the norms of the Convention need not confine themselves to the terms as stated or clearly implicit in the written text, nor to the purpose that might be derived from the preparatory materials and the historical context. Thus in the landmark case of Golder v United Kingdom, the Court ruled that Article 6 not only conferred an explicit right to a fair trial but implied that citizens should be granted the right of access to justice, something that could not be discovered within the four corners of the Convention as a document.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 January 2022 by Rajkiran Barhey
In R (Morahan) v West London Assistant Coroner [2021] EWHC 1603 (Admin), the Divisional Court provided detailed guidance on the circumstances in which an enhanced investigation under Article 2 ECHR may be required at an inquest.
Facts
Tanya Morahan had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and harmful cocaine use. From mid-May 2018 she was an inpatient at a rehabilitation unit operated by the Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust. She was initially detained under s.3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 but on 25 June 2018 the section was rescinded. On 30 June 2018 Tanya left the unit but didn’t return until the next evening, 1 July. On the afternoon of 3 July 2018, again with her doctors’ agreement, she left the ward but didn’t return. The Trust asked the police to visit her. They visited on 4 July 2018 but she did not answer the door. She was ultimately found dead on 9 July 2018. [para 2].
Background
The Coroner opened an inquest and found that Article 2 was not engaged. The family brought judicial review proceedings, arguing that: (1) the circumstances of Tanya’s death fell within a class of cases which gave rise to an automatic duty to conduct a Middleton inquest; (2) alternatively, that such duty arose because there were arguable breaches of a substantive operational duty (the Osman duty) owed by the Trust to take steps to avert the real and immediate risk of Tanya’s death by accidental drug overdose, a risk which was or ought to have been known to the Trust. [para 3].
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
27 October 2013 by Adam Wagner
Yesterday saw another poor piece of human rights reporting from the Telegraph, again from Home Affairs Correspondent David Barrett. Strasbourg human rights court threatens key counter-terrorism powers. It is a typical piece of hall-of-mirrors reporting; all of the basic elements are there but presented in a distorted and inaccurate way.
The piece is about the case of Sabure Malik, a British investment banker who was stopped by police in 2010 at Heathrow on his way back from an organised package tour to undertake the Hajj. Full details of his case, which is supported by Liberty, are in the Euoprean Court of Human Rights’ admissibility decision here. It was granted permission to proceed in May 2013, well before the David Miranda controversy which took place in August.
I’ll take this shortly.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments