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]
The bandstand on Clapham Common, fenced off while people use the area for daily exercise. Photograph: Guy Bell/REX/Shutterstock. Credit: The Guardian.
Needless to say, the impact of Covid-19 dominated all aspects of life over the past seven days. Given that the week saw the Prime Minister admitted to intensive care with the virus before ultimately being discharged home, this is unlikely to be much of a revelation. The UK Human Rights Blog has published many articles looking in detail at some of the legal challenges posed by Covid-19 and the Government’s response to the pandemic. Of note this week:
Dominic Ruck Keene looks at potential legal challenges to Government policy in respect of coronavirus – here;
Robert Craig considers whether the Coronavirus Regulations might be ultra vires – here;
Darragh Coffey explores the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 – here;
Rosalind English reviews a paper published by the Society of Conservative Lawyers on the consequences of coronavirus for the traditional principle of rule of law – here;
The Royal College of Nurses issued guidance to its members advising them that they could “as a last resort” refuse to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 if they are not given adequate personal protective equipment; and
Police came under increased scrutiny with regards to the exercise of their powers to enforce social distancing measures. The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire had to clarify statements that suggested officers may resort to checking the trolleys of grocery shoppers to determine if items purchased were “essential” or not.
Singh and Khalid v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 74 – read judgment
These two appeals concern the assessment of article 8 ECHR claims in immigration cases. It is an important addition to the current cases on which rules apply to applications for leave to enter or remain made before the new Immigration Rules came into force on 9 July 2012. In Singh and Khalid, the Court of Appeal clarified the answer to this question and resolved the conflicting Court of Appeal authority in Edgehill v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 402 and Haleemudeen v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 558.
The new Immigration Rules
The role of article 8 in immigration cases has caused controversy over the years.
The government has therefore decided to set out how the balancing exercise should be carried out by introducing HC194. Two main additions were made through the new Rules. The first was that paragraph 276ADE was added to the existing Part 7. This provision increased the long-term residence requirement from 14 to 20 years. The second was that Appendix FM was added to Part 8 of the Rules. It dealt with circumstances in which family members would be granted leave to enter or remain. Continue reading →
Join Rosalind English in Episode 211 as she discusses with Lucy McCann and Jonathan Metzer of 1 Crown Office Row the cases that have been decided at all levels in the courts in 2024 that have had, or will have, important implications for practitioners and litigants in fields ranging from children in care through anonymity in medical negligence to the forfeiture of property under the Suicide Act 1961 in the light of the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill. The cases we talk about include the following:
HXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52 (abuse, failure to remove and Article 3)
AB (by the Official Solicitor) v Worcestershire County Council and Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 529 (local authority liability under Article 3)
Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd [2024] EWHC 2265 (KB) (inquests, Article 2 and private care homes)
PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB) (anonymisation in clinical negligence cases)
Abbasi and Haastrup (conjoined cases) [2023] EWCA Civ 331 (reporting restriction orders, anonymisation of professionals in medical treatment cases)
Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2022] EWCA Civ 12 (psychiatric injury or “nervous shock)
Tindall & Anor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33 (23 October 2024) (police Liability)
N v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25 (duty of care of public authorities)
Philip Morris v James Morris, Kate Shmuel and Gregory White [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch) (assisted dying and the Forfeiture Act)
McKleenon, re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) 2024 UKSC 31 (judicial review and remedies)AB
By the end of 2024, Law Pod UK has gained 940K listens. We aim to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly buffet 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
A mixed bag this week: Theresa May remained in the news over Abu Qatada, a number of people blogged on the Brighton Declaration, and the issue of cameras and tweeting in court was high on the agenda. Closer to home, a team from 1 Crown Office Row is walking the London Legal Walk to raise funds for the London Legal Support Trust, the Free Representation Unit and the Bar Pro Bono Unit, so if you like the UKHRB, please sponsor them here.
R (on the application of Jollah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1260 – read judgment
The Court of Appeal has upheld an award of damages for false imprisonment in the context of immigration detention. The Court found that an unlawful curfew which required residence at a specific address between specific hours each day and which was backed by the threat of criminal sanctions and electronic tagging gave rise to the tort of false imprisonment.
Background law and facts
The claimant was released from prison in 2013 and then detained in an immigration centre. He was then released on bail which came with restrictions on where he could live. When the bail period ended, the secretary of state tried to maintain these residence restrictions. She purported to use her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 Schedule 3 Paragraph 2(5) to impose a curfew on the claimant which required him to stay at his home address between 11pm and 7am every day. The claimant was fitted with an electronic tag and told that he would face a fine or imprisonment if a court found that he did not comply with the terms of the curfew. This curfew was in place for two and a half years, from February 2014 until July 2016. Continue reading →
A A O v Entry Clearance Officer [2011] EWCA Civ 840 – read judgment
1 Crown Office Row’s Sarabjit Singh appeared for the Respondent in this case. He is not the writer of this post.
“No”, seems to be the Court of Appeal’s answer to the question posed by the heading above; indeed Rix LJ goes as far to say that “the provision of such money can be as much an insulation against family life as evidence of it.”
In this case the appellant, a 69 year old Somalian national who had been living in Kenya, appealed against the respondent entry clearance officer’s refusal to grant her leave to enter the UK to join her daughter. The daughter, who sponsored this claim, had been granted British citizenship. She had seven children and was living on benefits, out of which she sent a monthly contribution to her mother. The appellant, who was said to be in poor health and dependent on a neighbour for daily care, had applied for indefinite leave to join her daughter as a relative and financial dependant of a person settled in the UK under the Immigration Rules r.317. The entry clearance officer refused her request, having found that she did not satisfy r.317(iva) in respect of her ability to be maintained without recourse to public funds and that any interference with her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was justified and proportionate for the purpose of maintaining effective immigration control. Continue reading →
Re: W (A child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140 – read judgment
Summary
A Family Court judgment was severely critical of two witnesses and the applicant local authority. In an oral “bullet point” judgment at the end of the hearing, the Judge found that the witnesses, a social worker (‘SW’) and a police officer (‘PO’), had improperly conspired to prove certain allegations regardless of the truth, or professional guidelines.
Those matters were not in issue before the court or put to those concerned. Limited amendments were subsequently made to the judgment following submissions by those criticised. Unsatisfied, they went to the Court of Appeal.
The Court considered (1) whether they were entitled to appeal at all (2) whether their appeal based on Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention succeeded and (3) the appropriate remedy.
The Court held that the appellants’ Convention rights had been breached by the manifestly unfair process in the court below, so they had a right to appeal under the Human Rights Act 1998. The defective judgment was not cured by the amendments, and the findings were struck out.
The judgment addresses some interesting procedural questions regarding appeals. This post focuses mainly on the human rights issues, but the judgment of McFarlane LJ, described as “magisterial” by Sir James Munby, merits reading in full.
There has, in recent years, been a proliferation of case law on appeals against deportation by foreign national criminals on grounds of private and family life. The statutory scheme is complex enough, but the various tests (“unduly harsh”, “very compelling circumstances”) have also been subject to extensive judicial gloss, leaving practitioners and judges to wade through a confusing sea of alphabet-country soup case names.
It will come as welcome news, then, that the Court of Appeal has greatly simplified things by encouraging tribunals to focus on just a handful of key authorities. In doing so, it has also somewhat softened the approach to determining whether separating a foreign national criminal from his settled child or partner is “unduly harsh.”
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular festive trifle of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can find previous roundups here. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Celia Rooney.
This week, the Church of Scientology registered a win of sorts in the Supreme Court, while London’s biggest university said no to occupational student protests just as others were contemplating the possibility of gender-segregated talks Meanwhile, the Home Secretary puts forward her answer to modern day slavery, while the Joint Committee on Human Rights puts pressure on Chris Grayling regarding the proposed legal aid reforms.
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
It’s been an interesting week for freedom of expression issues, and its Article 10 ECHR counterpart, freedom of information, with judgments from the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has also produced his first (and last) report on the operation of Control Orders. In other news, the NGO community commented on the UK’s Draft Brighton Declaration on reform of the European Court of Human Rights, the closed-material procedures received a rare show of support and the Government issued a consultation on same-sex marriage.
A historic deal has been agreed at the United Nation’s Cop27 summit which will provide funding to vulnerable countries to cope with the impact of climate change. The final cover document did not include commitments to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The deal also used new ambiguous language about “low emissions energy” which experts suggest could refer to fossil fuels including gas.
There has been an investigation following the appearance of sexual abuse victims’ personal details on the Suffolk Police website. Police and crime commissioner Tim Passmore issued an “unreserved apology” for the breach. The published information included victims’ names, addresses, dates of birth and details of the offences committed against them.
On Monday 14 November, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a report which including 302 recommendations demanding that the UK must tackle rising poverty. The report follows new figures revealing that four million children in households on universal credit face big cuts in income if benefits are not increased in line with inflation. Oxfam and the Healthcare Trade Unison, amongst other organisations, have said the UK is “failing to meet its international legal obligations”.
In other news:
The Refugee Council called on ministers to introduce a range of measures to deal with the record delays in processing asylum claims. Currently, government spending is at around £6.8million for housing migrants in hotels. It has also been revealed that at least forty child asylum seekers were placed in a Home Office hotel designated for adults; last month, one child was the victim of a serious stabbing.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has revised its guidance on age-restricted ads online. The new guidelines provide greater protection to children and young people by introducing content, media placement and audience targeting restrictions. The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) provided a principles-based checklists to help limit the exposure of young people and children to age-restricted ads. Advertisers have ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules.
Analysts at the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) revealed they found nearly nine-hundred instances of Category A child sexual abuse material in just five days. The research revealed children as young as seven are being coerced by abusers into filming themselves carrying out the most severe forms of child sexual abuse material. The data publication has been used to highlight the need for the delayed Online Safety Bill.
In the courts
In X, Re (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48, the Court of Protection dismissed an application by X’s parents, V and W, for a declaration that it would be lawful for a doctor to retrieve X’s gametes to be stored both before and after his death, and an order that V may sign the relevant consents in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (“The 1990 Act”). Schedule 3 of the 1990 Act deals with the use or storage of gametes, as does Section 4(1) of the 1990 Act; both stress the importance of consent in order that this activity be effectively regulated. X was potentially to be assessed as brain dead within 24 hours of the hearing. Citing Parrillo v. Italy (Application no. 46470/11) the Court held that the ability to give consent in regards to gametes or embryos constitutes a facet of private life. The Court relied upon K v LBX and others[2012] EWCA Civ 79 in establishing that for an interference with X’s Article 8 rights to be lawful, it must be necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim. Having considered all the circumstances, and applying section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court held that it would not be in X’s best interests to make the declarations sought. The Court was not persuaded that the significant interference with X’s Article 8 rights would be necessary or proportionate.
On 18 November, judgement was handed down in AG (A Child), Re [2022] EWCA Civ 1505. The Court dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court to refuse to make a declaration of incompatibility between certain provisions of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 (DPA) and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR) with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The key issue in the appeal was whether the Divisional Court was right to decide that neither Article 3 nor ECtHR jurisprudence required the UK to breach the VCDR. The Appellant, AG, and her 5 siblings were subjected to abuse by both their parents. Their father was an accredited diplomat at the time and thus had immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state under DPA and the VCDR. Barnet, the London Borough where the family lived, tried to intervene on the children’s behalf, and supported AG in the appeal. The Appellant contended, referencing Z v United Kingdom (Application no. 29392/95), that Article 3 includes a systems duty on the state to take effective measures to prevent private acts of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court were unpersuaded by this. Relying upon Lord Reed’s judgement in R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice[2022] AC 487, the Court held that they could not be confident that the ECtHR would regard the systems duty in Article 3 as overriding the long-established international law principles enshrined in the VCDR and it was not open to the court to declare Article 3 and the VCDR incompatible.
A woman living with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), absence epilepsy and learning difficulties succeeded in a claim for judicial review against the London Borough of Croydon after a deputy High Court judge ruled that the council had failed to meet her needs contrary to the requirements of the Care Act 2014. The claim in P, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Croydon[2022] EWHC 2886 (Admin) contended that the council’s decision to fund 35 hours per week of support was unlawful as it failed to meet her needs, and succeeded on three of four grounds.In relation to Ground 1, the Judge observed that it was arguably unlawful for the Defendant to have set a level of required care in an assessment, and then to have provided a Care and Support Plan making assumptions that the required care could be provided by her parents. Grounds 3 and 4 both concerned a failure to comply with The Care and Support Statutory Guidance. The Court held, referring to the standard of proof established in R (Cava Bien Ltd) v Milton Keynes Council[2021] EWHC 3003, that the Defendant’s apparent failure to asses the level of care which could and would be provided by the Claimant’s parents did make a substantial difference to the outcome of the Claimant’s care assessment. The Court ordered the quashing order of the Defendant’s February 2022 decision to provide or fund 35 hours of support per week, and the Defendant’s Care and Support Plan dated 14 February 2022. With reference to R (CP) v North East Lincolnshire Council[2019] EWCA Civ 1614, the Court maintained that it was not unconcerned with “historic” breaches and the Claimant was entitled to declaratory relief on this aspect of Ground 1.
Rights groups criticise airlines for removals under ‘one in, one out’ scheme
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and 27 other human rights organisations have written letters to four airlines criticising them for providing removal flights under the UK and France’s ‘one in, one out’ pilot scheme.
Under the scheme, which became effective in August 2025, asylum-seekers arriving in the UK from France in small boats can be detained and removed to France for readmission. The UK has a reciprocal obligation to maintain a voluntary application route for qualifying individuals to be transferred legally from France to the UK.
The letters call on the airlines – Air France and three private charter companies – to cease participation in the scheme or face boycotts. They refer to correspondence published earlier in February, in which UN mandate-holders said that the scheme ‘may result in serious violations of international human rights law’ and urged the UK and French governments to end it.
After the flurry of excitement we were treated to earlier in October, last week afforded observers of the Supreme Court and legal news an opportunity to relax and catch their breath. However, the Court of Appeal proved to be a bountiful source of judgements, and reliable as always, Brexit continued to occupy the minds of journalists, politicians and lawyers alike.
However, perhaps the biggest story of the week originated in Pakistan. The case of Asia Bibi raises not only profound questions regarding the protection of human rights in the country, but also more substantial concerns about the rule of law, constitutional balance and ability of the government and courts to impose their will in a nuclear armed state at the forefront of some of the world’s most acute geo-political challenges.
The recently released statistics from the Department for Education showing an increase of 15% in the adoption of looked after children in the last year further highlights the government’s preferred strategy for ensuring the welfare of children in care.
In my recent post, I considered the main thrust of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re B-S which concerned the rigour which was expected of evidence, hearings and Judgments before a Placement Order was made.
However, the Court also dealt with the issue which had concerned Lord Justice McFarlane when he gave permission to appeal namely, where a Court has already made an order that a child may be placed for adoption and that has happened and the prospective adopter has applied for an Adoption Order, in what circumstances can a parent seek to stop it going ahead?
J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & M [2025] EWCA Civ 478 concerns an appeal of a decision by Mrs Justice Lieven. Lieven J had held that there was no need for the High Court to make an order authorising the deprivation of J’s liberty in circumstances where both J’s parents and the local authority consented to the deprivation of liberty.
J is a 14-year-old boy with a number of diagnoses, including autism, ADHD, and Pica. J lives in a specialist children’s home. J is subject to a final care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”). The Court of Appeal spelled out that the “major consequence of any care order is that it gives parental responsibility to the local authority, which is shared with the child’s parent(s), but with the local authority having control over the manner in which parental responsibility is exercised [CA 1989, s 33(3)]”.
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.
The bandstand on Clapham Common, fenced off while people use the area for daily exercise. Photograph: Guy Bell/REX/Shutterstock. Credit: The Guardian.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly buffet of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular festive trifle of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly bulletin of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
The 
Recent comments