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: prisoners/page/36/ministers have been procrastinating on the issue, fearing that it will prove unpopular with the electorate.
The EU’s diplomatic service has warned of “indications” that Israel’s activities in Gaza and the occupied West Bank are “in breach of [its] human rights obligations” to the Union under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The report, due to be presented on 23 June to the foreign ministers of Member States by Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the EU’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is based on “facts verified by and assessments made by independent international institutions”. It follows an audit pushed forward last month by 17 Member States, led by the Netherlands. The Agreement, which came into force in 2000, provides for free trade arrangements between the two parties, currently worth over 42 billion euros a year in goods, and a further c. 35 billion euros in services: the EU is Israel’s top commercial partner. Article 2 of the Agreement states that “Relations between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of the Agreement.” Suspending the Agreement would require the unanimous consent of the EU’s 27 Member States.
The UK Office for Students (OfS) has issued new “free speech” guidelines to universities in England, effectively prohibiting blanket bans on student protests, and putting substantial brakes on the penalisation of students and staff exercising lawful speech. The guidelines anticipate and purport to give clarity to the provisions of delayed Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, now revised and due to come into force this August. The OfS’s new “three step” approach requires universities to take “reasonably practical steps” to “secure free speech” which is “within the law” (= Steps 1 and 2): where this is not possible, it must run a proportionality assessment on any interferences to free speech, following Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (= Step 3). The National Union for Students has dismissed the guidance as “just more nonsense playing into the so-called ‘culture wars’”, with the new regulations failing to the prioritise “protecting and supporting marginalised students.”
In the courts
The Court of Appeal has held that an asylum applicant’s fears of being returned to a jurisdiction which was not a “safe third country” or “safe third State” only affected his rights to appeal if the application were deemed inadmissible: it was “immaterial” to the assessment of an application once admitted. In AAZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 705, a Yemeni national appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Home Secretary’s refusal of his asylum application. The appellant, who had lived in China since the age of one but did not have Chinese nationality, claimed that there had been an error of law in the Tribunal’s allowing his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds with regard to Yemen, but not on humanitarian protection and human rights grounds with regard to China. The appellant argued that, since China was not listed as a “safe third country” under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, the UK was in breach of its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and in contravention of his rights under ECHR Article 3 (prohibition of torture), following the provisions concerning return to a “safe third State” under Part 4A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Bean LJ held that these statutory provisions did not apply to the instant case: “whether a state is a “safe third State” within this new provision only affects rights of appeal”, something not disputed here. The applicant’s risk of ill-treatment if returned to China therefore had to be decided on the basis of evidence relating to his own circumstances. Bean LJ found that the First Tier Tribunal “gave entirely adequate reasons for finding that the test was not satisfied” by the evidence of AAZA, who had spent virtually his whole life in China before coming to the UK as a student: “there was no error of law.” However, the Court held that the appellant might still apply to have his application reconsidered by the Home Secretary, if he could submit fresh evidence that he was at a risk of refoulement from China to Yemen.
In a month in which the Justice Secretary called part of the Home Secretary’s speech on human rights “laughable” and “childlike”, Dominic Grieve presented a refreshingly grown-up argument on human rights reform.
The speech is worth reading in full. Grieve presented the Government’s arguments, most of them already well-known, on why the Human Rights Act needs to be replaced by a Bill of Rights. There were no big surprises; his central theme, subsidiarity, that is the European Court giving member states more space to set their local social policy, is something which the Justice Secretary has spoken about – see my post on his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee.
Hands v Scottish Ministers [2016] CSOH 9, 15th January 2016 – read judgment
The Outer House of the Court of Session has refused a petition for judicial review brought by a convicted murderer against decisions made by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about his prison conditions and supervision level. Continue reading →
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your recommended weekly dose 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.
Commentary on the Eweida Christian cross case continued to dominate legal commentary this week, some of it critical of the European Court of Human Rights. Bloggers have also welcomed the go-live of the Supreme Court’s online archive of judgment summaries. Some interesting cases in the courts this week this week relating to attempts to use the European Convention on Human Rights in a housing dispute, as well as (in a similar vein) a local council’s ability to withhold details of vacant properties from potential squatters. Keep an eye out next week for the publication of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust Public Inquiry on 5th February.
by Daniel Isenberg
If you would like your or your organisation’s response to the Government’s Judicial Review consultation, please email it to Adam Wagner by the end of Monday.
In May 2012, the Home Secretary announced a review of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which came into force a year earlier in April 2011, as an outcome of the Red Tape Challenge. The review is focusing in particular on levels of understanding of the PSED and guidance, the costs and benefits of the duty, how organisations are managing legal risk and ensuring compliance with the duty and what changes, if any, would secure better equality outcomes. It is being overseen by a steering group, appointed by Government Ministers, largely drawn from public authorities.
The Review has recently launched a call for evidence, with a closing date of 12th April 2013. The call is particularly interested in ‘equalities paperwork and policies related to PSED (particularly in relation to public sector procurement processes) and the collection, retention and use of diversity data by public bodies, for example, in relation to goods, facilities and services.’
The Equality and Diversity Forum has produced a helpful briefing on the Review.
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 – Read judgment
Updated – the first two paragraphs of this post have been amended as they were factually inaccurate. Many apologies for this.
Last month, the Court of Appeal decided that the negligence claims of the families of five British soldiers killed or injured on duty in Iraq could go ahead. It would be for the High Court to decide on the facts whether decisions made about troops’ equipment and training fell within the long-standing doctrine of ‘combat immunity’. The appellants were however unsuccessful in arguing that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) applied.
The case concerned claims brought by the families of five men killed or injured in south-east Iraq. Corporal Allbutt was killed and Troopers Twiddy and Julien injured in Challenger II tanks in fratricide, or ‘friendly fire’, incidents on 25 March 2003. Privates Hewett and Ellis and Lance Corporal Redpath were killed in their Snatch Land Rovers by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on 16 July 2005, 28 February 2006 and 9 August 2007 respectively (the ‘Snatch Landrover claims’).
Not only that; the Court concluded that such a reading could still promote the statutory purposes: ” Those purposes can be achieved by a proportionate scheme.”
The biggest story filling the headlines this week was that Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative Party following over 50 resignations from government ministers. Though predominantly a political development, there are potential legal implications to the decision. This is because, until the leadership campaign announces his successor, current policies are stagnated under the ‘lame-duck government’. There is, therefore, doubt over the future of three particularly controversial policies: the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill; the Bill of Rights Bill; and the Rwanda scheme.
The proposed Bill of Rights Bill is Dominic Raab’s effort to replace the Human Rights Act, with the vision to allow the UKSC to take little account of rulings by the ECtHR. While Raab still remains in office, there are question marks over whether the controversial Bill will survive the administrative overhaul that is soon to unfold. See the reference below to the latest episode of Law Pod UK, which discusses the Bill in detail.
Now upheld on appeal, Wednesday 2 April 2025: see the Office of Environmental Protection summary here
Brief Overview
This interesting case concerns a problem endemic to the manner of regulating water bodies under the Water Framework Directive and the regulations passed under it. This is what happened.
The anglers’ group Pickering Fishery Association raised concerns with the Environment Agency regarding the deterioration in the water quality of the Upper Costa Beck (“UCB), a ground water fed stream in North Yorkshire. It is described by the water campaigning group that acted for them in this litigation as “one of the best trout and grayling rivers in Yorkshire”. They owned the leasehold and freehold fishing rights for most of the UCB. The UCB provides water to two fish farms and downstream is the Yorkshire Water’s water treatment works, which discharges back into the UCB.
The claimant’s concerns included the impact of the recorded sewage overflows from Pickering Waste-Water Treatment Works; the level of sediment deposits resulting from the fish farm ‘suspended solids’ emissions; and the adequacy of the Environment Agency’s environmental permit conditions and other controls. Sewerage overflows from the water treatment works occurred over 250 times in 2020 and over 400 times the year before.
R (o.t.a Henderson) v. Secretary of State for Justice, Divisional Court, 27 January 2015 – judgment here
The Court (Burnett LJ giving the sole judgment) has ruled on whether the statutory changes made to the ability of acquitted defendants in the Crown Court to recover their costs from central funds are compatible with the ECHR.
Its answer – an emphatic yes, the new rules are compatible. This conclusion was reached in respect of the two statutory regimes applicable since October 2012, as we shall see.
Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The application is challenging the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Dr. McCloud is seeking a re-hearing of the case, arguing that the initial trial infringed her Article 6 right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr. McCloud sought leave to join the case before the courts in For Women Scotland in light of the impact the ruling could have on transgender individuals with gender recognition certificates (GRCs), but her application was rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, no evidence or representations from the estimated 8,500 individuals who hold GRCs was entered in the original hearing.
Dr. McCloud will be represented by a trans-led legal team in partnership with London’s Trans Legal Clinic.
Facial Recognition Technology and the London Metropolitan Police
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been granted leave to intervene in a judicial review examining whether the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by police complies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ECHR argued that the case of R (Thompson and Carlo) v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis raises important questions of public interest and that the current policy related to the technology is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.
LFRT captures and analyses the faces of individuals walking in front of real-time close- circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Biometric data that is unique to those individuals is then compared to a ‘watchlist’ of persons the police are seeking. The EHRC is concerned with the expansion and development of LFRT in light of the lack of domestic legislation that regulates its use. The Commission will make submissions that the technology is intrusive and will highlight the development of international policy on LFRT and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation.
Parole Futures
A new anthology on the future of parole systems, Parole Futures: Rationalities, Institutions and Practices has been published by the Onati International Series in Law and Society, edited by Harry Annison, Nicola Carr and Thomas Guiney. The book includes insights from 27 world-leading experts on the pressing issues about parole systems around the world, including: Asia; Australia, North and South America, and Europe. The objectives of the anthology is to encourage a ‘systematic and critical reflection’ on parole systems, and to introduce ambitious ‘what if’ thinking ‘about the futures of parole and prison release’.
International News
A United Nations (UN) panel of 11 experts—including six Special Rapporteurs—released a statement expressing concerns over escalating intimidation and censorship of Iran International journalists globally. According to the UN statement, 45 Iran International journalists and staff and 315 of their family members have received credible threats to life or safety. Individuals are located across seven countries: the UK, USA, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and Türkiye. The increase in threats to journalists over the last year coincided with the Iran-Israel conflict of June 2025, with Iranian officials alleging that journalists were acting as spies for Israel.
UK-based journalists have required police protection or re-location within the UK or abroad. Women have also faced additional threats of sexual violence; while family members have been interrogated, surveyed, and threatened with death or arrest.
The UN argues this is a campaign to ‘silence and censor critical reporting and courageous public interest journalism’, and that such intimidation violates the freedom of expression, media and ‘deprives the public of their right to information’.
The UN is urging Iran to immediately cease the threatening and intimidation of journalists and their families, and to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.
In the Courts
The High Court has granted the Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction which will prevent Somani Hotels Limited from continuing to accommodate asylum seeks at the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited ([2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)). The Council argued that the use of the Bell Hotel constituted a material change of use from its classification as a hotel, requiring planning permission, which the Somani Hotels Limited had not obtained.
The High Court acknowledged that the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to provide accommodation, and that this need is growing. However, the ‘balance of convenience’ and the strength of the Council’s case ultimately outweighed the considerations raised by Somani and an interim injunction was granted. Somani Hotels Limited has until September 12, 2025, to comply with the order. There are concerns that other councils may now seek interim injunctions for hotels utilized in their areas. As of March 2025, there were approximately 30K asylum seekers living in hotels.
Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) – Read judgment
A challenge to published guidance for intelligence officers interviewing detainees overseas has been partially successful.
Mr Al Bazzouni and the EHRC argued that the guidance as to what officers should do if they suspect detainees might be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDT”) was unlawful.
The Fisheries Bill 2020, part of the government’s core legislative program on post-Brexit environmental policy, is currently in the House of Lords at committee stage, and is expected to receive royal assent in the coming months (although exactly when is subject to how successfully the House of Lords can adapt to meeting via Microsoft Teams). It would establish Britain’s departure from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) on January 1st 2021, and sets out how fishing rights would work post transition period and CFP.
Given the passion that fishing rights raise, you might be forgiven for thinking that they were absolutely essential to the functioning of the UK and EU economies. In fact, fishing accounts for around 0.1% of both. A joke going around environmental blogs is that green bills are like buses – none come when you need them, then they all arrive at once. Perhaps for the Environment and Agriculture Bills – discussed by me here and here. But the Fisheries Bill feels more like the Brexit Bus than a local routemaster. It promises the repatriation of sovereign powers and gains in the millions by taking back control of our waters, while hiding potential losses in the billions, if issues with fishing rights derail trade negotiations – a slim but real possibility.
Even the most entrenched remainer, however, would have to recognise the multiple failures of the CFP. It has been plagued by mismanaged quotas and outsized lobbying interests since its inception, and it has clearly favoured certain member states over others. The Fisheries Bill has as such been largely well received by environmental groups, such as Greener UK, who comment that the “focus on climate change and sustainability is very helpful”. I’ll start with what the bill actually says, then discuss the EU negotiation position and conclude with a few comments about what the legislation may mean for the future relations.
A High Court judge in South Africa has just taken a stand on the ANC government’s reaction to the pandemic. He has ruled that some of the lockdown regulations do not satisfy the rationality test under public law, and that their encroachment and limitation on the freedoms set out in the South African Bill of Rights are not justified in a society based on “human dignity, equality and freedom as contemplated in Section 36 of the Constitution.”
He drew “clear inference” from the evidence, that once the government had declared a national state of disaster, the goal was to flatten the curve by way of retarding or limiting the spread of the virus (“all very commendable and necessary objectives”). However, “little or in fact no regard” was given to the extent of the impact of individual regulations on the constitutional rights of people and whether the extent of the limitation of their rights was justifiable or not.
His criticism was not that the government should have done nothing in the face of the epidemic, but that they took a cartwheel to crush a butterfly.
The starting point was not “how can we as government limit Constitutional rights in the least possible fashion whilst still protecting the inhabitants of South Africa?” but rather “we will seek to achieve our goal by whatever means, irrespective of the costs and we will determine, albeit incrementally, which Constitutional rights you as the people of south Africa, may exercise”.
Grant Shapps, the Business Secretary, has set out the anti-strike laws that are planned to enforce minimum levels of service during strike action. Under the proposals, some employees would be required to work during a strike and could be fired if they refuse. It would be for the ministers to set the minimum levels of service, and there would be no automatic protection from unfair dismissal in breaching these levels. Unions have criticised the bill for being ‘undemocratic, unworkable, and almost certainly illegal’, and Labour have stated it would repeal the legislation if it wins the next general election. The bill has been defended by Shapps, who states it is aimed to protect lives and livelihoods.
The investigation into alleged war crimes in Ukraine will be considered in a major international meeting to be held in London in March. In attendance will be the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, in order to inform about the court’s work in investigating war crimes. The meeting comes as Putin continues to target crucial energy infrastructure as he destroys central heating supplies in the heart of winter. Dominic Raab has stated that ‘Russian forces should know they cannot act with impunity and we will back Ukraine until justice is served’; the meeting is designed to determine how to further assist the ICC in bringing that justice.
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.
At around the same time that 79 Conservative Party MPs were 
Hands v Scottish Ministers [2016] CSOH 9, 15th January 2016 – 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your recommended weekly dose of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
In May 2012, the Home Secretary announced a review of the 
Smith & Ors v The Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1365 – 
Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) –
Recent comments