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 Sentencing Council has suspended plans for new guidelines which could have led to different sentences depending on someone’s age, sex and ethnicity. The Sentencing Council’s decision to suspend plans comes in the wake of ministers preparing to “disapply” wording in the revised sentencing guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, through primary legislation. Justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had aimed to pass a bill through Parliament to halt the guidelines within 24 hours but was informed that it would be impossible before the Easter recess. Given that the revised sentencing guidelines were due to take effect in England and Wales last Tuesday, there would have been a “confusing period” during which time the guidelines would be enforced before being declared illegal.
These guidelines had specified a list of 10 groups for whom pre-sentence reports would “normally be necessary”. The groups in question included “those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.” In other words, the guidelines would have required magistrates and judges to consult a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to imprison someone of an ethnic and religious minority, in addition to other groups like young adults, abuse survivors and mothers. In doing so, the system would have “taken into account structural disparities in sentencing outcomes” and would have introduced measures targeted at combating racism in the courts. Senior legal figures, and the Society of Black Lawyers, have emphasised that the guidelines were an attempt to achieve “equal treatment” after “racist two-tier policing for 500 years”, specifically through attempting to address disparities in sentencing between white and non-white offenders.
After a meeting on Monday, the Sentencing Council confirmed it would not be introducing the guidelines when “there is a draft bill due for imminent introduction that would make it unlawful”. This follows the Sentencing Council having previously rejected a request from Mahmood to remove the ten specified groups as she said they would “single out specific cohorts for differential treatment”. In making this request, Mahmood had sought to demonstrate to the public that “Parliament is sovereign” and “everyone is treated equally by the criminal justice system”.
Hungary is due to leave the International Criminal Court on grounds that it has become “political”. This was announced during a visit to Hungary by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, who is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant which was issued on 21st November 2024. Prior to this visit, Human Rights Watch had urged Hungary to deny entry to Netanyahu or to arrest him upon entry, in light of the arrest warrant. Specifically, Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch outlined how Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s invitation to Netanyahu was an “affront to victims of serious crimes” and urged Hungary to “comply with its legal obligations as a party to the ICC.”
As a member of the ICC, Hungary was in theory obliged to arrest Netanyahu in line with the ICC warrant. However, Orbán had previously said the ruling would have no effect in Hungary. Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó had notably criticised the warrants as “shameful and absurd” and “unacceptable”. Hungary has aligned itself with other European countries including France, Italy, Poland, Romania and Germany who have emphasised their non-committal to enforcement of the ICC’s warrant to arrest Netanyahu.
In announcing Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC this week, Orbán proclaimed that the ICC had “diminished into a political forum”, something that had “become the clearest in light of its decisions on Israel”. Netanyahu has thanked Orbán for taking a “bold and principled” position against the ICC.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly smörgåsbord 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
The news
This week has been dominated by the figure of Julian Assange, with many UK-based legal bloggers commenting on the many aspects of his case, not least in relation to the question of extradition to the US and diplomatic protection by Ecuador. There has also been a very sad conclusion to the right-to-die campaign by Tony Nicklinson, which is that he refused food and passed away on Thursday.
Some of this week’s human rights news, in bite-size form. The full list of our external links can be found on the right sidebar or here:
New human rights body must be independent, says Law Society: The Foreign Secretary announced a new independent advisory group, including non governmental organisations and independent experts, to advise ministers on human rights issues (see our post). The Law Society says it should be on it.
Government proposals to increase the number of court hearings held in secret, and in which parties can only see minimal evidence relied upon by the court, have been severely criticised by the “Special Advocates” who play the central role in closed hearings.
The group of 57 barristers, including 19 Queen’s Counsel, argue that despite attempts, for example, to give those subject to “Closed Material Procedures” a summary of the evidence against them, they remain “fundamentally unfair” and
represent a departure from the foundational principle of natural justice that all parties are entitled to see and challenge all the evidence relied upon before the court and to combat that evidence by calling evidence of their own.
The document is a response to the Government’s Consultation (see my and Angus McCullough QC’s previous posts) which have to be sent via email or post by tomorrow,Friday 6 January 2012. I will be collating summaries of responses as I did with the Bill of Rights Commission consultation. If you would like your response to be included, please send it to 1crownofficerow@gmail.com, with the subject “Consultation response”.
While MPs were dreaming of the imminent long summer break and a possible pay hike, in mid-June the Government produced the draft amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) necessary to bring Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (“JSA”) into force. Many – including JUSTICE – consider the Act’s introduction of closed material procedures (“CMP”) into civil proceedings unfair, unnecessary and unjustified.
That one party will present their case unchallenged to the judge in the absence of the other party and their lawyers is inconsistent with the common law tradition of civil justice where proceedings are open, adversarial and equal. This blog has spent many pages dissecting the constitutional implications of the expansion of CMP in the JSA and its controversial passage through both Houses of Parliament.
Perhaps in a bid to avoid similar controversy, the draft Rules were dropped quietly into the libraries at the Houses of Parliament without fanfare. Less than two weeks later and without significant change, the Rules were tabled.
Although the bill is likely to pass, it is likely to do so in slightly revised form – knowledgable tweeters were predicting that the domestic violence and clinical negligence provisions were most likely to be affected.
Meanwhile, over at the Commission on a Bill of Rights, the somewhat dysfunctional committee will be combing through responses to its recently closed consultation. I have collated some of the responses below, mainly from people who have sent them to me. What follows is an entirely unscientific summary.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is to cut £2bn from its £9bn or so budget. But where will this 20% cut come from?
Kenneth Clarke’s MoJ are said to have got in early in agreeing spending reduction targets with the Treasury, and yesterday it was reported by the Public and Commercial Services Union that senior staff were informed by email that the cuts will amount to around £2bn of the overall budget. The Union suspect that around 15,000 of the MoJ’s 80,000 staff may have to be axed.
However the MoJ makes the cuts, a reduction of around 20% is likely to have severe effects on access to and provision of justice in the United Kingdom. Various MoJ-funded bodies have already been lining up to explain why their departments could not survive on much less. The criminal legal aid system has long been said to be in crisis, the President of the Family Division indicated last week that the child protection system is in grave danger of imploding, and the Chief Executive of the Supreme Court has said the cuts could cripple the new court.
Plans to build a fourteen mile, six lane motorway through the Gwent Levels south of Newport to relieve congestion on the M4 have been scrapped by the Welsh government. The announcement by first minister Mark Drakeford was welcomed by environmentalists, local residents and small businesses who opposed the scheme at last year’s public inquiry. Alasdair Henderson, Dominic Ruck Keene and Hannah Noyce from 1 Crown Office Row with other barristers from Guildhall Chambers (Brendon Moorhouse) and Garden Court (Irena Sabic and Grace Brown) represented Gwent Wildlife Trust and an umbrella of other environmental objectors in the proceedings which lasted from February 2017 to September 2018. All these barristers acted for free. Environmental NGOs such as the Environmental Law Foundation, should be particularly pleased by Drakeford’s acknowledgement the campaigners’ efforts:
Fighting in Gaza paused this weekend, as Hamas and Israel agreed to a temporary, four-day reprieve. Twenty-six hostages have been released by Hamas and 39 Palestinian detainees held in pre-trial detention have been allowed to return to the West Bank. Under the terms of the agreement negotiated by Qatar, a total of 50 Israeli hostages and 150 Palestinian detainees are meant to be exchanged between the parties. The temporary pause in fighting has also allowed much-needed humanitarian assistance and fuel to reach the Gaza strip.
The Covid-19 Inquiry heard evidence this week from Sir Patrick Vallance (former Government Chief Scientific Adviser), Professor Sir Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Officer for England) and Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam (former Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England). In his statement, Sir Patrick Vallance said the Government’s scientific advisers were not consulted on Rishi Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme and ‘didn’t see it before it was announced.’ This undermines written comments made by Rishi Sunak to the Inquiry, where he said that no one raised concerns with him about the policy. Meanwhile, Sir Chris Whitty said in March 2020, ministers mistakenly understood ‘herd immunity’ to be a government policy objective, and he tried to stop the idea from being discussed publicly because herd immunity would have been ‘inconceivable.’ The inquiry will hear further evidence this coming week.
Meanwhile, Ian Fry, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, has recently condemned the jail sentences for two Just Stop Oil protesters who scaled a bridge on the Dartford Crossing last October. The activists were given two and three year prison sentences for causing a public nuisance, and were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that their sentences met the ‘legitimate aim’ of deterring others from similar offending. Ian Fry raised concerns about the length of the activist’s sentences, and the political flow-on effect the sentences could have on activists expressing concerns about the environmental crisis ‘and the impacts of climate change on human rights and on future generations’. Fry said the new Public Order Act was a ‘direct attack on the right to the freedom of peaceful assembly.’ There has not been any response from the Government.
In other news
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said this week that some companies are not giving users ‘fair choice’ about the use of cookies. Cookies are small files that store on your computer and collect analytical data about website usage. They are often used to personalise ads based on a user’s browsing history. The law regulating the use of cookies (the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations) will be altered by the proposed Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which is due its third reading in the House of Commons on 29 November 2023. Under the proposed reforms, some information – for improving website service or security – will be collected without consent, resulting in fewer ‘pop-ups’ requesting the user consent to cookies. The ICO has not yet named the companies it thinks are falling short of current guidance, but will provide an update in January.
Meanwhile, the National Women’s Prisons Health and Social Care Review was published this week. Established in 2021, the Review is intended to improve health and social care outcomes for women in prison and upon their release. Conducting a review of the 12 women’s prisons in England, the Review found healthcare across women’s prisons to be ‘inconsistent’ and not always ‘gender specific’ or sensitive to women with protected characteristics. It suggests ‘fabric improvements’ across the women’s estate should be made.
Finally, the independent review into Lancashire Police’s handling of Nicola Bulley’s death was also released this week. Bulley went missing in January, and was found three weeks after her disappearance in the River Wyre. Amongst other findings, the report says Lancashire Police should have been better prepared to communicate sensitive medical information about Bulley in a more ‘carefully constructed manner’.
In the Courts
The “Bille and Ogale Group Litigation”. Mrs Justice May handed down the latest judgement in the ongoing litigation between communities and individuals of the Niger Delta, and the oil giant, Shell. The case concerns oil contamination affecting two regions of the Niger Delta – the Bille and Ogale regions. In her judgement, Mrs Justice May held the claimants could bring new causes of action under the African Charter and Nigerian Constitution, which recognise ‘as a fundamental right the right to a clean and healthy environment’. There is no limitation period for human rights claims brought under the Nigerian Constitutional framework. Mrs Justice May also refused the Defendant’s application to strike out the claims. The case continues.
In Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (“IWGB”) v Central Arbitration Committee (“CAC”) and another [2023] UKSC 43the Supreme Court held that Deliveroo drivers are not in an employed relationship for the purposes of Article 11 ECHR (freedom of assembly and association). The case concerned Deliveroo riders in London who became members of the IWGB and sought formal recognition of the Union by Deliveroo for collective bargaining on behalf of Deliveroo drivers in Camden and Kentish Town. The Supreme Court stated that the right to form a trade union arises in the context of an employment relationship. Applying this to the facts of the case, the CAC rightly found there was no employment relationship between Deliveroo and its riders, as the riders can appoint a substitute to take their job, can work or not as convenient to them, and are not prevented from working for Deliveroo’s competitors. Thus, in this case, the riders are unable to rely on the trade union rights conferred by Article 11. The appeal was dismissed.
The road to hell, so the saying goes, is paved with good intentions. While not quite as dire, well-intentioned laws can nevertheless sometimes have severe consequences. In Re Mediahuis and others’ applications for judicial review [2024] NIKB 45, the Northern Ireland High Court declared 5 sections of one such well-intentioned law, the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (the 2022 Act), invalid. This is the first invalidation of devolved Northern Ireland statutory provisions since the present devolution settlement (the Northern Ireland Act 1998) was enacted 26 years ago. On one level, the judgment is fairly unremarkable – courts are empowered to declare invalid any devolved statute (or statutory provision) which is found to be outwith devolved legislative competence (in this case because of incompatibility with Article 10 of the ECHR) and have done so without raising eyebrows since the advent of devolution in the UK. On a deeper level, however, the judgment and the justification for the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act show the limits of formal equality in addressing substantive injustice.
The judgment
The 2022 Act was a partial response to a wide-ranging review into the legal and policy measures around serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland. This review, carried out by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir John Gillen (the Gillen Review) made several recommendations. Among these, the relevant recommendations for this case were (1) an extension of anonymity for complainants of sexual offences beyond their lifetimes, (2) pre-charge anonymity for suspects of sexual offences and (3) a statutory prohibition on the publication of suspects’ identities pre-charge. The 2022 Act implements (1) (by extending complainant anonymity to 25 years after the complainant dies) but goes much further in implementing (2) and (3) than recommended in the Gillen Report. In respect of (2), the 2022 Act allows suspects to remain anonymous pre-charge on almost the same terms as complainants (during their lifetimes and up to 25 years after death), meaning that if a suspect is never charged, no identifying details may be published until after 25 years following their death. The reporting restriction can be lifted by a court on the application of the police, the suspect or (if the suspect has died) the suspect’s close family, personal representative or anyone interested in reporting any prohibited matters relating to the suspect. Importantly, the press may not apply to lift the reporting restriction during the suspect’s lifetime. On (3), the 2022 Act criminalises the unauthorised publication of suspect details and prescribes a custodial sentence or a fine (or both) for the offence.
Plainly, the 2022 Act represents a significant hurdle to public interest reporting. The pre-charge anonymity is just as extensive as complainant anonymity, and may only be lifted on the application of an extremely limited cohort of people. The justification offered by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice (DoJ), to put the matter mildly, lacked much (if any) persuasiveness. The DoJ pointed to the deleterious impact of publishing or reporting on a sexual offence suspect’s details before charge, with consequences ranging from reputational damage to a threat to life (Mediahuis, para 58). But the Act does not provide a general public interest defence to the offence of unauthorised publication. Such a defence would allow a court to carefully scrutinise two competing issues – any public interest in publishing a suspect’s details pre-charge and that suspect’s rights under the ECHR – and balance them. And nor does the process to lift reporting restrictions include the press as applicants. The rationale for this was virtually non-existent, with the DoJ simply saying:
“It was considered necessary to draw a distinction between who can apply before the death of the suspect and who can apply thereafter to reflect the very different circumstances that apply in those varying circumstances.“
But the Court was not provided with the reasons why this distinction was “considered necessary”. The DoJ further claimed that broadening the cohort of people who could apply to lift the reporting restriction (journalists, for example) during a suspect’s lifetime would “run contrary to the aims of key recommendation 10 [of the Gillen Report].” The relevant recommendation (in full) is:
“There should be no change in the current law concerning publication of the identity of the accused post charge. The identity of the accused should be anonymised pre-charge and the accused should have the right to apply for a judge-alone trial in the rare circumstances where the judge considers it to be in the interests of justice.“
Plainly, the DoJ’s claim about the recommendation was unsustainable.
It is therefore unsurprising that the High Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) should have found the relevant provisions to be a disproportionate interference with Article 10 of the ECHR (the freedom of speech and expression), creating a ‘chilling effect’ on public interest journalism (Mediahuis, para 102).
To be clear, laws with categorical exclusions like the 2022 Act are not, by their categorical exclusions alone, inconsistent with the ECHR. Another devolved Northern Ireland statute – the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 (which creates areas around abortion services providers for the safety of their users and staff by fining certain conduct within these areas) emerged from the Supreme Court entirely unscathed, despite containing clear categorical exclusions of certain behaviours (in the form of a strict liability offence in respect of those behaviours). But there are important differences between the 2022 Act and the Abortion Services Act. Chief among these is that fact that the former proscribes unauthorised publication with a custodial sentence, whereas the Abortion Services Act provided for a fine. Moreover, the banned behaviours in the Abortion Services Act are spatially limited to the defined safe access zones around abortion services providers; people are free to oppose such services elsewhere, so the limitations on Article 10 rights are themselves limited. By contrast, the pre-charge publication bar in the 2022 Act applies without distinction as to geography or other factor, and continues for a quarter of a century after a suspect’s death if the suspect is not charged. The limitation on Article 10 rights is thus extreme, and could only be justified (if at all) with the clearest and most compelling reasons. In this, the DoJ ultimately failed.
The erroneous focus on formal equality
The largely unsurprising ECHR assessment of the 2022 Act by the High Court aside, it is curious that pre-charge suspect anonymity and complainant anonymity should have been placed on the same formally equal plane. This is especially the case given that formal equality between complainant anonymity and (general) suspect anonymity was categorically rejected as ‘flawed’ by Sir John Gillen (Gillen Report, para 12.90). Sir John identified a number of reasons why complainants are entitled to greater anonymity – not least to encourage their participation in the criminal justice process. In the same vein, publishing or otherwise disclosing the identity of suspects of sexual offences encourages other potential complainants to come forward in a society where the conviction rate for such offences remains, in the words of Sir John ‘troublingly’, low (by the time Sir John had published his findings, the conviction rate for sexual offences in Northern Ireland had also been falling, see Gillen Report pg. 10).
Moreover, the social stigma associated with being a survivor of sexual violence or abuse acts as a further barrier. Within his Report, Sir John recognises the myriad ways in which different groups of survivors – women of colour (para 13.76), people with disabilities (e.g. paras 13.46 and 13.55) and men (para 13.148) – experience stigma.
All of these factors combine to highlight one of the main themes underlying the Gillen Report and the implementation of its recommendations by the DoJ over the years since the Report’s publication: the need to ensure that ‘one of the worst violations of human dignity’ – sexual crime – is not compounded by the very system designed to hold its perpetrators to account. This is not to discount the experiences of those whose details are published despite not being charged, and the indignities they suffer as a result. But fundamental to this complex and highly sensitive area is the recognition that different people experience different indignities. The formal equality which characterised the invalidated provisions of the 2022 Act, however, completely failed to recognise this reality. Instead, it effectively flattened the many accounts of survivors and suspects found in the 700-odd pages of the Gillen Report into a highly simplistic equation: whatever anonymity was conferred on complainants must also (mostly) be conferred on suspects while they remain uncharged.
This flat plane of formal equality ultimately imperilled the very provisions which were intended to protect the dignity of those people who, whether voluntarily or otherwise, come into contact with the criminal justice system for sexual offences. In the aftermath of the High Court’s judgment, the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice initially indicated that she was considering an appeal, before confirming that no appeal would be pursued. The resultant situation is that the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act – sections 12-16 – are invalid, so there is no bespoke statutory pathway to ensure suspect anonymity at the pre-charge stage (the UK Supreme Court judgment in Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 recognises an ECHR-derived reasonable expectation of privacy at the pre-charge stage).
Without impugning the good intentions of the DoJ, the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, Mediahuisand others should give Ministers and Departments pause for thought. Addressing the substantive (and sometimes life-altering) injustices which are experienced as a result of or in relation to sexual crime requires much greater sensitivity than a simple formal equality.
Anurag Deb is a PhD candidate at Queen’s University Belfast and a paralegal at KRW LAW LLP.
Last week’s post concerned the judicial review costs system in environmental cases and its compliance with the prohibitively expensive rule Art.9(4) of the Aarhus Convention.
Now for some more Aarhus developments which happened over the summer, this time involving the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) having a pop at the narrow EU standing rules applicable to challenges to an act or omission by a EU body, and the EU not liking those findings at all.
On the five year anniversary of the Windrush scandal, the Black Equity Organisation announced that they are seeking judicial review over Suella Braverman for breach of the government’s Equality Act 2010 obligations. This challenges her decision to disregard key reform recommendations that were made as part of Wendy Williams’ Windrush Lessons Learned Review, 2020 which the Home Office had originally promised to implement. Over 50,000 people had signed a petition urging Suella Braverman to re-think her decision to drop key recommendations of the review, but as it stands, her decision is not to hold reconciliation events or to review and extend the powers of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Whether this will be held “unlawful” under the Equality Act, as the Black Equity Organisation have suggested, remains to be seen.
Figures published by the Ministry of Justice showed that the backlog of crown court cases had risen to yet another record high: by 31 March this year, there were almost 60,000 outstanding cases, a rise of 45 per cent on the previous year. In the magistrates’ courts, that figure stood at 400,000, a rise of 21 per cent.
Waiting times have hiked accordingly: the average crown court case it now taking just under a year, 363 days, to be heard. Some trials are already being scheduled for 2023.
These latest figures follow the Ministry of Justice’s End-to-End Rape Review Report on Findings and Actions, covered on last week’s round-up, which revealed that processing times for rape complainants were particularly egregious, averaging around a thousand days between the commission of an offence and the conclusion of a trial.
Several MPs were quick to diagnose root causes of the criminal justice system’s dismal condition. Shadow justice secretary David Lammy complained that ‘the Conservatives are forcing victims of rape, domestic abuse and violent assault to wait months and years for justice if they get it at all’, blaming the compounded effect of ‘the government’s decade of court closures, combined with its incompetent response to the pandemic’. Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse also pointed to pre-coronavirus underfunding, warning that ‘ministers must not use Covid as an excuse for this backlog, or to undermine the fundamental right to trial by jury.’
On Monday the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 came into force, allowing the Attorney General, Suella Braverman QC, to be the first minister to take maternity leave. The Act grants cabinet ministers six months’ maternity leave whilst retaining their government post, whereas in the past MPs would have to resign to take time off to give birth. The Act is not without its critics, including those saying it should apply to MPs outside the Cabinet, and include provisions for paternity, adoption and shared parental leave. There was also heated debate in the Lords on the gender-neutral phrasing of the original Bill, with the Lords voting to replace ‘person’ with ‘mother’ in the final Act, despite its potential exclusion of trans and non-binary people.
A new offence of non-fatal strangulation has been included in the Domestic Abuse Bill following a campaign by the Centre for Women’s Justice, other organisations and the Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners. The Bill is passing through the House of Lords and now includes the offence of intentionally strangling another person or otherwise affecting their ability to breathe. Currently perpetrators are usually charged with common assault, with a maximum of just six months in jail. The Bill also includes amendments strengthening the laws on ‘revenge porn’, making it an offence to threaten to share intimate images of a person with the intention to cause distress, and extends the coercive control offence to situations where perpetrators and victims do not live together. The Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners welcomed the amendments but urged the Government to go further in creating a defence for people who commit offences due to domestic abuse.
On Friday the Women and Equalities Committee published the Government’s response to its report on the impact of coronavirus on BAME people, in relation to inequalities in health, employment, universal credit, housing, and the no recourse to public funds policy. The Committee’s inquiry found that comorbidities in BAME people place them at risk of experiencing coronavirus more severely and with graver health outcomes. Specific risks to BAME people include difficulty in accessing Government guidance, the disproportionate impact on BAME people of zero-hour contracts and being denied furlough, difficulties in applying for Universal Credit, and overcrowded housing due to housing inequality.
The Department of Health and Social Care on Friday published new guidance for care homes and visitors, to take effect on 8 March. This is not a change in the law, as visits to care homes have never been unlawful, but the new guidance sets out the government’s advice on safe visiting practices. This is that:
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.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly smörgåsbord of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
While MPs were dreaming of the imminent long summer break and a possible pay hike, in mid-June the Government produced the 
Recent comments