Search Results for: prisoners/page/38/ministers have been procrastinating on the issue, fearing that it will prove unpopular with the electorate.

What a week! – The Human Rights Roundup

16 May 2011 by Melina Padron

Last week’s human rights news received an enormous amount of coverage, which means that we were unable to fit all of them within this humble post. However, we do recommend that you click here to access the full list of some of our favourite articles pertaining to last week’s hotly debated topics.

by Melinda Padron

The week started off with a Twitter account supposedly “outing” a number of individuals who had taken injunctions with anonymity clauses or “superinjunctions”. As we all know, this topic has been the subject of attacks by the press and politicians over the past few weeks. Judith Townend wrote an insightful post on the incident for the Inforrm’s Blog, which contained opinions from media lawyers and experts, and also links to many of the articles featured in newspapers and law blogs alike.

Continue reading →

The Round-Up: Janner’s debut, and the plight of relying on Dignitas.

17 August 2015 by Laura Profumo

Laura Profumo serves us the latest human rights happenings.

In the news:

Lurid show-trial of a vulnerable man, the timely vindication of justice being done, and being seen to be done, a CPS volte-face.

Whatever you think of the Janner trial, it’s now in full swing. The former Labour Peer made his first appearance in court on Friday, facing 22 historic child sex abuse charges. The 87 year old’s committal hearing lasted some 59 seconds, after weeks of legal grappling with his defence lawyers. Any doubt over Janner’s dementia was “dispersed instantly” by his arrival, writes The Telegraph’s Martin Evans: flanked by his daughter and carer, Janner appeared frail and “confused”, cooing “ooh, this is wonderful” as he entered the courtroom. The case will now pass to the Crown Court, with the next hearing due on September 1, where a judge will decide whether the octogenarian is fit to stand trial, or whether a trial of fact is a suitable alternative. If the latter course is taken, a jury will decide if Janner was responsible for his charged actions – no verdict of guilt will be found, and no punishment will be handed down.
Continue reading →

Physician and Anaesthesia Associates: Delegation, Informed Consent, and Montgomery in the Administrative Court

26 September 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

In R (Anaesthetists United Ltd and Others) v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2270 (Admin) (“Anaesthetists United”), Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed a judicial review claim brought by the claimants against the defendant regulator for Physician Associates (“PAs”) and Anaesthesia Associates (“AAs”) – collectively referred to hereafter as “Associates” – in the UK.

The claim is the most recent instalment in a brewing saga over the continued use and regulation of Associates in the UK’s healthcare system:

• In April 2025, Lambert J dismissed the British Medical Association (“BMA”)’s judicial review challenge (R (British Medical Association v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin)) to the GMC’s decisions to (i) apply the same basic professional standards to doctors and Associates, and (ii) refer to all three professions collectively as ‘medical professionals’.
• Just prior to the handing down of Anaesthetists United, Professor Gillian Leng released her final report following the conclusion of her independent review into the Associate professions.

The Weekly Round-Up: Georgia Protests, Military Whistleblower Jailed, & Travellers Rights

20 May 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In the News

A bill in Georgia demanding that all foreign entities and NGOs which receive more than a fifth of their funding from international sources must be labelled as ‘bearing the interests of a foreign state’ passed its third and final reading in the Tbilisi Parliament. Such organisations would be subjected to increased scrutiny by the Georgian Justice Ministry and could be subjected to fines if they fail to disclose sensitive information that is requested of them. There are fears that the bill may be used to silence dissidents and will harm Georgia’s chances of joining the EU. The High Representative of the European Commission has confirmed that “the adoption of this law negatively impacts Georgia’s progress on the EU path. The choice on the way forward is in Georgia’s hands”. The US State Department has also said it is “gravely disappointed” by the advance of the bill, which it has called “Kremlin-inspired”. Major protests against the bill have been ongoing for nearly a month, and there is little indication they will die down. The protestors have been met with riot police, leading to violent altercations. The British Embassy in Tbilisi has called for an end to the “unlawful intimidation” of protestors, suggesting tactics such as “threatening phone calls, unlawful detention, beatings and personalised posters portraying civil society members as traitors” have been deployed by police. Georgia President Salome Zourabichvili – an opponent of the Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze who supports the bill – told the BBC she would veto the law. However, the Prime Minister’s party Georgian Dream has sufficient numbers to overrule her, having just backed the bill in its final reading by 84 votes to 30.

The New Yorker is in hot water following the publication of a story on the upcoming retrial of Lucy Letby, who was convicted in August 2023 of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of a further six. The jury failed to return a verdict on a further six counts of attempted murder, one of which will be the subject of the retrial in June. The Court has ordered reporting restrictions in the lead up to the retrial in order to prevent the trial being prejudiced and to protect the integrity of the jury. The New Yorker article was in contravention of these restrictions – which could amount to contempt of court. The article has now been blocked online and is inaccessible to UK readers, but print editions featuring the story on the cover were circulated last week. While the New Yorker does not have an incorporated entity in the UK against whom contempt orders can be enforced, its parent company Condé Nast does. It remains to be seen whether action will be taken. Conservative MP David Davis queried the blocking of the article in the UK, stating it seems “in defiance of open justice”. Other commentators have suggested the opposite, that the purpose is to ensure Letby receives the fair trial to which she is entitled.

In the Courts

The High Court has declared that parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 are incompatible with the human rights of travellers. The Act provided for an increase in the duration for which police can ban travellers from an area from 3 to 12 months, as well as conferring powers upon police to seize homes and fine, arrest, or imprison those living in unauthorised encampments. Gypsies, Roma, and travellers are considered a distinct racial group and are thus protected from discrimination on grounds of their identity. The Court found that the increase in the no-return period constituted a disproportionate interference on the travellers’ Article 14 ECHR rights (freedom from discrimination) when read with Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) as a result of the unavailability of transit sites where travellers can stay without fear of a criminal penalty. The Court issued a rare declaration of incompatibility, which prompts Parliament to examine the offending legislation and consider amending it in order to achieve compatibility with the ECHR. Marc Willers KC, lead counsel for the Claimant, said: “This is hugely significant judgment. In granting the declaration of incompatibility, the court recognised that there is a lack of lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers and that unless the government increases provision, the law as currently drafted will amount to unjustified race discrimination.” The charity Friends, Families, & Travellers who acted as intervenors in the case have called the judgment a “serious” blow to the Police Act 2022.

The High Court in Northern Ireland has upheld a previous ruling that parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and further declared that the offending sections of the Illegal Migration Act are incompatible with the ECHR. Article 2 WF provides that there must be no diminution of rights conferred under the Good Friday Agreement as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Windsor Framework is legally ‘supreme’, meaning any legislation with which it conflicts must be disapplied. Every provision challenged before the Court was found to cause a diminution in rights and has therefore been disapplied in Northern Ireland. This includes a number of significant provisions, including on detention and removal. A declaration of incompatibility was also issued in respect of various provisions of the IMA, declaring the provisions to be incompatible with ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 4 (prohibition of slavery), & 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Although Humphreys J acknowledged the status of declarations of incompatibility as “a measure of last resort”, the making of one was justified on account of the “significant nature of the violations identified”. DUP leader Gavin Robinson told Good Morning Ulster that he believes “if the government do not assert the sovereignty of Parliament and ensure a UK-wide immigration system”, Northern Ireland risks becoming a “magnet” for migrants. Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, stated to the House of Lords that “the Government will take all steps to defend their position, including through an appeal”. PM Rishi Sunak has suggested that the ruling will not affect the Government’s efforts to remove migrants to Rwanda.

A whistleblower who leaked documents revealing war crimes committed by the Australian military in Afghanistan has been sentenced to prison. David McBride pled guilty to the charges after the evidence supporting his whistleblowing defence was struck out on grounds of national security. McBride had been a military lawyer who did two tours of Afghanistan, including one with the Australian special forces where he became concerned with the conduct of commanders towards their officers. Having tried internal procedures and reporting to the defence and police minister, McBride eventually leaked documents he had covertly copied to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation believing they would prove that Australian commanders were scapegoating their officers in an attempt to escape allegations of unlawful killings. Instead, the dossier included The Afghan Files, a series of reports which revealed the commission of war crimes Australian forces in Afghanistan. The Brereton Report has since found credible evidence of the war crimes revealed within the documents. Despite this, calls to drop the charges against McBride were refused. Mossop J during sentencing emphasised the severity of the offences charged – stealing Commonwealth property, breaching the Defence Act and disclosing confidential information – and placed weight upon the fact that McBride’s actions constituted a “gross breach of trust” for which he shows “no contrition”. He has been sentenced to 5 years and 8 months. The sentence has led to calls for increased whistleblower protection in Australia. The Asia Director at Human Rights Watch has called it “a stain on Australia’s reputation that some of its soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, and yet the first person convicted in relation to these crimes is a whistleblower not the abusers”.

Rules, Rights (rings) and the Twitter Joke – The Human Rights Roundup

30 July 2012 by Sam Murrant

Gratuitous Olympics image

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

Whilst the eyes of the world are on London’s Olympic Games, the eyes of this blog are on a series of important rulings which our judges produced last week just before they took the short stroll from the Royal Courts of Justice to Horse Guards Parade watch the beach volleyball. There were three particularly important decisions: firstly, Paul Chambers won his appeal against criminal conviction following a Twitter Joke. Secondly, the recent Alvi case clarified the meaning of the word “rule” in immigration law as a response; and finally the RT (Zimbabwe) case established that a person subject to deportation is not to be expected to lie about one’s beliefs (or lack thereof) to avoid persecution.

Continue reading →

Satirical insult of head of state should not be a criminal offence, rules Strasbourg

14 March 2013 by Rosalind English

Eon v France, no. 26118/10   14 March 2013- read judgment (in French only)

The applicant, Hervé Eon, is a French national, a socialist and anti-GM activist living Laval (France). The case concerned his conviction for insulting President Sarkozy.

During a visit by the President to the département of Mayenne on 28 August 2008, Mr Eon had waved a placard reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”), a phrase uttered by the President himself several months previously when a farmer had refused to shake his hand at the International Agricultural Show. The utterance was widely disseminated in the media and on the internet, attaining the status of a slogan.
Continue reading →

The Round-up: child restraint and disenfranchisement

8 May 2016 by Charlotte Bellamy

Charlotte Bellamy brings you the latest human rights news

Children in privately-run youth detention centres are being seriously injured whilst being restrained by staff, according to a redacted Ministry of Justice report released to the Director of the children’s rights charity Article 39. The report focuses on four secure training centres (STCs) and two young offender institutions (YOIs) – the worst three of which are all run by G4S.

The report lists ‘restraints-gone-wrong’, where children were injured or suffered breathing difficulties in the process. Rainsbrook SCT – where teenager Gareth Myatt died in 2004 after choking on his own vomit while being restrained – had the highest number of incidents of serious injury. One child vomited from a prolonged restraint whilst being held in a seated position similar to the one used on Myatt. Government guidelines classify vomiting during restraint as a medical emergency.

Carolyne Willow, Director of Article 39, has been engaged in legal proceedings against the MoJ for access to an unredacted version of the manual ‘Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint’, published in 2012, which details the restraint techniques used in STCs and YOIs. However, the Upper Tribunal recently dismissed her appeal in Willow v Information Commissioner & Ministry of Justice [2016], holding that disclosure of the information would threaten the good order and security of prisons, as inmates might develop countermeasures to the techniques. Willow had argued – unsuccessfully – that Article 3(1) of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child required a greater emphasis to be placed on the child’s interests when balancing them against the public interest (see the Panopticon Blog for further analysis).

It came to light last week that Medway SCT – the subject of a BBC Panorama exposé aired in January this year which showed G4S staff appearing to use excessive force on children – is to be taken over by the Ministry of Justice. Four members of staff had been arrested on charges of child neglect in relation to the allegations, following which G4S announced in February it was selling off the contracts to run Medway, Oakhill SCT, and 13 local authority children’s homes.

Andrew Neilson of the Howard League for Penal Reform had called at the time for SCTs to be shut down completely, calling them a “failed model”. The Ministry of Justice is due to announce the findings of the Independent Improvement Board set up by Michael Gove in response to the Medway allegations, which will detail the future of the centre.

A wider review is currently being conducted into youth justice by Charlie Taylor, former head teacher and child behavioural expert, the final report of which is expected in July. The interim findings (available here) recommend an overhaul of the youth custodial estate, replacing youth prisons with smaller secure schools focusing on education.

Other news

• In addition to the polling day problems in Barnet, it seems that thousands of women living in safe houses and refuges after fleeing domestic violence may have been disenfranchised. Mehala Osborne, a mother-of-one living in a refuge in Bristol, found it impossible to register anonymously as she could not adduce the required evidence to prove her safety would be at risk if her name and address appeared on the register. She estimates that 70% of women in refuges in Bristol and possibly across the country could be in the same situation. The evidence required for Anonymous Voter Registration is a court order or the attestation of an “authorised person” – a Police Superintendent, a Director of Adult Social Services, or the Director General of the Security Services or National Crime Agency. For many in Osborne’s situation, who have fled their homes quickly, there is no time to source such authorisation. The right to vote is protected by Article 3 Protocol 1 ECHR which states that the UK will “hold free elections … under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. Osborne suggests that refuge and safe house management staff ought to be included in the definition of an “authorised person”.

• Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi last week told a US delegation that human rights in Egypt should not be viewed from a “Western perspective”. Though reportedly keen to emphasise his commitment to democracy, he explained that “differences in domestic and regional conditions” make it difficult to apply the same standards. 237 human rights protestors were arrested last week during a peaceful demonstration in Cairo against the el-Sisi regime, including two journalists – Mahmoud al-Sakka and Amr Badr, who work for the opposition website Bawabet Yanayer – for “spreading false news and endangering national security”. Amnesty International have described el-Sisi’s remarks as “deeply troubling”, saying that “he should stop making excuses … There’s nothing remotely ‘Western’ about basic human rights like the right not to suffer torture or to be able to speak freely without fear of arrest or imprisonment”.

• Arthur Scargill, the former miners’ union president, has called for an inquiry into the conduct of the South Yorkshire Police at the 1984 ‘Battle of Orgreave’. Thousands of minors clashed with the South Yorkshire police at the coking plant near Rotherham during the year long minors’ strike of 1984-5. A redacted version of the Independent Police Complaints Commission report into Orgreave was released last year, but the Yorkshire Post has now reported that the redacted sections proved the same senior police officers were involved in the aftermath of Orgreave as Hillsborough. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham recently said that the full truth of policing at Hillsborough would not be known until there is transparency over Orgreave.

• An Italian court has ruled that the theft of a piece of cheese and a wurstel sausage by a homeless man was not a crime because he acted in “desperate and immediate need of nourishment”. Roman Ostriakov had been sentenced by a lower court in Genoa to six months in jail and €100 fine after being arrested for slipping the sausage and cheese into his pocket when buying breadsticks in the supermarket. The Court of Cassation finally found in his favour, after a three-part trial to determine whether the theft of the food (worth about £3.70) amounted to a crime or not, prompting some commentators to lambaste the country’s notoriously inefficient legal system. Others, however, have lauded the judgment as establishing a “sacrosanct principle” that a small theft out of hunger is not comparable to an act of delinquency, and as an act of humanity which showed that in Italy the right to survive trumps property rights – something which would be “blasphemy in America”.

In the Courts

• Cerf v Turkey  – The Court found a violation of the duty to conduct an effective investigation under the procedural aspect of Article 2 (right to life) into the suspicious death of the applicant’s husband. The applicant’s husband, Serf Cerf, a local politician, was shot outside a café in the town of Yüreğir in 1994 and died on the spot. In 2000, the authorities arrested a man (in the course of operations carried out against Hizbullah, an outlawed organisation in Turkey) who confessed to killing Mr Cerf. Despite criminal proceedings being initiated against him and four others in 2000, they were not concluded until 2009 and 2013. The Court considered the delays to be excessive and incompatible with the State’s obligation under Article 2, which requires proceedings to be initiated promptly and to proceed with reasonable expedition. The delays entailed the conclusion that the investigation had been ineffective.

• Abdi Mahamud v Malta  – violations of Article 3 and 5. This case concerned a female Somalian asylum seeker detained for more than 16 months in overcrowded conditions, with little privacy and limited access to outdoor exercise. All the care of detained women was carried out by male staff. Ms Mahamud had been detained in May 2012. A decision on her asylum application was not made until December 2012 (when it was rejected). In the meantime she had been frequently hospitalised due several medical conditions. She was interviewed for release on the grounds of ill-health in December 2012, but was not actually released until September 2013. The cumulative effect of the detention conditions was found by the Court to be a violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment); a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) § 1 was found in respect of the length of both periods of detention (seven months pending the asylum decision and the rest pending her removal). The lack of available measure to challenge the lawfulness of her detention was a violation of Article 5 § 4.

Previous UKHRB posts

• Straining out a Gnat and Swallowing a Camel: The Convention, the Charter and Mrs May
• Latest twist on standard of review in Aarhus cases
• Ex-pats challenge to the EU referendum voting rules 

The Round Up: International Women’s Week

13 March 2017 by Sarah Ewart

Happy international women’s week, Human Rights Blog readers! Women’s rights are human rights and human rights matter, so to help you keep fighting the good fight we’ve curated the week’s legal updates for your immediate consumption.

Let’s start with the good news…

• Briony Clarke, a lawyer at Taylor Haldane Barlex LLP, has become the UK’s youngest female judge after being sworn in as a Deputy District Judge in Chelmsford Crown Court, aged 31.

• The Supreme Court has heard the issue of whether a male employee in a civil partnership is entitled to the same pension for his spouse as if he were married to a woman (Walker v Innospec, UKSC 2016/0090).

• Our friends over at Rights Info have curated some landmark cases for women’s equality, and you can read up on them here.

Continue reading →

The right of property under A1P1- Supreme Court sees that it has teeth

18 November 2012 by David Hart KC

R v. Waya [2012] UKSC 51, 14 November 2012, read judgment

Traditionally, the qualified right to peaceful possession of property conferred by Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) has been thought of as a rather feeble entitlement, easily outweighed by public interests. After all, every day of the week, the modern state affects that right – think taxes or planning restrictions, or business bans arising out of public health concerns (e.g. see here), where removal and confiscation or restriction on what we do with property is readily accepted. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) needs a bit of remedial HR surgery as and when its blunderbuss rules would otherwise have a disproportionate effect on those affected. But the importance of the ruling extends far beyond the specific statutory context.

The story is a familiar one. Parliament, quite rightly, decided that we needed a way of taking the benefits of crime away from criminals on conviction – over and above the system of fines. But it also realised that without some set rules this will prove difficult, if not impossible, to administrate. If the exercise were to be to ascertain the net benefit of the crime, then we get into frightful tangles. Can a defendant set off against his profit of crime his expenses – the cash to the getaway driver, the bung to the dodgy public official, or the contract killing payment?  The answer in the statute, and in this decision, is – No. This would be offensive and impractical. So far, so good.

But how far may the answer to the question – what did D really gain from this crime – diverge from the answer given by the statute? This was the conundrum facing the Supreme Court. And it found it very difficult. It had an initial hearing in 2011 in front of 7 judges – but then requested a re-hearing in front of 9. And those 9 split 7-2 in the result, thought the critical reasoning was common to all 9 judges.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court rules that hospital receptionist owes a duty of care to a patient — Owain Thomas QC

11 October 2018 by Guest Contributor

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal of Michael Darnley in Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50, holding that a hospital receptionist owed a duty of care to a patient at A&E, which was breached by providing him with incorrect information as to how long he was likely to have to wait before being seen or triaged.

The case raised questions as to the existence and scope of the duty of care owed by hospitals to patients who attend and are dealt with non-medical staff. The decision has potential implications for all those who are booked in to A&E even if no-one has professionally assessed their need for care.

Continue reading →

A robust restatement of the principles of nuisance

27 March 2012 by Rosalind English

Barr v. Biffa, CA, 19 March 2012, read judgment

The reverse suffered by the claimants in the noisy motor racing case case before the Court of Appeal last month was something of a body blow to common lawyers and environmentalists. So this latest development in nuisance litigation should be welcome news.

As David Hart’s report  suggests, the Court of Appeal pulls no punches in its critique of the High Court judgment which dismissed the claims of 152 households on the basis that a landfill operator had abided by the terms of its permit. Reasserting the private law rights of individuals in nuisance actions, Carnwath LJ observes that this case has been

a sad illustration of what can happen when apparently unlimited resources, financial and intellectual, are thrown at an apparently simple dispute such as one about nuisance by escaping smells. The fundamental principles of law were settled by the end of the 19th century and have remained resilient and effective since then.

The common law, he notes, is best when it is simple. And in this judgement he returns nuisance to the simple statement of reciprocity and neighbourliness where it belongs.

There are a few propositions – not many – in Carnwath LJ’s judgment which will serve as a clear, short checklist for the viability of a nuisance action.
Continue reading →

Successful compensation appeal by rape victim

22 August 2016 by Guest Contributor

By Pritesh Rathod

RT v (1) The First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and (2) Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2016] UKUT 0306 (AAC) – read judgment.

The Upper Tribunal has ruled that, in deciding whether or not an applicant has cooperated with the prosecution of her assailant where she made and later retracted an allegation of rape, it was necessary to see why that retraction was made and whether it was done truly voluntarily, rather than simply assessing whether she was responsible for the retraction.

Background facts

The Applicant (“RT”) was married to H and had four children with him between 2001 and 2008.  From 2004, she was subject to physical and mental abuse by H, culminating in three incidents of rape.  What followed was a somewhat protracted and complicated course of events relating to H’s prosecution.

Initially, H was arrested and charged with six counts of rape.  He was bailed subject to certain conditions.  While H was in custody, RT wrote to him saying that she missed him and wanted him back home.  Over Christmas 2009, H returned home and he and RT had “something of a reconciliation”, including having consensual sexual intercourse.

By January 2010, RT sought to withdraw the complaint (she had commenced divorce proceedings against him).  In February 2010, RT telephoned the police to ask what would happen if she had lied about the rapes.  Later that month, she retracted her allegations, saying that all of them were untrue.  H appeared at the Crown Court and was acquitted after the prosecution offered no evidence.
Continue reading →

Supreme Court endorses judicial review over other remedies – in some cases

3 November 2024 by Rosalind English

McKleenon, re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) 2024 UKSC 31

Following our recent Law Pod UK episode on judicial review, this case contains some useful guidelines to the differences between the kinds of remedy available via judicial review versus statutory appeal, private civil actions, private prosecutions and other avenues for compensation.

It involved an application for judicial review of decision-making by the regulator of landfill maintenance, where the regulator argued that the claimant had an adequate alternative remedy such that judicial review should be refused.

The applicant, Noeleen McAleenon, had claimed that the regulator had not taken appropriate action to prevent harmful chemical gases and noxious smells escaping from a neighbouring landfill site. But the public bodies maintained that judicial review should be refused because Ms McAleenon had adequate alternative remedies, in that she could herself launch a private prosecution against the owner of the site: Section 70 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) provides that a person aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance may make a complaint to the magistrates’ court for an order requiring abatement of the nuisance and prohibiting its recurrence and the imposition of a fine.) Alternatively, the defendants said, she could bring a nuisance claim against them in private law.

The first instance judge dismissed the alternative remedies defence. He observed (para 92) that the case concerned the public law issues of regulation and enforcement, whereas any private prosecution in the magistrates’ court under section 70 would centre on the issue of whether a nuisance had been caused. Whilst there is of course an overlap between the two questions, the two kinds of litigation have quite different purposes:

“a member of the public with sufficient interest is entitled to hold regulators to account by pursuing any public law wrongdoing. It would be an unfortunate and unattractive position if a regulator could effectively be immune from suit in this sphere by reference to alternative proceedings in the magistrates’ court”.

European Commission warns the UK about unfair cost of challenging environmental decisions

28 March 2010 by Elspeth Wrigley

The European Commission has sent an official warning letter to the UK regarding the prohibitive expense of challenging the legality of environmental decisions.

The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) was signed by the United Kingdom in 1998, and came into force in October 2001.  It was ratified by the United Kingdom in February 2005, at the same time as its ratification by the European Community.  Article 9(4) of the Convention provides that access to environmental justice must be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not provide for a specific human right to a clean environment, nor a right to environmental justice, although Article 2 (right to life), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (respect for family and private life) do provide some scope for environmental protection, Conventions such as Aarhus are important in supporting these rights in an environmental context, particularly where the ECHR may provide inadequate protection. This connection is recognised in the preamble to the Aarhus Convention which identifies that, “the adequate protection of the environment is essential for human well-being and the enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life itself.”

Continue reading →

Policy to prevent forced marriages “arbitrary and disruptive”, says Court of Appeal

4 January 2011 by Adam Wagner

Quila & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1482 – Read judgment

A key part of the government’s strategy to combat forced marriages, preventing people under the age of 21 from entering the country to marry, has been heavily criticised by the Court of Appeal.

The decision shows that even policies which pursue a legitimate and laudable aim must still be a proportionate to the problem they seek to address, or risk breaching the human rights of those affected. But it also highlights how difficult it is to set effective policies to combat hazardous arrangements which can involve rape, child abuse and domestic violence, and affect thousands of UK residents annually.

Continue reading →