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/48/ministers have been procrastinating on the issue, fearing that it will prove unpopular with the electorate.
Al Rawi & Ors v the Security Service & Ors [2010] EWHC 1496 (QB) (21 June 2010) – Read judgment
The Government has received another in an increasingly long line of blows in the Al Rawi & Others foreign torture case, with Mr Justice Silber ordering a closed hearing to see whether two key security service documents are to be disclosed to the claimants. If the Government chooses not to claim public interest immunity, which is unlikely, the documents will be disclosed immediately.
The compensation claim involves six claimants who were detained at various locations, including Guantanamo Bay and Bagram in Afghanistan, alleging various forms of mistreatment. They claim to have been subjected to false imprisonment, trespass to the person, conspiracy to injure, torture, breach of contract, negligence, misfeasance in public office and breaches of their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Government has recently ordered a public inquiry into the security services’ alleged complicity in torture, but this is not likely to start until after the Al Rawi claims are resolved.
The name ‘Chris Pincher’ has become synonymous with Boris Johnson’s downfall, but it was the case of Owen Paterson that precipitated the unrest in the Conservative Party that ultimately led to the former Prime Minister’s resignation.
Owen Paterson stepped down as an MP in November 2021, following a report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards that found he had breached the MPs’ Code of Conduct by engaging in paid advocacy and recommended that he be suspended from the House for thirty sitting days. After initially whipping MPs in an attempt to support Mr Paterson and to avoid a possible by-election in North Shropshire, Boris Johnson eventually conceded that the parliamentary party was not with him. Mr Paterson resigned before MPs could vote on the sanction.
The European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) has dismissed a complaint by Mr Paterson (Patterson v UK App no. 23570 (ECtHR, 19 September 2024)) that the proceedings and/or the finding breached his rights under Article 8 of the Convention to respect for his private and family life.
Wang Yam v Attorney General [2014] EW Misc 10 (CCrimC) 27 February 2014 – read judgment
It is for the UK government to decide whether to vary an order preventing publication of material heard in private in a murder trial, if the offender goes on to petition the European Court of Human Rights. It is not for the Strasbourg Court to determine whether the right to a fair trial should outweigh the risks to UK national security reasons.
The question regarding a state’s obligation not to impede the right of individual petition to Strasbourg arose where the applicant offender applied for an order permitting him to refer to material, which had been restricted on national security grounds during his murder trial, in an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Continue reading →
With the May 2015 General Election looming, the battle for the future of human rights in the UK is hotting up. The Prime Minister has just sacked his long-standing Attorney General apparently because he disagreed with a mooted Tory manifesto policy which would, he rightly suggested, breach the UK’s international law obligations.
Meanwhile, over on what used to be Fleet Street,we can expect plenty of human rights misinformation and misrepresentation, as per usual. The Sun, a longterm offender, has been at it again with two recent articles. I thought it would be useful to respond in a bit of detail as they contain a number of common misrepresentations. And because they are behind a paywall, the usual army of Twitter fact checkers are left somewhat powerless.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court judgment held by a majority of 8 to 3 that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give Notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union. This blog has covered the case in some detail – see Dominic Ruck-Keene’s post on the central issue in the appeal here, Jim Duffy’s post regarding the court’s findings on the status of the Sewel Convention here, and Rosie Slowe’s guest post on the enduring relevance of the question of the irrevocability or otherwise of an Article 50 notification here.
Trump’s inauguration trumped…but what now?
Donald Trump’s inauguration was met with a rather lukewarm reception on 21st January 2017 when almost 5 million people took to the streets to join the globally organised Women’s March.
The event is estimated to have attracted approximately 4.8 million people across 673 marches. It was organised in support of all those who had been targeted during Trump’s election campaign: not just women, but migrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQ, people of racial minorities, and people with disabilities.
Trump himself seems untroubled by the protests, and responded the following day with a purportedly liberal and tolerant tweet: ‘Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don’t always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views’.
Moreover, in no way has he been deterred from his objectives regarding certain women’s rights. Continue reading →
On Friday, A 17-judge panel at the International Court of Justice delivered an interim ruling imposing provisional measures on the state of Israel in order to alleviate the ‘catastrophic humanitarian situation’ in Gaza. Though stopping short of calling for the complete suspension of military operations requested by South Africa, the court ordered that Israel must do everything in its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide. President of the Court, Judge Joan E Donoghue, emphasised in judgment that the court does not need to find that Israel has broken the Genocide Convention in order to impose provisional measures. Rather, they must only find that Israel’s acts are ‘capable of falling within’ the remit of the Genocide Convention, and that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide was plausibly under threat. The Court held that this was the case, and that there was a risk of the situation deteriorating further before final judgment could be delivered.
16 members of the court, including Israel’s own Judge Aharon Barak, voted that Israel must take ‘immediate and effective measures’ to address the ‘adverse conditions of life’ in the Gaza strip. The Court also directed that Israel produce a report within one month on the actions it has taken to give effect to the order. Judge Donoghue concluded by reiterating that this interim ruling ‘in no way prejudges’ the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the case, or the merits of the case itself – a case which may take years to reach final judgment.
In Other News
During the ECHR’s annual press conference on Thursday, President of the ECHR Síofra O’Leary reminded the UK Government of its duty to comply with the Rule 39 injunction against flights to Rwanda. This comes as the House of Lords are due to discuss the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill on Monday, a bill which clearly provides that it is at the discretion of ministers whether they comply with the injunction. The Rwanda Scheme has come under further scrutiny this week after it has been reported that the housing secured by the UK Government for refugees has been sold on or reserved for Rwandan nationals. An undercover reporter at openDemocracy, posing as an international investor, was told at a meeting with the sales team of the housing developer that the homes were ‘not for refugees’.
The UK and the US jointly launched a second set of air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen on Monday night. As ships affiliated with Israel and the West travelling through the Red Sea trade route continue to be attacked, the UK Government has released a statement on the legality of military action against Houthi targets. A letter sent by the Houthi-controlled Foreign Affairs Ministry to the UN’s humanitarian coordinator for Yemen on Wednesday has ordered US and British nationals, including all humanitarian aid workers, to leave the country within one month. The removal of aid workers is likely to cause further deterioration of the fragile humanitarian situation in Yemen, with opposition leader Keir Starmer asking what steps are being taken to materially support Yemenis who have already “suffered terribly as a result of that country’s civil war”. UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron is planning to visit the region in the coming days.
Commentators are claiming a ‘blow to the rule of law’ as Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal overturned the acquittal of pro-democracy protester and human rights barrister Chow Hang-tung last week. Chow had originally been convicted of ‘inciting others to take part in an unauthorised assembly’ following her involvement in organising and hosting the Tiananmen Vigil in 2021, a vigil which had been held annually for the last thirty years. Despite being later acquitted, the prosecution successfully appealed the decision. The Court of Final Appeal found by a 3-2 majority that the prohibition of the vigil had been a lawful and proportionate restriction of freedom of assembly, thereby reinstating Chow’s conviction. She remains in a maximum-security prison and is now facing a potential life sentence under a separate national security charge.
In the Courts
The High Court held this week that the Home Secretary’s withholding of decisions on leave to remain for victims of trafficking was in breach of articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The Home Office had neglected to issue decisions on leave to remain for victims of trafficking who had applied for asylum while the seminal case of R (KTT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 2722 Admin progressed through the upper courts. The High Court and Court of Appeal had found in KTT that in order for the United Kingdom to comply with its duties under the European Convention Against Trafficking, confirmed victims of trafficking who are claiming asylum in the UK (at least in part for fear of re-trafficking) must be granted leave to remain while their asylum case is being decided. The Home Secretary was seeking to appeal this decision, though permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was eventually refused in October 2022.
Judgment was handed down on Tuesday in the case of XY v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 81 (Admin), where a confirmed victim of trafficking had been denied a decision on his leave to remain while his asylum case was decided for over 18 months. Consequently, the claimant was unable to rent a property, open a bank account, or otherwise fulfil the necessary prerequisites to participating in society. Lane LJ held that this amounted to a breach of Article 8(1) ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life. A breach of Article 14 (protection from discrimination) was also found on the grounds of the differential treatment between trafficking victims who had applied for asylum and those who had not, given that both groups had equal need for a decision on leave to remain.
As of 30th January 2023, decisions on leave to remain for trafficking victims are now made according to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
And do listen to the latest episode of Law Pod UK, in which Rachel Marcus and Marcus Coates-Walker of 1 Crown Office Row join Lucy McCann to explore the principle of the scope of duty in the context of clinical negligence claims.
Gina Miller outside the Supreme Court earlier today (Credit: The Telegraph)
The verdict is in. The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament until October 14 was ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, since it had the effect of frustrating Parliament. As such, the prorogation was itself void.
The full judgment and the summary judgment are available and can be downloaded from the Supreme Court website. Lady Hale’s summary judgement is also widely available to watch in full.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular menagerie of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Sarina Kidd.
This week, judicial review continued to take a beating, the Home Office backed down over their ‘Go Home’ campaign and the legal implications behind the twitter threat debacle were considered. And, finally, the immigration and asylum tribunal launched a useful online search service.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly helping 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
The big news of today is that Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad and 3 others are highly likely to be extradited to the USA to face terrorism charges, following a ruling in the European Court of Human Rights – see Isabel McArdle’s post on the ruling. This aside, the main topics in the news this week have been the response by the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights (the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the “JCHR”) to the Government’s Justice and Security Green Paper and the leaks that the Government plans to introduce “real time” monitoring of how we use the internet in the interests of national security.
In 2022, there were over three hundred thousand incidents of overflow into coastal waters, freshwater rivers and estuaries from sewerage works in the UK, following heavy rainfall. The most common cause of the overflows studied was rainwater entering sewers with insufficient capacity.
These proceedings were brought in regard to the publication of a Plan regarding setting out specific targets for water companies, regulators and the Government “to work towards the long-term ambition of eliminating harm from storm overflows”. These targets are compliance with existing statutory obligations, including conditions in permits issued by the Environment Agency.
The Plan sets three targets: that water and sewerage companies will by 2050 only be allowed to discharge from a storm overflow where there would be no local adverse ecological effect; the second target is to protect public health in designated bathing waters: water and sewerage companies must by 2035 significantly reduce harmful pathogens from overflows either by carrying out disinfection or by reducing the frequency of discharges; the third, a backstop target for 2050, which operates in addition to the first two targets: by 2050 storm overflows will not be permitted to discharge above an average of 10 heavy rainfall events a year.
The Marine Conservation Society, an oyster growing company and an individual representing the public interest also challenged the legality of the Plan. The Environment Agency and Ofwat were interested parties.
Factual Background
In 2020 the sewerage network was under pressure from a growing population, increased run-off from urbanisation and heavy rainfall. It was acknowledged that the cause of overflow was the lack of capacity in the current sewer network and that had to be tackled. The government and Ofwat recognised that that water infrastructure had not kept pace with developmental growth over decades.
In the face of this, officials and ministers started formulating policy targets which would require improvements going beyond those which could satisfy a cost-benefit test(the so-called and therefore be required under regs.4 and 5 of the 1994 Regulations (BTKNEEC: see below.)
The new statutory plan that the Secretary of State had to produce was seen as a means to set specific, time-bound objectives which would drive widespread change on storm overflows across the country. But officials advised that the target should seek to reduce discharges significantly rather than eliminate them altogether, because of the costs involved and the small level of additional benefit generated.
Welcome back to the first UK human rights roundup for 2012. Our full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.
by Graeme Hall
In the news
Although human rights abuses don’t break for Christmas, UK human rights news has taken a pause over the festive period. Nonetheless, there have been some newsworthy occurrences, the Commission on Assisted Dying’s report being the most recent.
Stephen Lawrence
As the BBC reports, the Attorney General is reviewing whether the sentences handed down to Dobson and Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, receiving 15 and 14 years respectively, were unduly lenient. Gownandout, a blog written by the editor of Banks on Sentencing, believes that a reference is “highly unlikely”, whilst blogger Charon QC notes that the pair is likely to spend a lot longer in prison, particularly due to their lack of remorse.
In Secretary of State for Justice v Paul Black [2016] EWCA Civ 125 (read judgment) the Court of Appeal ruled that the Crown was not bound by Part 1 of the Health Act 2006 to ban smoking inside public prisons.
Paul Black, an inmate at HMP Wymott in Lancashire, complained that prison smoking rules were being flouted and should be made legally enforceable under Part 1. His lawyers told the hearings he suffered from a range of health problems due to frequent exposure to second-hand smoke, in particular on prison landings, in laundry rooms and in healthcare waiting rooms.
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, gave the only judgment. He identified the relevant issue as whether Part I of the Health Act 2006 applied to Crown premises, and in particular whether it applies to HMP Wymott. Part 1 made provision for the prohibition of smoking in certain defined ‘smoke-free’ premises and places, as well as for exceptions to the general prohibition. Section 3(2) enables ministers to make a special exemption for prisons. Continue reading →
FB v. Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 334, 12 May 2017, Court of Appeal – read judgment
All the advocates in this case were from 1 Crown Office Row, Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC for the claimant/appellant FB, and John Whitting QC and Alasdair Henderson for the hospital. None of them were involved in the writing of this post.
FB fell ill with meningitis when she was just one. The illness was diagnosed too late, and she suffered brain damage. This appeal was against the judge’s dismissal of the claim against the hospital, where she was seen, some time before she was admitted and the infection treated. All agreed that avoiding the time between being seen and being admitted would have led to the brain damage being avoided.
But should the junior doctor have picked up enough about her condition to admit her?
The High Court has granted an injunction preventing M25 protests in response to Just Stop Oil activists gluing themselves to motorways in the past weeks. The injunction means that anyone fixing themselves to the road, or anyone assisting someone else in doing so, can be held in contempt of court and thus face imprisonment, an unlimited fine, and the seizure of assets. The decision follows a previous court order obtained against Insulate Britain who partook in similar protests earlier in the year. The existing injunctions now cover the M25, the M25 feeder roads, and major roads in Kent and around the Port of Dover until May 2023.
The proposed bill to overhaul EU law, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, could have devastating impacts on legal certainty in the UK, the Law Society have warned. The measures would allow ministers to overhaul laws without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny or public oversight, raising concerns over parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty, and the rule of law, according to Society president Lubna Shuja. A clause in the bill would mean that many retained EU laws will expire at the end of 2023, with them going many basic protections. The Society has called for this ‘arbitrary and unrealistic’ 2023 deadline to be removed in order to allow a more measured review of the laws and what reform is necessary.
In other news
A coroner has determined in a pre-inquest hearing that there was no evidence that Archie Battersbee partook in the TikTok blackout challenge. While Archie did access TikTok on the day of his tragic injuries, there was nothing to suggest his accident was connected to the trend in question. The finding was based on photographs and videos downloaded from his phone.
The UN Human Rights Council have reminded that the UK’s treatment of asylum seekers must comply with international law in their review of the human rights situation in the UK. The statement came alongside a call on the Government to give some certainty to asylum seekers by speeding up approvals instead of housing people in motels, stating the temporary accommodation they are kept in is ‘grim’. The examination was against the backdrop of plans to send migrants to Rwanda.
The Government have been accused of ‘rolling back’ on tackling modern slavery by the charity Anti-Slavery International. It is claimed that the UK has attempted to reclassify modern slavery as an immigration issue and that a rhetoric of ‘abusing the system’ diverts attention from the important issues. The charity says that the Rwanda scheme, for instance, fails to provide safeguards to prevent victims of modern slavery being targeted for relocation.
In the courts
In Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v A Police Conduct Panel [2022] EWHC 2857 (Admin), the High Court ordered that a new panel redetermine whether an officer’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct in relation to the unauthorised use of firearms. The officer in question falsely stamped his personal firearms authorisation, meaning whenever a weapon was withdrawn by him, he used a false document authorising him to carry it. The Commissioner claimed judicial review of the panel assessing his conduct (who did not dismiss him) on 2 grounds: (i) the process by which his sanction was reached was unlawful; and (ii) the sanction awarded was irrational. Ground 1 was accepted on the basis that the Panel erred in law by considering testimonials when assessing the misconduct. Ground 2 was accepted on the basis that the only reasonable sanction was dismissal, whereas the panel only issued a written warning.
In Modi v Government of India [2022] EWHC 2829 (Admin), the High Court dismissed an appeal against a ruling ordering the Claimant to be extradited to India, who seek him for criminal proceedings. The appeal submitted that the extradition was oppressive within the meaning of s91 of the Extradition Act 2003 by virtue of his physical or mental condition. The court determined that while the risk of suicide is high, there are suitable medical provisions and an appropriate plan in place to mitigate this risk. The risk therefore did not cross the high threshold required to satisfy that the claimant’s condition is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him.
In AB v Chief Constable of British Transport Police [2022] EWHC 2749 (KB), the High Court dismissed an appeal against a judge’s declaration that the retention of records in relation to an incident involving the claimant was unlawful. The claimant has Asperger’s and experiences high levels of anxiety. Two women complained to the police that he had touched them inappropriately, but he was not charged with any offence. The police retain information about the complaints, which the claimant submits is unlawful on 2 grounds: (i) it is inaccurate, and the retention is therefore in breach of data protection; and (ii) it is a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 Convention rights. The appeal was dismissed for the fundamental reason that the records were intended to reflect the information provided to the police, rather than detailing the underlying facts of what happened.
Elsewhere on the UKHRB
Rosalind English discusses the HS2 protest injunction here.
A year of disruption, disappointment, contention and uncertainty is finally drawing to a close. On 19 December, with Christmas around the corner, the country got a hint of what 2020 might bring. The Queen’s Speech, in which the new Conservative government laid out its legislative priorities for the year to come, included more than 30 bills the government hopes to turn into law.
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.
With the May 2015 General Election looming, the battle for the future of human rights in the UK is hotting up. The Prime Minister has just 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular menagerie of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly helping of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Welcome back to the first UK human rights roundup for 2012. Our full list of links can be found 
Recent comments