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]
In her lecture at Gresham College last week Baroness Hale speculated how high the human rights tree might grow before it presents a threat to the surrounding constitutional ecosystem. Our words, not hers, but she preferred the arboreal image to the more established but inherently nonsensical notion of a “living instrument” as an expression of the Convention’s adaptability over time. This tree, she suggested, should not be allowed to transmogrify in to a gigantic beanstalk, crashing through the sky, inspiring false dreams and unrealisable ambitions.
The seeds of this tree – or treacherous beanstalk, whichever way one prefers to look at it – were sown in the seventies when the Strasbourg Court chose a “purposive” rather than a literal construction of the language used in the Convention. This means that judges enforcing the norms of the Convention need not confine themselves to the terms as stated or clearly implicit in the written text, nor to the purpose that might be derived from the preparatory materials and the historical context. Thus in the landmark case of Golder v United Kingdom, the Court ruled that Article 6 not only conferred an explicit right to a fair trial but implied that citizens should be granted the right of access to justice, something that could not be discovered within the four corners of the Convention as a document. Continue reading →
Laura Profumo serves us the latest human rights happenings.
In the News:
At the Howard League for Penal Reform AGM last week, Michael Gove held his own when challenged about criminal justice reform. Despite his Making Prisons Work speech in July, and his successful overturning of his predecessor’s prison book ban, Gove has remained relatively reticent on his plans for the criminal justice system. Speaking for some 30 minutes, Gove addressed the “need to move away from the sterile debate of ‘lock people up or let them out’”, and summon a “new era of talking about crime and punishment”. His audience, many still bristling from Grayling’s stringency in office, were won over by the Lord Chancellor’s more peaceable approach to penal reform. In addition to emphasising the need for a more sensitive sentencing framework, Gove urged for the causes of criminality to be tackled, including the “moral absence” experienced by many offenders growing up in care. In contrast to Grayling’s perceived complacency over prison conditions, Gove recognised the current “crisis”, pledging his commitment to his “new for old” prisons policy – replacing ineffective Victorian prisons with functional new ones – as well as to improving the autonomy of prison governors. The Lord Chancellor also proposed the use of more advanced technology in prisons, in order to improve the safety of staff and inmates, and to meet the particular educational needs of prisoners with learning difficulties. The conference ended on an especially poignant note, with Gove expressing his admiration for social workers – words which left Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League “blown away”.
It remains to be seen whether the Autumn Statement, unveiled later this month, will affirm Gove’s ambitious plans. Yet his moral framework for policy choices bodes well, informing the ongoing debate on the prison system with a quieter rhetoric of hope and realism. Continue reading →
Tanya Morahan had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and harmful cocaine use. From mid-May 2018 she was an inpatient at a rehabilitation unit operated by the Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust. She was initially detained under s.3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 but on 25 June 2018 the section was rescinded. On 30 June 2018 Tanya left the unit but didn’t return until the next evening, 1 July. On the afternoon of 3 July 2018, again with her doctors’ agreement, she left the ward but didn’t return. The Trust asked the police to visit her. They visited on 4 July 2018 but she did not answer the door. She was ultimately found dead on 9 July 2018. [para 2].
Background
The Coroner opened an inquest and found that Article 2 was not engaged. The family brought judicial review proceedings, arguing that: (1) the circumstances of Tanya’s death fell within a class of cases which gave rise to an automatic duty to conduct a Middleton inquest; (2) alternatively, that such duty arose because there were arguable breaches of a substantive operational duty (the Osman duty) owed by the Trust to take steps to avert the real and immediate risk of Tanya’s death by accidental drug overdose, a risk which was or ought to have been known to the Trust. [para 3].
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular late summer bake off of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can find previous roundups here. Post by Daniel Isenberg, edited and links compiled by Adam Wagner.
Following the Tory Conference, commentators postulated on the topography of the human rights landscape in 2015. Meanwhile, more looming concerns have been raised about proposed reform of judicial review, while challenges have been raised to the bedroom tax, as well as the UK’s involvement in PRISM.
This week’s Round-up is brought to you by Alex Wessely.
In the news
Three high profile cases concerning the UK government have been granted hearings in the European Court of Human Rights grand chamber, putting the relationship between the government and the ECHR “in the spotlight“.
Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdomconcerns four men convicted of offences relating to the 21 July London terror plot. The men were initially interviewed by police before they were allowed to consult a lawyer (on the grounds that the urgent situation meant no delay was permissible), which they claim is a breach of their Article 6 rights (right to a fair trial).
The second case, Hutchinson v UK, concerns the politically charged issue of whole life tariffs – prisoners who have been told they will never be released from jail. Ian Hutchinson, sentenced in 1983 for triple murder and rape, argues that this constitutes a violation of his Article 3 rights (protection against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment). This argument was rejected in February, but is now being re-heard.
The third case is brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was killed by police in 2005 when they mistakenly thought he was planning a suicide attack at Stockwell station. This is covered by Inquest, the Guardian and Evening Standard.
Yesterday saw another poor piece of human rights reporting from the Telegraph, again from Home Affairs Correspondent David Barrett. Strasbourg human rights court threatens key counter-terrorism powers. It is a typical piece of hall-of-mirrors reporting; all of the basic elements are there but presented in a distorted and inaccurate way.
The piece is about the case of Sabure Malik, a British investment banker who was stopped by police in 2010 at Heathrow on his way back from an organised package tour to undertake the Hajj. Full details of his case, which is supported by Liberty, are in the Euoprean Court of Human Rights’ admissibility decision here. It was granted permission to proceed in May 2013, well before the David Miranda controversy which took place in August.
The High Contracting Parties shall hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
This Article imposes obligations on States rather than creating rights for individuals. This provision includes the right to vote and the right of candidates to stand for election.
States are under an obligation not to impose any form of pressure as to the choice of candidates at elections: Moureaux v Ors (1983) DR 97.
Protocol 1 Article 3 does not require that every vote is given equal weight; different electoral systems all involve wasted votes and there is no obligation to introduce proportional representation.
Access to the media must not be discriminatory. However, a wide margin of appreciation applies under this Article and the Strasbourg authorities have been slow to strike down national rules relating to election coverage (Tete v France (1987) 54 DR 52).
So there is nothing controversial about the express terms of A1 31, however this Article has become something of a battleground for almost everything the Convention stands for, in the eyes of its opponents as well as its supporters. This is because the Strsabourg Court found, in Hirst v United Kingdom (2006) 42 EHRR 41, that the provision implies that all individuals have the right to vote, and that therefore the UK blanket ban a blanket ban on all prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment is unlawful. The standoff between the UK and Strasbourg on this matter is as yet unresolved. The reason the argument has become so heated is that it turns on a fundamental question at the base of human rights instruments such as the Convention: Is it the right of the democratically elected Parliament to decide who their electorate should be? See the numerous case reports, news pieces and discussions on the prisoner voting issue here, here and here.
The UK’s exit from the European Union raises many questions for continuing cross-border arrangements and the legal proceedings that follow. This is no less the case in the area of police and judicial cooperation. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) has governed all arrangements since January 2021. Since people accused of crime will continue to travel, what does this mean for an individual’s ability to challenge requests from EU member states to UK authorities? These arguments are well known in the UK: how can we return people to Poland for prosecution of such minor misdemeanours as dessert theft? Should we be returning people to Lithuania given the appalling prison conditions?
Part 3 TCA introduced a new “surrender” arrangement with the EU to replace the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It also replaced the other measures that in 2014 the UK concluded were necessary for law enforcement when it exercised the Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty option to depart from police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and then opted back into 35. Alongside the EAW, these included the European investigation order, supervision order, instrument on transfer of prisoners and various others. These measures resulted from the mutual recognition project that sought to make law enforcement speedier and more effective. Part 3 TCA now provides for cooperation with Europol and Eurojust, operational information exchange and mutual assistance.
CM, Re Judicial Review [2013] CSOH 143 – read judgment
The Scottish Court of Session has ruled that the prohibition of smoking and possession of tobacco products by patients at a mental hospital was unlawful. Whilst being careful to emphasise that this ruling did not spell out a specific right to smoke, the Court considered that the ban infringed the patients’ right to respect for home under Article 8.
The petitioner, a patient in a high security psychiatric hospital, sought judicial review of the policy adopted by the State Hospitals Board to ban smoking not just inside the hospital but also in the hospital grounds. He claimed that the ban amounted to a breach of his right to respect for private life and home under Article 8, both as a stand‑alone claim and in combination with Article 14 (enjoyment of Convention rights without discrimination). He also argued that the ban constituted an unlawful and discriminatory infringement of his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1.
The petitioner further based his position on compassionate grounds, pointing out that there are few diversions available in the State Hospital; that he derived pleasure from smoking; and that as an individual with relatively few liberties the removal of his ability to smoke had had a disproportionately large impact on him. Continue reading →
Four Conservatives and four Liberal Democrats told to “sort out” UK human rights (the terms of reference were a little less vague, but that’s basically it), whilst also being limited to proposing a Bill of Rights that “incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights“. In other words, the could do very little at all except fiddle with our already existing, and actually quite elegant, Human Rights Act 1998. I have compared any new Bill of Rights arising from the Commission a bit like an updated Ford Fiesta; a new look and a few new features, but essentially the same car.
There will be plenty of analysis once the report is released. I wanted to concentrate here on the likely reaction. Matthew Parris got it right in Saturday’s Times (£) when he quoted Edmund Burke:
This week’s Round-up is brought to you by Hannah Lynes.
In the news
Call from legal community for urgent action on refugee crisis
More than 300 lawyers have signed a statement denouncing the Government’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis as “deeply inadequate”.
The document, whose signatories include former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, three former Law Lords and over 100 Queen’s Counsel, describes Prime Minister David Cameron’s offer to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees over 5 years as “too low, too slow and too narrow.” Continue reading →
On 1 October 2020, the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC, gave a speech at Temple Church to mark the opening of the legal year. He praised the “enduring success” of our legal system, our “healthy democracy”, and the “commitment to the Rule of Law” which steered the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The Lord Chancellor delivered his speech two days after the controversial Internal Market Bill cleared its final hurdle in the House of Commons with ease, by 340 votes to 256. Earlier in September, Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, told the House of Commons that the government’s plans would “break international law in a very specific and limited way.” On September 29, the Lord Chancellor voted against a proposed amendment to the Bill “requiring Ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the Courts.” He was joined in doing so by the Attorney General, Suella Braverman, and the Solicitor General, Michael Ellis.
A heated debate has arisen across the UK and abroad after Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips last week rejected calls for a public inquiry into child grooming gangs in Oldham. In a letter sent to Oldham Council in response to its request for a public inquiry, Phillips stated it was for “Oldham Council alone to decide whether to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene”. The decision has led to widespread criticism, with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick calling it “shameful” and Elon Musk arguing that Phillips “deserves to be in prison”. Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has defended Musk’s involvement as an exercise in “free speech”. Professor Alexis Jay, former Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), has suggested that it is change that is needed rather than a fresh inquiry. A statement published on Sunday by campaign group Act on IICSA warned against the politicisation of sexual violence, which only “hinders the implementation of vital and urgent overhaul” to existing systems. In a press conference on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer defended Jess Phillips and his own record as Director of Public Prosecutions, accusing critics of “spreading lies and misinformation” and of being interested in themselves rather than the victims.
Former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, has warned that legal aid cuts in family cases are denying parents their human rights, stating that the cuts are “wrong in principle”. Following legislative changes in 2013, parents in private children’s law cases are unable to access legal aid – irrespective of their means – unless abuse is alleged. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Neuberger called it “almost disgraceful” that parents are given human rights and then denied the ability to enforce them as a result of the lack of legal aid. “Rights aren’t meaningful unless they can be enforced”, he added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson responded to Neuberger’s position by emphasising the importance of families getting the “best outcomes as quickly as possible”, pointing to the mediation scheme available for family disputes which is partially Government funded.
In Other News
The latest report published by HRMMU, the UN team investigating human rights in Ukraine, details the deteriorating situation in the region with a surge in monthly civilian casualties and allegations of executions of Ukrainian Servicepersons. Evidence continues to suggest that individuals being held as Prisoners of War (POWs) are suffering torture and ill-treatment, including sexual violence. While the report acknowledges mistreatment of Russian POWs, these instances are said to appear more “isolated” than that of Ukrainians. As the war rages on nearly three years after the Russian invasion, the report calls for both countries to “intensify” their efforts to uphold international human rights law. The report was published just days before Ukraine launched a renewed offensive in Russia’s Kursk region on Sunday, leaving Russian civilians “shaken”.
Ireland’s landmark hate crime law – the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 – came into force last week, marking a historic moment in Irish law regarding the treatment of hate-motivated offences. The new law prescribes increased prison sentences where hatred predicated upon real or perceived protected identity characteristics either motivates a crime or is demonstrated during it. Ireland Justice Minister Helen McEntee said last Tuesday that the “legislation meets a clear gap in [Irish] laws and is widely supported by the public”, bringing Ireland out of the small group of EU countries that continue not to have specific hate crime offences set out in law. The bill had originally also contained provisions tightening the laws around hate speech, but this section was dropped in October after McEntee revealed there was no longer a “consensus” on its inclusion. The law around hate speech in Ireland is governed by the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which remains in force.
Activists are celebrating the inclusion of measures in the 2025 National Defence Authorisation Act (the annual US defence spending bill) to address the oppression of the Uyghur Muslim population in China’s Xinjiang region, which the US has labelled genocide. The bill was signed into law by President Joe Biden shortly before Christmas and incorporates the bipartisan Uyghur Human Rights Policy Reauthorisation Act 2024 which extended the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act passed under Trump in 2020. The Act greenlights sanctions against Chinese officials believed to be involved in Uyghur oppression. The renewal of these sanctions has been welcomed by the Uyghur Human Rights Project, with UHRP Executive Director Omer Kanat calling it “a gift of hope for Uyghurs”. The move represents the latest show of continued support for the Uyghur population by the United States.
In the Courts
On Sunday, the Criminal Division of the Seoul Western District Court rejected objections made by Yoon Suk Yeol, suspended President of South Korea, against the execution of arrest and search warrants against him. Yoon has been suspended as President pending impeachment proceedings following a failed attempt in December to impose martial law. Anti-corruption investigators issued the arrest warrant for Yoon and a search warrant for the Presidential residence after the suspended President ignored multiple summons for questioning. Yoon’s legal team filed an objection to the warrants in the courts last Thursday, arguing that they were illegal on the basis that the investigators did not have jurisdiction to issue them, and that, in any case, a criminal law prohibiting the execution of warrants in military areas should apply in his case. It has not yet been revealed on what grounds the court has rejected his arguments, and it is expected that a re-appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Court once this is clear. In the meantime, the Presidential Security Team are taking measures to block Yoon’s arrest, installing barbed wire and barricading the compound where he is residing. The arrest warrant expired at midnight on Monday January 6th with Yoon successful in defying arrest, although investigators are seeking an extension of the warrant’s deadline.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular smorgasbord 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.
A relatively quiet week on the news front, with courts having a well-earned Easter break. Just a few items to focus on, with commentary appearing following the US Supreme Court’s oral hearing on the same-sex marriage. The Employment Tribunal has found that conference motions and debates surrounding Israeli boycotts do not constitute anti-Semitism; and assistance is out there for litigants in person following the enactment of LASPO.
Just a quick post to tell you about three things I have coming up which you might be interested in:
1. This Wednesday 30 October from 10:30am I am giving evidence to the Joint Select Committee on the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, along with Joshua Rozenberg – full details here. The hearing will be broadcast live online. I will be talking about how media reporting and public perceptions of the European Court of Human Rights has affected the prisoner voting debate.
2. Then, also on Wed 30 Oct, in the evening, I’m taking part in a panel debate with BPP Fresh Perspectives on Law, which will explore the aftermath of the revelations about the NSA and GCHQ’s communications surveillance programmes. Also speaking: Paul Bernal, Lecturer in Internet and Media Law, University of East Angli; Ben Hayes, Statewatch and Alex Lawson, Lecturer, BPP Law School. Places are free but you have to sign up here.
3. Finally, on Wednesday 20 November I am joining lots of excellent lawyers in a charity mentoring event, raising money for Anna Verrico’s cancer treatment. Tickets are £10, a great cause, all details here.
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.
In her lecture at Gresham College last week Baroness Hale speculated how high the human rights tree might grow before it presents a threat to the surrounding constitutional ecosystem. Our words, not hers, but she preferred the arboreal image to the more established but inherently nonsensical notion of a “living instrument” as an expression of the Convention’s adaptability over time. This tree, she suggested, should not be allowed to transmogrify in to a gigantic beanstalk, crashing through the sky, inspiring false dreams and unrealisable ambitions.
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular late summer bake off of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found 
The 
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular smorgasbord of human rights news. The full list of links can be found 
Just a quick post to tell you about three things I have coming up which you might be interested in:
Recent comments