Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/23/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)

Law Pod UK: Anonymity for claimants, Anonymity for doctors

1 May 2019 by Olivia Kaplan

In Episode 77, Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Rajkiran Barhey about two recent decisions on anonymity, Justyna Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 552 (QB)and General Medical Council v X [2019] EWHC 493 (Admin) (Westlaw paywall).

Rajkiran’s article on Zeromska-Smith can be found here.

The episode also refers to ABC v St George’s Healthcare Trust [2015] EWHC 1394 (QB),covered on the Blog here and here and the case of JXMX (A Child) v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust  [2015] EWCA Civ 96, covered on the Blog here.

Angus McCullough QC considered anonymity in a recent Blog article here.

You can catch the episode by clicking here.

Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, iTunes, Audioboom, Podbean or wherever you listen to our podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.  

Subsidy withdrawal from renewable energy entirely lawful – Court of Appeal

26 October 2016 by Rosalind English

Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd v HM Treasury and Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1030 – read judgment

In July 2015 the government announced that it was removing a subsidy for renewable energy. Its decision in fact was to take away the exemption that renewable source electricity enjoyed from a tax known as the climate change levy. We have covered previous episodes in the renewables saga on the UKHRB in various posts.

The appellant, the largest landfill gas operator in the UK and one of the leading onshore wind generators, challenged the government’s removal of the subsidy on the basis of the EU law principles of foreseeability, legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations or proportionality. At first instance the judge upheld the Secretary of State’s decision, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against this finding.

Legal and Factual Background

The subsidy took the form of an exemption for renewable source electricity (RSE) such as that provided by the appellant’s company, from the climate change levy (CCL). (The judgment is replete with these acronyms so it’s worth getting to grips with them before reading.)

Jay J, the judge at first instance, summarised the government’s reasons for removing the exemption. The government wanted to move away from a system of indirect support to one of direct support, the latter being more efficient and cost-effective. The exemption, it was said, benefited foreign generators and there were incentives and support in place that would continue to support domestic generators of renewable energy.  The government had considered the impact of this decision on companies such as Infinis,  but it was decided that it was outweighed by the public interest. 
Continue reading →

Management consultant charges mother £400 for each visit to nursing home – Court of Protection

28 October 2015 by Rosalind English

SF, Re [2015] EWCOP 68 (26 October 2015) – read judgment

This Court of Protection case has, unusually, made the papers, and when you read the details you won’t be surprised. What the judge described as a “callous and calculating” son charged his widowed mother, who suffered from dementia, more than £117 000 for “out of pocket expenses” visiting her in her nursing home.  He had been in charge of her expenses since 2004 when Sheila (the mother) had been admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. But alarm bells only went off after her unpaid nursing bills reached nearly £30 000. The Public Guardian launched an enquiry that led to this hearing of an application for the court to revoke the son’s  (Martin’s) Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA’) and to direct him to cancel its registration. The Public Guardian also applied to freeze Sheila’s bank account.
Continue reading →

Foreign nationals who pose a threat to national security may not be deported to Algeria because of human rights – Court of Appeal

2 February 2015 by Rosalind English

BB, PP, U and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 9 (23 January 2015) – read judgment

This was an appeal by Algerian nationals who had been found by the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC) to constitute a threat to UK national security, against deportation to Algeria.

The appellants had resisted attempts by various home secretaries to deport them via protracted litigation over several years. Despite several findings by the SIAC that their human rights would not be infringed in Algeria, doubts remained, particularly with regard to the period of up to twelve days of initial detention in Algeria, known as “garde a vue” detention, in a barracks run by the Algerian security services (DRS). The purpose of such detention was to interrogate prisoners to obtain evidence for future proceedings. SIAC had wholly accepted the evidence of an innocent British citizen (AB) detained there in a case of mistaken identity as “punitive in the extreme”, but determined that his treatment showed a lack of care over the detainee’s welfare rather than a breach of his human rights. It had conceded that the treatment of the appellants might well be no better, not least because DRS officers considered such treatment to be consistent with respect for human dignity.

The appellants submitted that, in the light of this, SIAC’s conclusion that their treatment would not violate Article 3 of the Convention was legally unsustainable; that  SIAC had erred in law in its findings that the Algerian government’s assurances were capable of independent verification; and that the SIAC had also erred in law in maintaining, without any open evidence in support, that the DRS had been present during discussions about those assurances and had subscribed to them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appeals.
Continue reading →

Weekly Round-up: Horizon IT, Jeffrey Epstein, Idaho abortion ban

9 January 2024 by Hal McNulty

In the news 

The Post Office is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for potential fraud offences committed in what has been termed the Horizon IT Scandal. This investigation builds on a pre-existing one into potential offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice in relation to prosecutions carried out by the Post Office. Between 1999 and 2015 hundreds of sub-postmasters were prosecuted by the Post Office for alleged theft, fraud, and false accounting, despite evidence having come to light in 2010 that the Post Office’s Fujitsu accounting systems were faulty. The prosecutions resulted in over 700 sub-postmasters being handed criminal convictions as well as being forced to pay back apparent shortfalls. A 2019 high court case overturned some of these convictions and led to partial victim compensation but the Post Office continues to oppose appeals. In the wake of a new ITV drama concerning the scandal, 50 new potential victims have come forward. Rishi Sunak has signalled that the government is taking steps to exonerate victims of the faulty technology. 

Other nations have come under pressure to support South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ, which accuses the wartime state of committing genocide against Palestinians. The application stated that Israel’s recent actions have violated the 1948 Genocide Convention “because they are intended bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”. The White House has criticised South Africa’s accusation as “meritless … counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.”

We need a new, enforceable international climate change agreement — Dr Linda Roland Danil

8 October 2018 by Guest Contributor

Today it was announced that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published a special report on the impact of climate change which warns that the world is wildly off track from the target of keeping the rise in global temperature under control.

In this guest article, Dr Linda Roland Danil argues that a new international agreement is needed to prevent us from sleepwalking into serious trouble.

In 2015, 196 Parties came together and agreed to the Paris Agreement, under which they pledged to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But the problem is that the Paris Agreement does not contain quantified, legally-binding obligations for the reduction of emissions. It also has no enforcement mechanism, such as an international tribunal. Instead, countries prepare their own national emissions targets – so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDC’s – and report to each other on how well they are doing to implement their targets.

The Paris Agreement was undoubtedly an achievement in the realm of international climate negotiations, and although the Trump administration has notoriously recently pledged to withdraw from the Agreement, a withdrawal which cannot take effect until late 2020. 196 Parties, at different stages of economic development, and within a conflicting political context, all agreed on the importance of tackling the threat of anthropogenic global warming.

However, the Paris Agreement’s targets are simply not being met, with the national pledges by the signatory Parties having recently been argued to bring about only a third of the reduction of emissions by 2030 that is required.
Continue reading →

Court of Session: Partners in Crime Have no ‘Family Life’

29 October 2015 by Thomas Raine

O’Neill and Lauchlan v Scottish Ministers [2015] CSOH 93, 28^th October 2015 – read judgment

The Outer House of the Court of Session has dismissed challenges brought by two convicted paedophiles to the Scottish Prison Service’s refusal to allow them to visit each other in prison. The decisions were challenged under articles 8 and 14 ECHR, as it was claimed that the prisoners were in a homosexual relationship.
Continue reading →

The worrying new anti-terrorism measures that are set to become law – Angela Patrick

2 February 2015 by Guest Contributor

Credit: guardian.co.uk

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill begins its final stages in the House of Lords today. This blog considered the Bill on its introduction to the Lords. In the interim, both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords have reported, both recommending significant amendments.

Despite repeat flurries of excitement as a coalition of Peers suggest time and again that most of the controversial Communications Data Bill – popularly known as the Snoopers’ Charter – might be a late-stage drop in; the press has, perhaps regrettably, shown little interest in the Bill.

Continue reading →

We are five! And we’re having a party to celebrate

28 September 2015 by Adam Wagner

The UK Human Rights Blog recently turned five years old, and it would only be right if we celebrated with you, our loyal readers. So, we’re having a party on Thursday 29 October 2015. The full details are below. There will be drinks and some great music.

It’s a free event, but places are very limited so if you want to reserve a place, please email Lisa Pavlovsky (lisa.pavlovsky@1cor.com) with the subject heading “UKHRB Birthday Party”. The body text should only include your name, position (e.g. “solicitor” or “student”) and organisation, if you are attached to one.

Full details:

UK Human Rights Blog Birthday Party

Thursday, 29 October 2015

 7pm – 10:30pm

 4^th Floor Studios,

255-259 Commercial Road,

London E1 2BT

We really hope to see you there and thanks again for your support over the years.

The Magna Carta, Then and Now: Public Lecture

24 November 2015 by Rosalind English

In celebration of UN Human Rights Day on 10 December, Professor David Carpenter will be giving a lecture at Queen Mary University London.

David Carpenter is a Professor of Medieval History at King’s College London and author of ‘Magna Carta’, published by Penguin Classics.

Magna Carta, forced on King John in 1215 by rebellion, is one of the most famous documents in world history. It asserts a fundamental principle: that the ruler is subject to the law. David Carpenter’s commentary draws on new discoveries to give an entirely fresh account of Magna Carta’s text, origins, survival and enforcement, showing how it quickly gained a central place in English political life.
Continue reading →

The remarkable shrinking backlog at the European Court of Human Rights – Alice Donald

1 October 2014 by Guest Contributor

In recent years, a constant feature of debate about the future of the European Court of Human Rights has been the backlog of applications that threatens to engulf it. At its height, in September 2011, this backlog reached the dizzying figure of more than 160,000.

The accumulation of applications has been the basis of the argument both by politicians (such as David Cameron) and figures formerly associated with the Court (such as Luzius Wildhaber) that the Strasbourg system should be fundamentally reformed so that it would deliver far fewer judgments relating only to large-scale violations, structural problems, or important questions of the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Such reform would mean drastically curtailing the right of individual petition, which for decades has been the cornerstone of the Convention system (and of other regional human rights mechanisms that have emulated the ECHR model).  Yet if the backlog was to be significantly reduced – or eliminated – the foundation of the argument that the Court requires root-and-ranch reform to avoid collapse would, by the same token, disappear. Figures presented last week by the Registrar of the Court, Erik Fribergh, suggest that this scenario is now not only possible, but likely.

Continue reading →

Serious fraud trial abandoned because of cuts to legal aid for defence representation

6 May 2014 by Rosalind English

R v Scott Crawley and others – read judgement

A judge has halted a serious fraud trial after defendants claimed they could not get adequate representation because cuts to legal aid, and as a result they would not get a fair trial under common law or Article 6 of the Convention. This case could be the first of a number of  reversals following the government’s legal aid reforms with seven further trials due to start before September 2015 involving 28 defendants in similar positions.

The defendants were charged with offences of conspiracy to defraud, possessing criminal property and offences where the evidence was complex and substantial. The the case against the five men amounted to more than 46,000 pages of documents and the case summary itself covered 55 pages. In essence, the Crown alleged that the defendants had been involved in a fraudulent land selling scheme. Some purchasers were given good title, some were not, and some sub-plots were sold more than once. Various interventions by the FSA (as it then was) to stop the practices were subverted by transferring the fraudulent scheme to a new company.

Background

In July the Legal Aid Authority notified the parties that the case had been classified as a Very High Cost Case (VHCC).Shortly after this the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) announced their intention to cut fees paid to counsel by 30%. The Bar announced their dissatisfaction with this decision and their intention to undeem VHCC cases.

During this same period the MoJ and the Bar were negotiating over proposed reductions in graduated fees. The Public Defender Service (“PDS”), a department of the LAA, began actively to recruit a pool of employed advocates to take on work that might otherwise have been done by independent advocate.

At a hearing on 14th November 2013 the defence raised concerns that they would not have counsel for the trial and that there was insufficient time for any counsel who might now be instructed to be ready by April 2014. By the end of November all counsel had returned their briefs.

In this hearing Alex Cameron QC appeared bro bono to advance the argument on behalf of the defendants that Leonard HHJ should stay the proceedings because they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and that he should not grant an adjournment because the possibility that at some unknown date in the future an adequately funded advocate may become available is no basis on which to grant an adjournment. The Crown accepted that involuntary lack of representation would be inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and common law rights and they acknowledged that a fair trial could not be held now. But they submitted that there was a reasonable prospect that advocates would be available to represent the defendants in the future and that the judge should adjourn the trial to a future date rather than staying the indictment. A stay as an abuse of process is an exceptional remedy, but nor should the defendants in this case become “victims of a dispute between the Bar and the government” (para 24):

my decision on how to proceed in this case is taken without regard to the continuing dispute between the Bar and the MoJ. I am only concerned with the merits of the arguments put before me and to ensure that a trial is only held if it can be conducted fairly in accordance with the principles long established in this country and which are, additionally, enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The efforts to find representation included contact with 70 sets of chambers with barristers who hold themselves out as competent to undertake this sort of work in and outside London. By 15th January 2014 there was one silk who put himself forward as willing to accept instructions. He withdrew on 16th January. Enquiries were made without success with the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh.

The efforts put in by the defence to find trial advocates had been, in the judge’s words, “very substantial indeed” and in the end, unsuccessful. There was no compromise solution in this case:

Criminal trials of this complexity rely on the skills of highly competent and experienced advocates on both sides to reduce issues, make matters understandable to a jury and keep trials to a reasonable length.

The judge was referred to Croissant v. Germany (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 135 in respect of the right to a choice of representation where the state pays for legal assistance.In that case it was considered sufficient that the court appoints a lawyer to defend and individual; the right of a defendant to choose his own counsel cannot be considered absolute. In the present case the judge was of the view that the defendants could not hold out for independent counsel of their choice to become available.

In determining whether he should grant an adjournment rather than the more drastic remedy of a stay, Leonard HHJ had to consider a number of factors:

1. Failure to grant an adjournment will deprive the victims of crime of the opportunity to see those that they judge responsible prosecuted.To deny them that opportunity should not be lightly taken.
2. Against that,  there are other methods available to the victims to recover their losses civilly and there are other regulatory offences which could be brought against the defendants which may not meet the gravamen of the conduct alleged but which could mark out their alleged misconduct and prevent them from being able to take a rôle in corporate activity in the future.
3. On the other hand, the responsibility to provide adequate representation at public expense is also the responsibility of the State. I have considered whether the State should in those circumstances be entitled to benefit from its own failure by being granted an adjournment.
4. An adjournment of the trial would involve an additional stress on the State’s provision of resources to try crime.

In view of the availability of barristers and the preparation time required the judge was not satisfied that sufficient advocates would be available to assist these defendants at trail, nor did he have any reason to think that there was a realistic prospect tha the Bar would accept contracts in VHCC cases on the present MOJ terms.

Having considered all these matters he was compelled to conclude that, to allow the State an adjournment to put right its failure to provide the necessary resources to permit a fair trial to take place now amounts to a violation of the process of this court. He further found that there was no realistic prospect that sufficient advocates would be available for this case to be tried in January 2015 from any of the sources available to the defence, including the PDS.

Speaking to The Independent, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “Barristers have refused to work on this case – and a number of other Very High Cost Court Cases – because they do not agree with savings the Government is making to legal aid.

Even after the savings, if a QC picked up a case like this one, they could expect to receive around £100,000 for working on it, with a junior barrister receiving around £60,000.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Supreme Court: the common law working out illegality defence

23 April 2015 by David Hart KC

Jetivia v. Bilta [2015] UKSC 23, 22 April 2015 – read judgment

Supreme Court: capping benefits does not breach human rights of children

12 June 2019 by Michael Spencer

R (DA & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (DS & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge by lone parents with young children to the reduced benefit cap, holding by a majority of 5-2 that its discriminatory effects are justified.   Although disappointing for campaigners, the judgment helps to clarify many aspects of discrimination law in the context of social and economic policy.

Background: the benefit cap

The benefit cap was first introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.  It applies as a limit on the total amount of welfare benefits that one household can receive if they are out of work, initially set at £500 per week (or £26,000 per annum) for families with children. As the limit applies irrespective of family composition, it has a severe effect on larger families and those such as lone parents with young children who may find it difficult to avoid it by finding work.

US court takes important step in resolving human/wildlife conflict at sea

30 September 2015 by Rosalind English

Sea Otters

California Sea Urchin Commission, et al. v Michael Bean, et al, US District Court, Central District of California (September 18 2015) – read judgment

A Californian court has upheld the protection of marine otters over the interests of commercial fishing.

Sea otters are remarkable marine mammals who live their entire lives at sea, giving birth in the water and clutching their cubs to their bellies as they float in rafts of up to a thousand, holding hands while they sleep to avoid drifting off in the ocean’s currents. But they are not just picturesque; they are essential to the health of the seas. A main component of their diet is the ubiquitous sea urchin, which feeds on kelp. As sea otters have been hunted and killed as by-catch over the centuries, their diminishing numbers have led to the proliferation of the sea urchin population and the consequent disappearance of the kelp forests on the seabed. The damage this does to the marine ecosystem has been inestimable.

This somewhat technical judgment, made on a preliminary application for summary judgment by the fishing industry, therefore marks an important step in the judicial response to marine conservation.
Continue reading →