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

Transsexual denied NHS breast surgery loses appeal

17 March 2011 by Matthew Flinn

R (on the Application of AC) v Bershire West Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 247 – Read judgment.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of a male-to-female transsexual who was refused NHS funding for breast augmentation surgery.

The appellant, known as AC, had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder (GID) in 1996. As part of its GID treatment program the PCT had been prepared to provide genital reassignment surgery, which AC had not availed herself of.

Continue reading →

Go Home, Legal Aid and Mental Capacity – The Human Rights Roundup

12 August 2013 by Daniel Isenberg

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular non-silly season 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 Daniel Isenberg.

The end of the legal term seemingly does not mean a let-up in immigration news, with a number of Home Office, asylum and immigration-related stories making the headlines.  Also, the back-and-forth on legal aid cuts continues, as well as some interesting perspectives on the Mental Capacity Act, sexual offences trials and the FOIA veto. Some interesting judgments too, particularly on secret trials.

Continue reading →

Indefinite Detention and the Rule of Law — Catherine Jaquiss

12 December 2017 by Guest Contributor

On 1 December 2017 an event in Temple Church with the Bar Council in collaboration with Refugee Tales, an outreach project whose aim is to see the end of indefinite immigration detention, saw an announcement of new recommendations for reform of the system of immigration detention.

This followed from the publication on 30 November 2017 of ‘Injustice in Immigration Detention, Perspectives from Legal Professionals’, an independent report by Dr Anna Lindley of SOAS. Read the report here: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/623583/171130_injustice_in_immigration_detention_dr_anna_lindley.pdf

The Bar Council, led by Andrew Langdon QC, is making a series of recommendations in light of the report, as follows:

1. A 28-day time limit for administrative detention;

2. Automatic judicial oversight of the arrangements for holding people in administrative detention;

3. Adequate legal aid for advice and representation for those held in immigration detention to challenge the loss of their liberty;

4. A ban on the use of prisons for the purposes of administrative detention;

5. Special care for vulnerable people and victims of torture held in administrative detention; and

6. Review and clarification of the criteria for administrative detention. The relevant policy and rules need to be accessible and intelligible so that all those who are affected by the exercise of powers to detain understand the reasons for the exercise of those powers and can challenge decisions where appropriate.

Continue reading →

The CJEU on “prohibitively expensive” and the new protective costs order regime

11 April 2013 by David Hart KC

R (Edwards & Pallikaropoulos) v. Environment Agency et al, 11 April 2013, read CJEU judgment, and read Opinion of A-G Kokott,

and the Civil Procedure Rules 45.41 to 45.44, in force from 1 April 2013, with Practice Direction 45

Twin developments, both of which are important for those involved in environmental cases. They emerge from the UK’s treaty obligations flowing from the Aarhus Convention under which it is obliged to ensure that environmental cases are not “prohibitively expensive” per Article 9(4) of the Convention.

The first development is a decision by the CJEU on the meaning of those words.

The second is a new set of rules providing for protective costs orders in environmental judicial review claims.
Continue reading →

Airspace in a crowded sky

27 August 2019 by Rosalind English

Lasham Gliding Society Ltd, R (on the application of) v. the Civil Aviation Authority and TAG Farnborough Airport Limited – read judgment

The Claimant, the Lasham Gliding Society, challenged a decision by the Civil Aviation Authority, the statutory regulator of UK airspace, to permit the introduction of air traffic controls in airspace around Farnborough Airport, which is presently largely uncontrolled. Lasham Gliding Society (“LGS”) is one of the largest gliding clubs in the world. Its concern was that one of the effects of the CAA’s decision would be to increase the risk of a mid-air collision between its gliders and those aircraft which divert away from any newly controlled airspace around Farnborough Airport into the adjacent uncontrolled zone over Lasham where its gliders fly.

To put it in more detail, LGS argued that as a result of the CAA’s decision, light powered aircraft would be unable to enter their proposed controlled airspace which would compress them into the limited channel of non-controlled airspace near Lasham, thus creating “bottlenecks” that would increase the risk of mid-air collisions (referred to in the judgment as the “Lasham bottleneck” or “Lasham Gap”

LGS challenged the CAA’s decision on the basis that the CAA had misconstrued the Transport Act 2000; was in breach of its duties under the Act and had acted irrationally. The relevant provision is Section 70 which provides, broadly, that “the CAA must exercise its air navigation functions so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services, and that duty is to have priority over [the CAA’s obligation to secure the most efficient and expeditious flow of aircraft, to satisfy the requirements of owners of all classes of aircraft and to take account of environmental objectives, national security interests, etc.].”

A manifesto for 21st century open justice

17 March 2011 by Adam Wagner

One of the country’s most senior judges, Lord Neuberger, has given a stirring speech on the challenges of open justice in the 21st century. His ideas are progressive and practical, and amount to a manifesto for building a more open justice system, fit for the internet age.

Judicial review proceedings may be terminated by government

12 August 2013 by Rosalind English

Ignaoua, R (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2013] EWHC 2512 (Admin) – read judgment

The Government’s termination of existing judicial review proceedings via certification under the Justice and Security Act was “troubling” but lawful. Parliament’s  intention was clear, even though there were no new rules in force yet.

The claimant was challenging her exclusion from the UK on national security grounds in proceedings commenced in 2010. The proceedings were terminated under special powers conferred by the Act. The challenge could proceed instead before the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC), which has all the powers of the divisional court to conduct a judicial review of his exclusion.

The question before the court was whether the certificate had been lawfully made and not an abuse of process.
Continue reading →

The Weekly Round-up: Alexei Navalny conviction, compensation for miscarriages of justice, and camping on Dartmoor

7 August 2023 by Grace Storrie

In the news 

Alexei Navalny – a vocal critic of Putin’s government and prominent opposition figure in Russia – has been sentenced to a further 19 years in prison. Navalny is already serving an 11-year sentence for various charges. The hearing for this most recent conviction was held behind closed doors, at a penal colony in Nelekhovo (to the east of Moscow). The opposition leader was found guilty on six counts, including a charge for inciting and financing extremism. As part of this most recent conviction, Navalny will be moved to a “special regime colony”, where his access to visitors (including family members and his legal team) will be reduced. Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for Navalny’s release and denounced the “repressive crackdown on freedom of expression and political opposition in Russia”. 

In a similar piece of news, the UK Government imposed sanctions on 6 individuals in connection with the conviction of Vladimir Kara-Murza, a prominent critic of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Mr Kara-Murza is a dual Russian and British national, who was sentenced earlier this year to 25 years in a penal colony for treason and spreading “knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces. Mr Kara-Murza’s appeal was dismissed this week, prompting the UK Government to initiate fresh sanctions against the three judges, two prosecutors and “expert witness” involved in Kara-Murza’s appeal. The UK Government says the conviction is “politically motivated targeting” and Mr Kara-Murza is being persecuted for his anti-war stance. The sanctions include asset freezes and travel bans against the individuals concerned. 

Supreme Court considers conditions for removing child for adoption

20 June 2013 by Rosalind English

In the matter of B (a child) (FC) [2013] UKSC 33 – read judgment

This appeal concerned whether a child of two years of age should be permanently removed from her parents and placed for adoption; and, in that regard, whether the child was likely to suffer “significant harm: within the meaning of s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989; and a consideration of whether her permanent removal might interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, and, if so, whether the order  should be proportionate to its legitimate aim of protecting the child.

The following summary is based on the Supreme Court press report. References in square brackets are to paragraphs of the judgment.

Background facts

The child concerned had been removed from her parents at birth under an interim care order. The mother was for many years in an abusive relationship with her step-father. She also had criminal convictions for dishonesty and a history of making false allegations. She had been diagnosed with somatisation disorder, a condition which involves making multiple complaints to medical professionals of symptoms for which no adequate physical explanation can be found.
Continue reading →

Please stow your rights in the overhead compartment

9 February 2012 by Rosalind English

Stott v Thomas Cook Operators and British Airways Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 66 – read judgment

If you need reminding of what it feels like when the candy-floss of human rights is abruptly snatched away, take a flight.  Full body scanners and other security checks are nothing to the array of potential outrages awaiting passengers boarding an aircraft. Air passengers in general surrender their rights at the point of ticket purchase.

The Warsaw Convention casts its long shadow. It was signed between two world wars, at the dawn of commercial aviation, when international agreement had to be secured at all costs. These strong interests survived the negotiation of the 1999 Montreal Convention, now part of EU law as the Montreal Regulation.

Yet so powerful is the desire to travel, and so beleaguered it is now with the threat of spiralling aviation fuel prices and environmental taxes, that we are happier to surrender our freedoms at airports than we are anywhere else – hospitals, doctors’ surgeries, schools, and even on the public highways.

Continue reading →

Travel between England and Wales

26 June 2020 by Henry Tufnell

This post is written in response to a comment by a reader, John Burton, of Rosalind English’s post on the latest in the Lockdown challenge launched by Simon Dolan in which Philip Havers QC has been instructed.

We don’t dispense legal advice from the UKHRB, but I thought this was a very interesting question and the editorial board felt it best to try to answer it in a separate post, so here it is, and many thanks to Henry Tufnell, one of our pupil barristers, soon to become one of our new tenants, for taking up the challenge.

Comment | Abortion and conscientious objection: what about human rights? – Elizabeth Prochaska

22 May 2013 by Guest Contributor

Doogan and Wood v. NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board [2013] CSIH 36 – read judgment here and Alasdair Henderson’s commentary here

It is easy to become complacent about women’s reproductive rights in mainland Britain. Compared to our Irish neighbours, women here are able to access their chosen contraceptive, abortion and maternity services with relative ease. When Savita Halappanavar died after she was refused an abortion in Galway, commentators lamented a system where a woman could be told by healthcare staff that she couldn’t have an abortion because Ireland is a Catholic country. We imagined that such events could not happen here. A recent judgment of the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session (the Scottish Court of Appeal) shakes that belief. Of most concern is that the court failed to engage with the human rights implications of its decision.

Our abortion law is found in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 1 makes abortion lawful only when it has been authorised by two doctors who attest that continuing the pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s physical or mental health, or where the child would ‘suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped’. In effect, all abortions, save those for fetal abnormality, are performed on the basis that there is a threat to the woman’s physical or mental integrity as a result of pregnancy. Section 4 excuses a person from ‘participating in any treatment’ under the Act if they express a conscientious objection to abortion. As the Abortion Rights campaign points out, the law gives doctors control over women’s informed choices about their pregnancy that can lead to damaging delays in accessing abortion services.

Continue reading →

Round Up 17.02.20 – Detentions, quarantines, deportations and reshuffles….

17 February 2020 by Thomas Hayes

Demonstrators protest government deportation flights outside Downing Street. Credit: The Guardian.

The last week provided no shortage of legal controversy, and posed the author of this blog considerable difficulty when trying to identify which developments deserved the most prominence. In analysing this avalanche of legal news, however, certain key themes started to develop.

Continue reading →

“The Law of Humanity”: Home Office no recourse to public funds policy ruled unlawful

3 June 2020 by Michael Spencer

R (W, a child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Project 17 intervening [2020] EWHC 1299

Does the common law protect the right of foreign residents to relief from destitution?

In this judgment on the Home Secretary’s “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF) policy, the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division has confirmed that it does, citing authority going back to the time of the poor laws.

The judgment will come as a welcome relief to migrants with human rights visas who may be struggling in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.  It also provides insight into the interaction between the common law and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Lord Justice Wall lays down law on family court privacy

20 September 2011 by Adam Wagner

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2376 (Fam) (01 September 2011) – Read judgment

Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division, has suspended a nine-month prison sentence for contempt of court given to Elizabeth Watson, a “private investigator” who published online sex abuse allegations which had been rejected by a series of judges.

The case has involved many of the foot soldiers in a bitter and public battle between the family law system and campaigners who say it is corrupt and not fit for purpose. Recognised this, Lord Justice wall used the opportunity to “dispel a number of myths”. First,

Continue reading →