Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/25/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
20 April 2018 by Dominic Ruck Keene
In NT1 and NT2 v Google LLC, Mr Justice Warby considered whether Google should be required to ‘de-list’ links in its search results to articles about the spent historic convictions of two businessmen under what is commonly called the ‘right to be forgotten’. He held it was in the case of one claimant, but not the other.
The claimants argued that the Google search results conveyed inaccurate information about their offending. Further, they sought orders requiring details about their offending and their convictions and sentences to be removed from Google Search results, on the basis that such information was out of date; irrelevant; of no public interest; and/or otherwise an illegitimate interference with their rights. They also sought compensation for Google in continuing to return search results disclosing such details, after the claimants’ complaints were made. Google resisted both claims, maintaining that the inclusion of such details in its search results was legitimate.
Mr Justice Warby summarised the issues as “the first question is whether the record needs correcting; the second question is whether the data protection or privacy rights of these claimants extend to having shameful episodes in their personal history eliminated from Google Search; thirdly, there is the question of whether damages should be paid.”
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 September 2020 by Guest Contributor
This article was first published on the UK Labour Law Blog ( @labour_blog). We repost it with the kind permission of Dr Philippa Collins (@DrPMCollins at Exeter University) and the editors of the Labour Law Blog
One of the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic upon the world of work is likely to be a move away from the traditional workplace. In some sectors, such as academia, IT, and administration, remote work or home working is an established working pattern, although a rare one given national statistics from 2019 which indicated only 5% of the workforce worked mainly from home. The need to prevent the spread of the coronavirus through contact in the workplace precipitated a rapid and widespread move to homeworking. In an ONS survey in early May, 44% of adults surveyed were working from home. As some businesses begin to transition back into their previous working patterns, several high-profile companies have announced that they will not expect their staff to return to the workplace and will support homeworking as a permanent option in the future.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
19 July 2022 by Rosalind English
Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2022] EWHC (Fam) (22 June 2022)
This poignant case tells a sad story, but an instructive one in terms of human rights and the ability of courts to interpret statutes in accordance with these rights under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The judge’s role in these difficult private cases is subject to the “stern test” laid down by Sir James Munby in Samantha Jeffries v BMI Healthcare Limited and others [2016] EWHC 2493 (Fam) . Respect for a statute’s obvious does not entail
that the judge must approach a case such as this bereft of humanity, empathy, compassion and sympathy. What it does mean is that the judge cannot allow his judgment to be swayed, or his decision to be distorted, by those very human emotions.
Background facts and law
The statute in question in that case and this was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended by secondary legislation and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. More on that later. Here, the applicant sought a declaration that it was lawful for him to use an embryo created using his sperm and the eggs of his late wife in treatment with a surrogate. The embryo was created in 2018 when the applicant and his wife (C) were undergoing fertility treatment to fulfil their wish to have children of their own. The embryo is currently stored at the Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health.
The applicant and his wife had undergone several unsuccessful cycles of IVF, the latter being private. They had remortgaged their house to pay for the treatment. A positive pregnancy with twin girls was confirmed in November 2018. C developed complications in her pregnancy at 18 weeks, which resulted in a uterine rupture, and she died on 25 February 2019. There was one remaining embryo which the applicant wished to use with a surrogate, to fulfil their joint wish for this to take place in such circumstances. He accepted there was no written consent by C for that to take place but said that they had not been given sufficient information or opportunity to give that written consent. It was that remaining embryo that was the subject of this application.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
30 October 2025 by Rosalind English
Botha v Smuts and another [2024] ZACC 22
I recently came across this judgement by the South African Constitutional Court. As a “Saffa” myself, I rejoice in the case’s title, pairing the name of the penultimate prime minister of the old apartheid South Africa (Botha), and the name (Smuts) of a much earlier Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa from 1919 to 1948.
But this case concerned two ordinary people, an insurance broker and an environmental activist, locking horns over their respective rights to privacy and freedom of expression under the South African Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Court judgment – running into nearly 100 pages in the Butterworths Human Rights Cases – is an interesting example of “salami slicing”, where the court takes apart a protected right and determines which bits of it can be upheld in the circumstances, and which can be set aside. It is also a fascinating insight into how information on social media platforms involves constant “re-publication”, and what that means for privacy and free speech rights. And finally, the judicial reflections on publication of someone’s personal address in the days of WFH show how far we have changed as a society since the pandemic.
The facts can be set out briefly.
Background facts and law
The applicant, Mr Botha, is an insurance broker who resides and conducts business in Gqeberha. He is also the owner of the farm Varsfontein situated in Alicedale in the Eastern Cape Province, a hundred kilometers away from his home.
The first respondent, Mr Smuts, is a wildlife conservationist, farmer, researcher and activist. The second respondent (amicus) is the Landmark Leopard and Predator Project – South Africa, a conservation non-governmental organisation focusing on human wildlife conflict management and leopard and carnivore conservation. It was founded by Mr Smuts who is its executive director.
A member of a group of cyclists who participated in an organised adventure ride that traversed Mr Botha’s farm (legally) encountered a dead baboon and porcupine in cage traps. The animals appeared to him to have been exposed to suffering and distress. Outraged by what he saw, the cyclist photographed the dead animals in the cages with the intention of sharing the photographs with an organisation capable of taking action. He shared them with Mr Smuts on 1 October 2019.
He also sent Mr Smuts a detailed map depicting the location of Mr Botha’s farm on which he indicated the place on the farm where the photographs were taken.
Mr Smuts published a post on the second respondent’s Facebook page which included, amongst others,
(a) a photograph of a baboon trapped in a cage;
(b) a photograph of a porcupine trapped in a cage;
(c ) a Google search location of Mr Botha’s insurance brokerage address (which turned out also to be Mr Botha’s residential address) and telephone number.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
30 June 2017 by David Hart KC
Department for Business, Energy and Industry Strategy v. Information Commissioner and Henney [2017] EWCA Civ 844 , 29 June 2017 – read judgment
As many will know, there are two different systems of freedom of information, the first and better known, the Freedom for Information Act 2000, and the second, the Environmental Information Regulations 2009. From the perspective of the inquirer (Mr Henney, here), the EIRs are the more favourable, and it was the differences between the systems which gave rise to this long-running dispute to do with energy Smart Meters.
The appeal went in favour of Mr Henney, and the Information Commissioner who had ruled in his favour. But the ultimate case is not resolved, as I shall explain.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
25 February 2015 by David Hart KC
The Queen (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Limited) v East Sussex County Council and Newhaven Town Council [2015] SC 7 25 February 2015- read judgment
Late February is not necessarily the best time of year for a bit of UK sea swimming. But the Supreme Court has just come out with interesting judgments about whether there is a right to go to the beach and swim from it. For reasons I shall explain, they were anxious not to decide the point, but there are some strong hints, particularly in the judgment of Lord Carnwath as to what the right answer is, though some hesitation as to how to arrive at that answer.
It arose in a most curious setting – East Sussex’s desire to register West Beach, Newhaven as a village green under the Commons Act 2006. But a beach cannot be a village green, you may say. But it is, said the Court of Appeal (see Rosalind English’s post here), and the Supreme Court did not hear argument on that point.
Now to the background for the present decision.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 September 2015 by Rosalind English
Parrillo v Italy (application no. 46470/11) Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, [2015] ECHR 755 (27 August 2015) – read judgment
The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court has ruled that the Italian ban on the donation of embryos obtained by IVF procedures to scientific research was within Italy’s margin of appreciation and therefore not in breach of the applicant’s right of private life and autonomy, even though she was willing to give the embryos to scientific research, since she no longer wanted to proceed with pregnancy after her partner was killed covering the war in Iraq. By donating these cryopreserved embryos to research she would, she argued, make an important contribution to research into medical therapies and cures.
A strong dissent to the majority judgment is worth pointing up at the outset. The Hungarian judge, Andras Sajó, found Italy’s general ban quite out of order. Not only did it disregard the applicant’s right to self-determination with respect to an important private decision, it did so in an absolute and unforeseeable manner.
The law contains no transitional rules which would have enabled the proper authority to take into consideration the specific situation of the applicant, whose embryos obtained from the IVF treatment were placed in cryopreservation in 2002 and whose husband passed away in 2003, three months before the law entered into force.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 April 2015 by Rosalind English
Fish Legal v Information Commissioner and others (Information rights practice and procedure) [2015] UKUT 52 (AAC) Charles J – read judgment
Water and sewage utility companies are “public authorities” for the purposes of the environmental information regulations, and are bound by them accordingly, the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has ruled.
Fish Legal is the legal arm of the Angling Trust. In 2009 it asked United Utilities Water plc and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd for information relating to discharges, clean-up operations, and emergency overflow. Emily Shirley is a private individual. Again, she asked Southern Water Services Ltd for information relating to sewerage capacity for a planning proposal in her village. All three companies denied that they were under a duty to provide the information under Environmental Information Regulations. Both Fish Legal and Mrs Shirley complained to the Commissioner. In 2010 the Commissioner replied, explaining that as the companies were not public authorities for the purposes of EIR, he had no power to adjudicate the complaints.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
23 December 2015 by Jim Duffy
Photo credit: Guardian
It has been a fascinating year in which to edit this Blog. Political and social challenges – from continued government cuts to the alarming rise of Islamic State – have presented new human rights conundrums that have, as ever, slowly percolated to the doors of the country’s highest courts. And all this during the year of an astonishing General Election result and amid continually shifting sands around the future of the Human Rights Act.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
26 November 2021 by Clare Ciborowska
A Local Authority (Respondent) v JB (by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) – UKSC 2020/0133 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that to have capacity to engage in sexual relations, a person needs to be able to understand that their sexual partner must have the capacity to consent to the sexual activity and must, in fact, consent before and during the sexual activity.
The appellant, JB, is a 37 year-old single man with a complex diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder combined with impaired cognition. He has a complex diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder (Asperger’s syndrome) combined with impaired cognition as a result of suffering significant brain damage from epilepsy.
JB has expressed a strong desire to have a girlfriend and engage in sexual relations. Part of JB’s diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome caused him to be
…obsessionally fixated on a particular woman, sending inappropriate sexual messages, inappropriate touching, and targeting the vulnerable
His previous behaviour towards women has led the respondent local authority to conclude that he cannot safely have unsupervised contact with them. JB had argued in the Court of that he had capacity to consent to sexual relations in circumstances where the expert evidence had found that JB understood the mechanics of sexual acts and the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease but that his ‘understanding of consent’ was lacking.
The outcome for JB, if he was found to lack capacity to make decisions in respect of sexual relations, would be that he would be deprived of all sexual relations and that no other person could consent on his behalf (S27(1)(b) Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA).
JB was successful at first instance in the Court of Protection, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision and found in favour of the Local Authority. On further appeal to the Supreme Court the court agreed with the Court of Appeal the result being that JB did, in fact, lack capacity.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
24 February 2022 by Guest Contributor
The UKHRB is grateful to Aileen McColgan QC for allowing us to republish her article, which originally appeared on Panoptican, a blog published by the barristers at 11KBW here.
The central question for the Supreme Court in Bloomberg v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 was, as Lords Hamblen and Stephens put it (with Lord Reeds, Lloyd-Jones and Sales agreeing): “whether, in general, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation”. The short answer was “yes”.
The decision has been greeted with howls of indignation from Bloomberg but more muted responses from other sections of the press; whereas Bloomberg’s editor in chief released an editorial entitled “U.K. Judges Are Helping the Next Robert Maxwell” which stated that the judgment should “frighten every decent journalist in Britain”, the Financial Times and Guardian were more restrained, pointing out respectively that the decision would have “far-reaching implications for the British media” and would “make it harder for British media outlets to publish information about individuals subject to criminal investigations”. This is no doubt the case, but it is worth noting that the publication which gave rise to this decision was based on a highly confidential letter leaked to Bloomberg and occurred apparently without any consideration of ZXC’s privacy interests.
ZXC, regional CEO of a publicly listed company which operated overseas (“X Ltd”), sued for misuse of private information because of an article concerning X Ltd’s activities in a country for which ZXC’s division was responsible. The activities had been subject to a criminal investigation by a UK law enforcement body (“the UKLEB”) since 2013 and the article was based almost completely on a confidential Letter of Request sent by the UKLEB to the foreign state. ZXC claimed that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in information published in the Article, in particular in the details of the UKLEB investigation into himself, its assessment of the evidence, the fact that it believed that ZXC had committed specified criminal offences and its explanation of how the evidence it sought would assist its investigation into that suspected offending. ZXC’s application for damages and injunctive relief was upheld at first instance by Nicklin J and £25,000 awarded: [2019] EWHC 970 (QB); [2019] EMLR 20. Bloomberg’s appear was dismissed (see Panopticon post by Robin Hopkins and [2020] EWCA Civ 611; [2021] QB 28.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
29 July 2016 by David Scott
The Christian Institute and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51 – read judgment here
The Supreme Court has today unanimously struck down the Scottish Parliaments’s Named Persons scheme as insufficiently precise for the purposes of Article 8, overturning two previous decisions at the Court of Session (see our previous coverage here).
by David Scott
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 November 2017 by Guest Contributor
Ratzenböck and Seydl v Austria (ECtHR) 26 October 2017 – read judgment
Equal civil partnerships divide opinions. For their proponents, access to such a status, and the legal benefits that follow, allows couples critical of marriage – whether same or different-sex – the ability to express their relationship through (in their view) a more appropriate, modern and egalitarian legal institution. Opponents question such a need in light of the availability of civil marriage, which has over centuries evolved and may not now necessarily be perceived as embodying the patriarchal or heteronormative values that its critics challenge. Calls for allowing different-sex as well as same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in England and Wales have grown louder recently following the failed Equal Love case (Ferguson v UK), the production of several Private Members Bills and the on-going litigation in Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education, due to be heard by the Supreme Court in Spring 2018. The desire, however, for different-sex civil partnerships is not limited to this jurisdiction, and was recently explored for the first time by the Strasbourg court in Ratzenböck and Seydl v Austria. After exploring the background to this legal challenge, this post will critically analyse the reasoning of the Strasbourg Court and assess its implications for the challenge in Steinfeld.
The key argument this piece puts forward is that states should not maintain asymmetry of access to formal relationship statuses based on sexual orientation: if a state has introduced registered (civil) partnerships it should open them to both different and same-sex couples, an argument that also applies to marriage. The term ‘asymmetry of access’ will be used to cover: offering access to marriage for different-sex couples and no such access to same-sex ones who also cannot access any registered partnership scheme; offering access to marriage to different-sex couples and access to such a scheme to same-sex ones; offering access to either of two formalised relationship statuses to one group of couples, based on gender and sexual orientation, and access to only one such form to the other group.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 May 2024 by Guest Contributor
The following piece was first published on the UK Constitutional Law Blog on 25 April 2024 and is reproduced here with their permission, for which the editors are grateful
Commentary on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act (“RA”), which is shortly to receive Royal Assent, has concentrated principally on its deeming of Rwanda as a safe country whilst ousting the supervision of courts. This post considers a separate issue – section 4 of the Act as it applies to victims of slavery (“VOS”). Section 4 provides a carve out from the Act’s deeming provisions where the Home Secretary considers Rwanda is unsafe for an individual “based on compelling evidence relating specifically to their particular individual circumstances”. It also provides courts with a power of review of that question.
This post argues that, read in the light of the common law constitutional prohibition of slavery (“POS”), s.4 should prevent all suspected and confirmed victims of slavery from being removed against their will to Rwanda without, at the least, a detailed assessment of their specific risks of re-trafficking there.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
7 July 2013 by David Hart KC
Public Interest Environmental Litigation and the European Court of Human Rights: No love at first sight, by Riccardo Pavoni – read article
Thanks to this link on the ECHR blog, a fascinating account of the twists and turns of Strasbourg environmental case law from Professor Pavoni, of the University of Siena. It is 30 closely-argued pages, so I shall try and give a flavour of the debates Pavoni covers, as well as chucking in my own penn’orth.
The starting point, as I see it, is that public interest environmental litigation is a square peg in the round hole of Strasbourg case law. The Convention and the case law are concerned with victims of human rights abuses. Environmental degradation affects everyone, but not necessarily in a way which makes them a a Strasbourg victim. Take loss of biodiversity, say the decline in UK songbirds, or the peace of a remote moorland affected by 150m high wind turbines. Who is the potential victim in those cases when judged by human rights? Pavoni argues that if the Strasbourg Court were to assert jurisdiction over environmental cases as a common good, alongside adverse impacts on private victims, this would not result in a major overhaul of the Court’s current principles – not too much expansion of the hole needed to fit the square peg in snugly. How does he reach that position?
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments