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]
R v Gul (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 64, 23 October 2013 – read judgment
It is a platitude that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is for precisely this reason that the international community has not been able to agree on a definition of terrorism to be embedded in international law.
The issue in this appeal was whether the definition of ‘terrorism’ in the UK Terrorism Act 2000 includes military attacks by non-state armed groups against national or international armed forces in a non-international armed conflict.
The following is taken from the Supreme Court’s press summary. References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment. Continue reading →
The European Court of Human Rights has announced today that it will deliver two Grand Chamber judgments, in the cases of Axel Springer AG v Germanyand von Hannover v Germany (No.2) on 7 February 2012. The cases were both heard more than 15 months ago, on 13 October 2010.
We had a post about the hearing at the time (and an earlier preview).Both cases concern the publication in the media of material which is alleged to be private. The Axel Springercase concerned the publication in “Bild” of an article about a well-known television actor, being arrested for possession of cocaine. The article was illustrated by three pictures of the actor. The German court granted him an injunction to prohibit the publication of the article and the photos. The applicant company did not challenge the judgment concerning the photos. The newspaper published a second article in July 2005, which reported on the actor being convicted and fined for illegal possession of drugs after he had made a full confession.
Opinion has been divided this week after a landmark High Court ruling on Friday declared that the government’s right to rent scheme is breaching human rights laws and actively creating racial discrimination in the housing market.
The scheme requires landlords in England check the immigration status of tenants, with fines of up to £3,000 and a potential prison term if they fail to do so. Introduced by sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, right to rent is a cornerstone of the government’s hostile environment policy, which aims to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the UK. The High Court said that it would be illegal to roll the scheme out out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without further evaluation. Mr Justice Spencer noted that the scheme had ‘little or no effect’ on immigration control, and that independent evidence ‘strongly showed’ the scheme was ‘indirectly’ discriminatory, causing landlords to turn down potential tenants because of their nationality or ethnicity.
The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). In allowing the appeal against the order of Tugendhat J ([2010] EWHC 2818 (QB)) the Court ordered that the claimant’s anonymity should be restored.
Although the Court stressed that each decision is fact sensitive, this approach seems likely to be followed in most types of privacy injunction cases. This eagerly awaited decision adds to the growing body of case law concerning reporting restrictions where an injunction has been granted to restrain publication of information about a claimant’s private life.
In HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB), the Divisional Court (the Lady Chief Justice,the President of the King’s Bench Division, and Chamberlain J) gave judgment in relation to the deployment of evidence by MI5 in proceedings concerning the BBC’s reporting on a covert human intelligence source (CHIS), referred to as “X”. The judgment is quite extraordinary, including substantial criticism of the approach taken by MI5 in this case and specific guidance as to the way that evidence from an agency such as MI5 should be presented in future.
Commission v. UK, judgment of CJEU, 13 February 2014 – read judgment – UPDATED
Litigation costs are troublesome, but they are particularly difficult in environmental cases where the claimant is not necessarily pursuing his private interests. This case is the result of a long-running and successful campaign by NGOs to persuade the EU Commission to investigate UK environmental legal costs. The main finding may not bother the UK too much, because wisely it saw this one coming and changed costs rules in environmental public law cases. A subsidiary ruling about cross-undertakings has also been more recently included in a rule change.
All of this comes from Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention (to which the EU has subscribed) which says that members of the public should be able to challenge environmental decisions, and the procedures for doing so shall be adequate and effective and “not prohibitively expensive”. Continue reading →
Oxfordshire County Council v X & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 581 (27 May 2010) – read judgment
In ordering adoptive parents to provide an annual photograph of the child to the birth parents, the judge below had erred in failing to accept as reasonable the adoptive parents’ fears, that there was a risk of the placement being identified.
The child (J), had been made the subject of an adoption order when she was four months old, due to the mental illness of her natural mother. The natural mother subsequently applied for an order for the provision of a photograph of J on an annual basis. The adoptive parents, backed by the local authority, objected to the provision of a photograph and contended that they should make available a photograph for viewing at the offices of the local authority.
On Friday, former Home Secretary Lord Blunkett raised his issues with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, an enormous piece of legislation that reforms much existing legislation and common law offences. Lord Blunkett pointed to the difficulties the police could face in interpreting the new law, and the sensitive nature of the relationship between the police and protestors. The Bill is currently at the Committee Stage of Parliamentary procedure. Particular attention has been drawn to s.59 of the Bill, which purportedly codifies the common law offence of public nuisance, following the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2015 report, Simplification of Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency. This section would create an offence of ‘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance’, defined as where a person’s act or omission causes serious harm to the public or a section of the public. Subsection (2) states that this offence can be constituted where ‘a person’ suffers ‘serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity’. On indictment, a defendant is liable to imprisonment for a term up to ten years. While the Law Commission’s recommendation that the fault element should be intention or recklessness as opposed to ‘knew or should have known’ was adopted, the significant maximum term is a new addition.
The QMLR covers developments in medical law in the broadest sense – clinical negligence, inquest, regulatory, judicial review and court of protection cases.
In Episode 109 we touch on some of the highlights from the most recent issue including articles from: John Whitting QC on causation, Suzanne Lambert on informed consent, Jeremy Hyam QC on gender reassignment in prison, Rajkiran Barhey on NICE Guidelines and the use of screens in inquests, and Jo Moore on the recent changes to statements of truth and witness statements.
The following cases are mentioned in this episode:
Clements v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 2064;
In Sutherland v Her Majesty’s Advocate, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was compatible with the accused person’s rights under ECHR article 8 to use evidence obtained by “paedophile hunter” (“PH”) groups in a criminal trial.
PH groups impersonate children online to lure persons into making inappropriate or sexualised communications with them over the internet, and then provide the material generated by such contact to the police. Importantly, they operate without police authorisation.
Per Section 6(1) of the HRA, a prosecution authority – as a public authority – cannot lawfully act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right. Consequently, there were two compatibility issues on appeal before the Supreme Court:
Were the appellant’s article 8 rights interfered with by the use of the communications provided by the PH group as evidence in his public prosecution?
To what extent is the state’s obligation to provide adequate protection for article 8 rights incompatible with the use by a public prosecutor of material supplied by PH groups in investigating and prosecuting crime?
Does the publication of photographs of a child taken during a riot fall within the scope of Article 8 ECHR?
It depends, says a Supreme Court majority, specifically on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Either way, the Court in J38 agreed that whether or not the 14 year-old Appellant’s right to respect for private life was in play, the publication of police photographs of him was justified in the circumstances.
In their co-authored judgment, Lord Sales and Dame Siobhan Keegan provide a rich analysis of how the courts should consider the welfare of children in an immigration context. In doing so, they clarify the meaning and effect of Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“Section 55”) and its interaction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Article 8”). The judgment provides a guide for how the appellate courts should assess decision-making by the Secretary of State, her officials, and the First-tier Tribunal.
Yesterday Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld asked via guardian.co.uk whether it is Time to ban male circumcision? The article was prompted by attempts to ban the practice in San Francisco.
Male circumcision is common amongst Muslims and Jews, but judging from the 286 comments (so far!) to the article, there are a lot of people who feel that the practice is outdated and should be banned. I have responded with my own article, arguing that whilst the debate is by no means settled, a ban at present would amount to a disproportionate interference with freedom of religion rights.
Caroline Flack appearing at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court
The intersection between technology and human rights is growing exponentially. In places, the growth is immensely productive. The internet has become integral to how we communicate in moments of historic crisis and transformation. Social networks have played a complex and contradictory role in pivotal episodes from the Arab Spring to #MeToo. For more than three billion people, the internet directly facilitates access to news and information, religion and politics, markets and trade, and even justice. In this country, half the population gets their news from social media. In 2016, a report from the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly declared access to the internet to be a basic human right. This blog post is itself both byproduct and contributor to the phenomenon.
Hill, R(on the application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales [2013] EWCA Civ 555 – read judgment
The concept of fairness embodied in the different strands of natural justice have to be seen as flexible and as not requiring the courts to lay down over rigid rules, so that where it had been agreed that a tribunal member could be temporarily absent for part of the hearing, there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice.
The appellant chartered accountant had been found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the respondent Institute. He appealed against the Administrative Court’s refusal of his application for judicial review of the Institute’s decision ([2012] EWHC 1731 (QB)). He maintained that there had been a breach of natural justice in the proceedings because one of the tribunal members had missed a large part of the hearing, and that all proceedings of that tribunal after one of its members left were therefore a nullity, including the decision of the tribunal that the charge was proved. Mr Hill contended in particular that the breach of natural justice that “he who decides must hear” had been so grave that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction, and acting without jurisdiction could not be consented to, and that any consent had to be from the appellant personally. Continue reading →
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.
Yesterday Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld asked via guardian.co.uk whether it is 
Recent comments