Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/27/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)

Privacy – the way ahead? Part 3 – Options for the Future – Hugh Tomlinson QC

4 May 2011 by Guest Contributor

This is Part 3 of a three-part series which originally appeared on Inforrm’s Blog. Part 1 can be read here and Part 2 here.

There are at least four possible “ways forward” for the new law of privacy which has been developed by the courts over the past decade and which has, at least from the point of view of sections of the media, been very controversial. These four possibilities are as follows:

(1) Active steps could be taken to abolish the law of privacy and return to the pre-Human Rights Act position.

(2) The current “judge made” law of privacy could be replaced by a new “statutory tort” of invasion of privacy.

(3) A special “privacy regime” for the media could be established under a statutory regulator.

(4) “Steady as she goes” – the law of privacy could be left to develop in the current way – by the judges on the basis of the Article 8 and Article 10 case law.

Each of these possibilities gives rise to different issues and potential difficulties.

Continue reading →

Retention of data on alleged rapist lawful despite acquittal in criminal proceedings

21 May 2021 by Rosalind English

YZ, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 1060 (30 April 2021)

The claimant YZ had been acquitted on three counts raping his former wife but details concerning these matters remain on the Police National Computer (PNC). These proceedings concerned whether such retention was lawful.

The question at the heart of this application was whether onus was on the competent authority to justify its processing of the claimant’s dat was lawful and fair under the Data Protection Act 2018. The claimant’s argument was that the relevant guidance ( issued pursuant to the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act) to the police was not compatible with this statutory requirement as it put the onus on an applicant for deletion to give reasons for that deletion [para 40].

Another control order ruled unlawful for breach of right to fair trial

11 February 2012 by Matthew Flinn

AT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 42 – Read Judgment

The Court of Appeal has upheld a challenge to a control order on the basis that the person subject to the order (‘the controllee’) had not been given sufficient information about the case against him.

How do you solve a problem like a suspected terrorist? For successive governments, the answer has proved to be far from straightforward, as the recent controversy surrounding radical cleric Abu Qatada has demonstrated.

The focus of this blog post is on yet another challenge to the imposition of a control order. Introduced by the Labour government in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, a control order is a controversial tool used to restrict and monitor suspected terrorists. They have now been superseded by Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (or “TPIMs”, described by some critics as “control orders lite”), which will in due course have their time in the legal spotlight. For now, there remain a small number of cases brought under the old control orders regime which are being determined. As this decision demonstrates, even their consignment to history has not shielded them from careful judicial scrutiny.

Continue reading →

A1P1 claims by photovoltaics get to the Court of Appeal

4 May 2015 by David Hart KC

Department of Energy and Climate Change v. Breyer Group plc and others  [2015] EWCA Civ 408, 28 April 2015 read judgment

In 2011, DECC decided to change the rules about subsidies for photovoltaic schemes, and caused substantial losses to those who had contracted or were about to contract on the basis of the more generous old subsidies. 

This is prime territory for a damages claim under A1P1 ECHR. The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an appeal by DECC against a decision of Coulson J (see my post here) supportive of such claims.  The decision was on preliminary issues involving assumed facts, but important legal arguments advanced by DECC were rejected by the CA. 

Continue reading →

Mental capacity for handling the internet: Court of Protection

27 February 2019 by Rosalind English

A (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use: Best Interests)  [2019] EWCOP 2

In this case Cobb J was asked to make declarations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 regarding a learning disabled man’s capacity to use the internet and social media. (NB on 21 February judgment was also handed down in a similar case on which we will post shortly: B (Capacity: Social Media: Care and Contact) [2019] EWCOP 3.

The rapid development of the internet and proliferation of social media networks over recent years have fundamentally reshaped the way we engage with each other. We spend more time on our digital electronic devices than we do interacting with other humans and naturally this has brought huge benefits in terms of entertainment, communication and gathering information. The social media ‘apps’ available for instant messaging and networking are mostly easy and free to use, amongst them chiefly Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Facetime, Skype, Instagram, and Twitter. For people with disabilities the internet and associated social media networks are particularly important:

Three way in the Supreme Court: PJS remains PJS

19 May 2016 by David Hart KC

The Supreme Court has this morning continued the interim injunction concerning PJS’s extra-marital goings-on until after the full trial of the claim – after a rollercoaster ride for his claim through the courts.

Cranston J refused an injunction on 15 January 2016.

The Court of Appeal granted it on 22 January (Matt Flinn’s post here), and then discharged it on 18 April due to the effect of subsequent publicity which they said had led the injunction to have no remaining purpose (my post here). The subsequent  publicity was in US newspapers and via the internet (with, as Lord Toulson commented, some fairly obvious twitter hashtags involved.)

The Supreme Court swiftly convened a hearing on 21 April, leading to today’s judgment reversing the Court of Appeal.

The decision (4-1) was not unanimous, with Lord Toulson dissenting. There are three concurring judgments (all agreed to by the majority).

Continue reading →

The Weekly Round-up: Roe v Wade, Bell v Tavistock and guidance on suitable accommodation and misuse of private information

9 May 2022 by Tabitha Hutchison

In the news:

• On 2 May, a draft majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States was leaked, suggesting that the court has voted to strike down the landmark decision of Roe v Wade and sparking widespread anger. In the opinion, Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” and that “it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” This is the first time in history that a draft decision has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. On 3 May, Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the decision, which would remove federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and leave the decision in the hands of each state.
• Under a new pilot scheme, victims could have the right to attend full Parole Board hearings from as early as next month. The Parole Board will also be required to take into account victims’ submissions and victims will be allowed to ask questions. Currently, victims can ask to read a statement in person but are not allowed to hear the rest of the evidence. 
• Police are investigating a gathering attended by Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner in April 2021. Having initially decided to take no action, Durham Constabulary has now begun conducting an investigation into potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations in light of “significant new information”. Durham Constabulary had previously stated that it had a policy against retrospective Covid fines, after allegations of lockdown breaches by Dominic Cummings.
• On 4 May, foreign secretary Liz Truss announced in a press release that there will be a ban on services exports to Russia, covering services such as accountancy, consultancy and PR advice. Lawyers, however, will still be able to service Russian clients.

Are the courts doing enough to protect religious freedom? [updated]

14 June 2010 by Adam Wagner

No entry?

A number of recent cases have ignited an interesting debate on the place of religion in the UK court system, and whether the courts are doing enough to ensure religious freedom as they are obligated to do under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The most notorious example has been McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd, an unfair dismissal claim brought by a relationship counselor who as a result of his Christian beliefs refused to promote gay sex. The former Archbishop of Canterbury submitted a witness statement stating that cases such of these should be heard by judges with special religious sensitivity. Lord Justice Laws in the Court of Appeal rejected his arguments outright.

We also posted last week on the Hardeep Singh case, in which Mr Justice Eady in the High Court effectively threw out a libel action because it rested upon fundamental principles of legal doctrine which could not properly be examined by a secular court. We posted:

Continue reading →

The thorny issue of religious belief and discrimination law (again)

20 October 2012 by Alasdair Henderson

Black & Morgan v. Wilkinson (unreported, 18 October 2012, Slough County Court) – Read judgment

The Christian owner of a B&B in Berkshire was found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to allow them stay in a double-bedded room because of her belief that all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

Although a county court judgment, this case has been splashed all over the headlines, partly because of BNP leader Nick Griffin’s comments on Twitter (about which see more below) but also because it is so factually similar to the high-profile case of Bull v. Hall and Preddy which is currently before the Supreme Court (see our analysis of the Court of Appeal judgment here). This judgment has also come along at a time when the European Court of Human Rights’ decision is awaited in the four conjoined cases of Ladele, Eweida, Macfarlane and Chaplin, all of which involve issues of religious freedom and two of which involve the same potential conflict between the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation and the right to religious freedom (see our posts here, here and here). Moreover, Recorder Moulder’s comprehensive and careful judgment has helpfully been made available online (see link above), so it can be considered in detail.

Continue reading →

Stop Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 incompatible with Article 10

21 January 2016 by David Scott

David Miranda -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2016] EWCA Civ 6 – read judgment.

On Tuesday the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000 and, while upholding the lawfulness of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10.

by David Scott

See RightsInfo’s coverage here. For our coverage of the High Court’s previous decision see here, and on his original detention here and here.

The Case

Mr Miranda, the spouse of then-Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was stopped and detained by the Metropolitan Police at Heathrow Airport on 18 August 2013 under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was questioned and items in his possession were taken by police, including encrypted material provided by Edward Snowden. Mr Miranda was detained for nine hours, the maximum period permitted at the time (since reduced to six hours).
Continue reading →

You cannot be serious! Peers call ‘out’ on Government’s judicial review reforms – Angela Patrick

1 July 2014 by Guest Contributor

Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading.   Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.   Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.  

Metaphors were rife. Descriptions of the Government’s proposals ranged from Lord Woolf’s invocation of the image of Governmental wolves among some unlikely judicial sheep, to the titular and topical tennis imagery used with devastating effect by Lord Brown of Eaton –under-Heywood:

“More and more areas of our lives are controlled by public authorities. At the same time we have become understandably, I suggest, less trusting and certainly less deferential towards those with authority over us. I sometimes wonder whether it did not all start with John McEnroe’s outraged questioning of line calls at Wimbledon way back in the 1970s. However, we should consider how in the long run his behaviour has contributed to the hugely improved policing of those lines that is in operation today…By the same token, the use of judicial review has to my mind undoubtedly raised the standards of public decision-making in recent years.” (Col 1591)
Continue reading →

BUMPER EDITION: Libyan Rendition, Human Rights Week 2014 and the Naked Rambler – Human Rights Roundup

1 December 2014 by Celia Rooney

Photo credit: Guardian.co.uk

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular winter wonderland of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can find previous roundups here. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Celia Rooney.

Human Rights Week 2014

Next week (8-12 December) is Human Rights Week 2014. There is a bumper programme of events – full details on the Law Society mini site or the Human Rights Week Twitter account. Of interest to readers of the UKHRB, Adam Wagner is speaking at a panel event on Tue 9 December, along with Liberty’s Rachel Robinson and Anthony Speight QC: Protecting Human Rights in the UK: Is there a case for major change

Also, on Monday 8 December (busy week!), Adam is speaking at the Human Rights Lawyers Association event – Regional Human Rights Systems: Under Siege, along with Prof. Douglass Cassel (University of Notre Dame), Jessica Simor QC (Matrix) and Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (Policy Exchange).

In the News
Continue reading →

Defamatory Tweets, Legal Aid Armageddon and Burkha Bans – The Human Rights Roundup

2 June 2013 by Daniel Isenberg

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular chocolate selection box 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.

Much of the news this week relating to the media: tweeting, printing and everything in between.Chris Grayling’s thriftiness also maintains the interests of commentators, academics and lawyers; and cases involving the freedom of religion remain at the forefront of the ECtHR as the Strasbourg Court reforms.

by Daniel Isenberg

Continue reading →

Policing Disclosure: R (Ansari) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police

24 March 2026 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

In R (Ansari) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police [2026] EWHC 472 (Admin), the High Court (Chamberlain J) held that the heightened level of disclosure required under Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) [2009] UKHL 28 (“AF-disclosure”) does not apply in a challenge to the seizure, download, retention and inspection of the contents of a person’s mobile phone by an  examining officer pursuant to Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (“TA 2000“).

In addition to undertaking a comprehensive review of the AF-disclosure case law, Chamberlain J also rejected the notion of some form of an intermediate level of disclosure in closed material proceedings, where the AF-disclosure threshold is not met. The decision offers some much-needed clarity in this area of law.

The Weekly Round-Up: UK’s first transgender judge files at the ECHR, Met Police facial recognition tech, Parole Futures, threats to Iranian journalists and interim injunction for asylum seeker accommodations

25 August 2025 by Catherine Berus

In UK News

ECHR

Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The application is challenging the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Dr. McCloud is seeking a re-hearing of the case, arguing that the initial trial infringed her Article 6 right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  Dr. McCloud sought leave to join the case before the courts in For Women Scotland in light of the impact the ruling could have on transgender individuals with gender recognition certificates (GRCs), but her application was rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, no evidence or representations from the estimated 8,500 individuals who hold GRCs was entered in the original hearing.

Dr. McCloud will be represented by a trans-led legal team in partnership with London’s Trans Legal Clinic.

Facial Recognition Technology and the London Metropolitan Police

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been granted leave to intervene in a judicial review examining whether the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by police complies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ECHR argued that the case of R (Thompson and Carlo) v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis raises important questions of public interest and that the current policy related to the technology is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.

LFRT captures and analyses the faces of individuals walking in front of real-time close- circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Biometric data that is unique to those individuals is then compared to a ‘watchlist’ of persons the police are seeking. The EHRC is concerned with the expansion and development of LFRT in light of the lack of domestic legislation that regulates its use.  The Commission will make submissions that the technology is intrusive and will highlight the development of international policy on LFRT and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation.

Parole Futures

A new anthology on the future of parole systems, Parole Futures: Rationalities, Institutions and Practices has been published by the Onati International Series in Law and Society, edited by Harry Annison, Nicola Carr and Thomas Guiney. The book includes insights from 27 world-leading experts on the pressing issues about parole systems around the world, including: Asia; Australia, North and South America, and Europe. The objectives of the anthology is to encourage a ‘systematic and critical reflection’ on parole systems, and to introduce ambitious ‘what if’ thinking ‘about the futures of parole and prison release’.

International News

A United Nations (UN) panel of 11 experts—including six Special Rapporteurs—released a statement expressing concerns over escalating intimidation and censorship of Iran International journalists globally. According to the UN statement, 45 Iran International journalists and staff and 315 of their family members have received credible threats to life or safety. Individuals are located across seven countries: the UK, USA, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and Türkiye. The increase in threats to journalists over the last year coincided with the Iran-Israel conflict of June 2025, with Iranian officials alleging that journalists were acting as spies for Israel.

UK-based journalists have required police protection or re-location within the UK or abroad. Women have also faced additional threats of sexual violence; while family members have been interrogated, surveyed, and threatened with death or arrest.

The UN argues this is a campaign to ‘silence and censor critical reporting and courageous public interest journalism’, and that such intimidation violates the freedom of expression, media and ‘deprives the public of their right to information’.

The UN is urging Iran to immediately cease the threatening and intimidation of journalists and their families, and to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.

In the Courts

The High Court has granted the Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction which will prevent Somani Hotels Limited from continuing to accommodate asylum seeks at the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited ([2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)). The Council argued that the use of the Bell Hotel constituted a material change of use from its classification as a hotel, requiring planning permission, which the Somani Hotels Limited had not obtained.

The High Court acknowledged that the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to provide accommodation, and that this need is growing. However, the ‘balance of convenience’ and the strength of the Council’s case ultimately outweighed the considerations raised by Somani and an interim injunction was granted. Somani Hotels Limited has until September 12, 2025, to comply with the order. There are concerns that other councils may now seek interim injunctions for hotels utilized in their areas. As of March 2025, there were approximately 30K asylum seekers living in hotels.

 Catherine Berus | LinkedIn