Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/40/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)

The Weekly Round-Up: Riots Continue, No Appeal for Shamima Begum, & Venezuelan Unrest

12 August 2024 by Catherine Churchill

In UK News

Riots continued throughout the UK last week, sparked by the attack and murder of 3 children in Southport on July 29^th. The riots have been linked to a widely circulated online rumour falsely identifying the perpetrator as a Muslim asylum seeker. UK Chief Executive for Amnesty International, Sacha Deshmukh, has stated the riots to be caused at root by “racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia”. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called the rioting an “assault on the rule of law and the execution of justice” and made clear that those involved will not “be allowed to hide behind the legitimate right to protest”. The Crown Prosecution Service revealed on Friday via a post on X (formerly Twitter) that 159 individuals have been charged in connection with the “violent disorder” across the country, with a total of 741 arrests having been made. The news follows Justice Minister Heidi Alexander’s announcement that the process of opening 500 prison places for those involved in the riots is underway.

On Friday, the UK Government announced fresh sanctions against Belarus in response to ongoing human rights violations in the country. The sanctions have been announced on the four-year anniversary of the “deeply flawed” 2020 presidential elections in Belarus; elections which Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated have resulted in “over 40,000 citizens arrested on trumped up political charges, civil society and independent media trampled and a regime with no regard for democracy or human rights”. The Viasna Human Rights Center, a Belarusian NGO, claims that as of August 11, Belarus holds 1385 political prisoners including journalists and human rights activists. The new sanctions raise the total number against Belarus to over 200 individuals and entities. The announcement also revealed a funding package of £2.5 million to support human rights and civil liberties in Belarus.

In Other News

Unrest continues in Venezuela following the contested re-election of President Nicolas Maduro on July 28^th. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has published a statement arguing that there is “overwhelming evidence” that the opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, was the true victor. The statement cites the fact that the opposition have published over 80 percent of the tally sheets from polling stations across Venezuela showing Urrutia to have won by an “insurmountable margin”, further corroborated by exit polls. The announcement of Maduro’s re-election sparked protests across the country which have continued into this week. In a press conference on Tuesday, Maduro announced that over 2229 individuals had been arrested in connection with the protests, calling those involved “terrorists”. In a press conference last week, a spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk expressed concern over the “numerous cases of arbitrary detention”, including that of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders, children, and journalists. Amnesty International sent an open letter on Friday to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court calling for his “resolute and immediate action” against the crimes being committed under international law by Venezuelan authorities. Amnesty argue in the letter that the ongoing “tragedy is a consequence of the impunity for serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity that Maduro’s government has been committing for years.”

Reports have surfaced that in only two days last week, Iranian authorities executed a minimum of 29 individuals. The UN Office of the High Commissioner have verified that a further 38 people were executed in Iran over the course of July, raising the total for 2024 thus far to 345. The Office raised concerns in particular about the “lack of due process and fair trial standards”, with several executions occurring with “neither the prisoner’s family nor legal counsel being informed”. NGO Iran Human Rights has reported that 26 men were executed in a group hanging outside Ghezelhesar Prison – an execution the scale of which has been unparalleled since 2009. Amnesty have revealed that at least one of the prisoners executed in the spree was imprisoned in connection with the Woman Life Freedom protests that erupted following the murder of Mahsa Amini in 2022.

The Bulgarian Parliament passed an anti-LGBT amendment last Wednesday to the country’s education laws, banning the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one.” The amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority with 159 votes in favour and only 22 against. LGBT rights group Forbidden Colours have stated they believe the move represents Bulgaria “adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook”, a development they call “deeply troubling”. The organisation have also raised questions about the swiftness with which the amendment occurred, both readings occurring on a single day – raising “serious concerns about the legislative process and the intent behind such haste”. A spokesperson for the EU Commission told POLITICO last Thursday that while the EU is aware of the amendment, they were unable to comment. The spokesperson however reiterated that the Commission “remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling discrimination, inequalities and challenges faced by LGBTIQ individuals.”

In the Courts

Last Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court rejected Shamima Begum’s permission to further appeal the removal of her British citizenship. Ms Begum appealed on four grounds: trafficking, invoking Article 4 ECHR; deprivation of the right to make representations; a failure to ensure good community relations, required per s.149 of the Equality Act; and de facto statelessness. Permission to appeal was refused on all four grounds, concluding that “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”. In response to the ruling, Maya Foa, director of human rights NGO Reprieve, has stated that “exiling British nationals like Ms Begum is about politics, not the law”. The decision signifies the exhaustion of Ms Begum’s legal remedies in the UK. However, Ms Begum’s lawyers told the BBC that they intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The Dublin High Court found last week that the Irish Government’s treatment of asylum seekers breaches the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell stated in judgment that in failing to support the accommodation needs of applicants for asylum, “the State has breached the rights of those persons as provided for in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” – the right to human dignity. It was held that central to respecting the human rights of asylum seekers is the maintenance of “an adequate standard of living which guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health where they do not have the means to provide for themselves”.The judgment has been welcomed by the UN Refugee Agency, who have now called on the Irish Government to take “immediate action”. The Court did, however, decline to grant the mandatory orders sought by the applicants, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, on the basis that it was not satisfied that there was evidence the Government would ignore its obligations.

US federal judge Mark Walker ruled last Thursday in Claire v Florida DMS that Florida’s ban on transgender healthcare access for state employees violates their civil rights. Florida has had a categorical ban on coverage of healthcare for “gender reassignment or modification services or supplies” of state employees for decades, which has now been found to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a form of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex since it denies transgender employees coverage for medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria. Quoting a judgment from 2020, Judge Walker reiterated that “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex” as “the first cannot happen without the second”.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the judgment in a press release, with Staff Attorney Samantha Past stating that “discrimination has no place” in Florida. The ACLU “are hopeful that this decision will encourage a commitment from the state to treating members of the transgender community with the respect they deserve”.

Protesting here and risk of persecution there

16 February 2011 by Alasdair Henderson

BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC) – read judgment – and SA (Iranian Arabs-no general risk) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 41(IAC) – read judgment.

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) last week allowed two asylum appeals by Iranian political activists, and laid down guidance on the factors the Home Office and immigration tribunals should take into account when deciding asylum applications and appeals based on political activities here in the UK.

In the midst of all the excitement over the events in Tunisia and Egypt, it is important to remember that most countries in the wider Middle East are still under the control of authoritarian regimes which give scant regard to basic human rights. In particular, the success of the recent protests in removing Presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak from office are a reminder of the very similar, but unsuccessful, protests in Iran following the re-election of President Ahmadinejad in June 2009. The Iranian regime brutally suppressed the protesters in 2009, and there has been a crack-down on opposition activists since. The same reaction by the regime has been evident at renewed protests yesterday and today. The Upper Tribunal had to consider the ongoing situation in Iran in two recent decisions.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court rules that immigrants without indefinite leave have “precarious” status in UK

16 November 2018 by Jonathan Metzer

On 14th November 2018 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 58. The effect of this decision is that:

(a) A claimant at the Immigration Tribunal who relies on their private (not family) life under Article 8 will be entitled to have only “little weight” placed on that private life if they have been in the UK without indefinite leave to remain, unless there are “particularly strong features of the private life in question”; and

(b) A claimant who is financially dependent on other people but not on the state should not have that fact held against them when assessing the public interest in their removal.

Whilst the result was a victory for the individual claimant in this case, the wider consequences of this decision will be to clarify and tighten the law in a way that will make it even harder than it already was for claimants to succeed on the basis of their private life in the UK.

Continue reading →

“Asylum seeker death driver” case was misunderstood

22 December 2010 by Suzanne Lambert

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Respondent [2010] UKUT B1 – Read judgment

There has been public outrage over the ruling of two Senior Immigration Judges that it would be unlawful to deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi Kurd, who has been labelled an “asylum seeker death driver”

The fury has not been limited to the lay public or the media, but “great anger” has also been expressed by high-profile figures such as Prime Minister David Cameron, a well-known critic of the Human Rights Act. The Government’s embarrassment over the decision has prompted Immigration Minister, Damian Green, to announce that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) will appeal the decision, and there have been more drastic calls from Tory MPs for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bringing rights home weekly

15 February 2011 by Graeme Hall

Today we are reinvigorating our weekly human rights news and case law roundup. Look out for regular bulletins of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts.

by Graeme Hall

Bringing Rights Back Home, with foreword by Lord Hoffmann – Policy Exchange: A report by political scientist Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, commissioned by the thinktank Policy Exchange, offers a strong academic criticism of the European Court of Human Rights’ current composition and powers, as well as the affects its judgments are having in Britain. Click here for our previous commentary on the report.

Ben Emmerson: The European Court of Human Rights enhances our democracy – The Independent: In a detailed article, Ben Emmerson QC examines the thinktank Exchange Policy’s recently published report ‘Bringing Rights Back Home’, which criticised the current practises of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the barrister pays attention to the comments of Lord Hoffman (a former law Lord) who authored the report’s foreward. See our previous post for a commentary on the report.

Continue reading →

Sexual abuse: a third party’s fault?

13 February 2020 by Charlotte Gilmartin

On 30 January 2020, Mr Justice Chamberlain gave judgment in BXB v (1) Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania (2) Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [2020] EWHC 156 (QB), making an important contribution to the law of vicarious liability.

What is a“Mother”, in law?

30 September 2019 by Charlotte Gilmartin

A person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth, irrespective of gender? This was the ruling of the Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane P, President of the Family Division, on 25th September in TT, R(on the application of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales [2019] EWHC 2384 (Fam)  . He decided that the Claimant, (known as “TT”), who was legally recognised as male at the time of giving birth to his child, (“YY”), is correctly registered as “mother” on YY’s birth certificate.
Continue reading →

Grace period in a time of Covid

30 November 2021 by Dominic Ruck Keene

In R (Babbage) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 2995 (Admin), the Claimant applied for judicial review, claiming that his immigration detention from 27 February 2020 to 29 April 2021 had been unlawful and/or that there was a public law error relating to the delay in the provision of s.4 accommodation. Soole J gave a potentially significant judgment concerning the ambit of the ‘grace period’ for locating s.4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 accommodation, i.e. accommodation provided to failed asylum seekers. The judge also made some apposite comments concerning the requirement for appropriate evidence in unlawful detention claims from the relevant decision maker. 

The Facts

The Claimant, a Zimbabwean national, was detained as Foreign National Offender and deportation proceedings   pursuant to the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007 were commenced. He was detained under Immigration Act powers from September 2013 until December 2015 at which point his release was ordered by the court on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of returning him to Zimbabwe. During his initial detention he made an application for asylum which was subsequently refused, and he became appeal rights expired. Following a short custodial sentence imposed on 25 September 2019, the Claimant was detained again between 22 October and 4 December 2019, following which an Emergency Travel Document was agreed in principle by the Zimbabwean Embassy, although no ETD was ever subsequently issued. On 7 February 2020, the Claimant received a short custodial sentence for breach of a community order. Upon his release he was detained again under Immigration Act powers. On 25 May 2020 the Case Progression Panel recommended the Claimant’s release.  On 7 April 2021 the FTT granted bail in principle subject to the provision of s.4 accommodation. The SSHD granted s.4 accommodation on 15 April but was not provided with accommodation and released until 29 April 2021.

The Round up: Begum, knife crimes, Tamil Tigers and disability discrimination

25 February 2019 by Rosalind English

In the news 

This week has been dominated by Shamima Begum. On Tuesday last week, Home Secretary Sajid Javid issued an order depriving Ms Begum of citizenship under s.40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The act authorises the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship where this is “conducive to the public good” – but s.40(4) states that the order must not make the person stateless. 

The Home Office claimed compliance with s.40(4) on the basis that Ms Begum could claim citizenship from Bangladesh, in light of her Bangladeshi heritage, until the age of 21. However, on Wednesday, the Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement that Ms Begum was not a Bangladeshi citizen, and that there was ‘no question’ of her being allowed into the country. Ms Begum herself told the BBC, “I wasn’t born in Bangladesh, I’ve never seen Bangladesh and I don’t even speak Bengali properly, so how can they claim I have Bangladeshi citizenship?”

Article 8: Test for Family Life arising out of Foster Care is no different to that of “Birth Families”

24 March 2020 by Charlotte Gilmartin

Uddin v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 338 – read judgment

On 12 March 2020 a unanimous Court of Appeal led by Sir Ernest Ryder (Senior President of the Tribunals), together with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice King, allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the First tier Tribunal (“FtT”) and Upper Tribunal (“UT”)’s decisions upholding the refusal of his application for leave to remain.

The case concerns the correct approach to the interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) in circumstances arising out of a foster care relationship where the person who had received or continued to receive that care is now an adult.

Closing the escape hatch for foreign criminals?

25 May 2011 by Maria Roche

AP (Trinidad & Tobago) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 551  Read Judgment    

In the ongoing controversy over the deportation of foreign offenders, the Court of Appeal has decided that the Immigration Tribunal had not made a mistake of law in deciding that a foreign citizen who had lived in the UK since the age of 4 and had been convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for a drugs offence, following a string of other offences, should not be deported.  

The Court of Appeal also commented on the interaction between the Tribunal and appellate courts and a potential distinction between ‘foreign criminals‘ as defined by the UK Borders Act 2007 and other foreign offenders.

Continue reading →

Upper Tribunal confirms the legitimacy of the new immigration rules – but questions their completeness

8 November 2012 by Rosalind English

MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 00393(IAC) – read judgment

This tribunal decision is the first to tackle the so-called “codification” of Article 8 considerations in immigration law (see  Adam’s post  on the Home Office’s proposals earlier this year).

Before the new immigration rules were introduced in July,  cases involving Article 8 ECHR ordinarily required a two-stage assessment: (1) first to assess whether the decision appealed against was in accordance with the immigration rules; (2) second to assess whether the decision was contrary to the appellant’s Article 8 rights. In immigration decisions, there was no doubt that human rights were rooted in primary legislation: s.84(1)(c) and (g) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act  2002, the “2002 Act”) allows an appeal to be brought against a decision which unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (public authority not to act contrary to Human Rights Convention) as being incompatible with the appellant’s Convention rights. In addition to this, there is s.33(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007 which provides, as one of the statutory exceptions  to the automatic deportation regime,  “…where removal of the foreign criminal in pursuance of a deportation order would breach (a) a person’s Convention rights”.

But then there was a move to set out an extensive, codified definition of the Article 8 balancing factors, in order to

unify consideration under the rules and Article 8, by defining the basis on which a person can enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life. 
Continue reading →

It’s a fair cop: Supreme Court clarifies scope of duties of care owed by police

12 February 2018 by Isabel McArdle

Robinson (Appellant) v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 4

Update – Isabel McArdle talks to Rosalind English about this case in the latest episode from Law Pod UK, available for free download from iTunes and Audioboom (episode 23).

The Supreme Court has made a significant decision on the question of the scope of the common law duty of care owed by police when their activities lead to injuries being sustained by members of the public. It has long been the case that a claim cannot be brought in negligence against the police, where the danger is created by someone else, except in certain unusual circumstances such as where there has been an assumption of responsibility.

This case, however, was focussed on the question of injuries resulting from activities of the police, where the danger was created by their own conduct. The answer is that the police did owe a duty of care to avoid causing an injury to a member of the public in those circumstances.

Continue reading →

A spectacularly Misleading Case – nested in a real one

25 November 2014 by David Hart KC

Islamic Investment Co v. Symphony Gems & Mehta, 19 November 2014, Hamblen J – judgment here

Hamblen J observed that “the facts…are so extraordinary that they could have come from one of A.P. Herbert’s “Misleading Cases”. Yes indeed. A solicitor decided to make up three years of litigation, writing some fake judgments, pretending to instruct barristers, and churning out fictitious correspondence.

Why? It is not clear from the judgment, though one or two clues  are given. 

The fraud surfaced in a long-running dispute between a claimant finance company seeking repayment of a loan, and the first defendant, diamond traders, and the second and third defendant guarantors. The defendants now owe the claimant $14m. The defendants do not want to pay $14m, and have taken every point in resisting the claimant’s attempts to secure its money – so much so that in October 2010 David Steel J decided that the second defendant, Mr Rajesh Mehta go to prison for his refusal to explain where his assets were, by activating a previously suspended committal order.

The current application was Mr Mehta’s application to set aside all adverse court orders. His reasons – my solicitor had acted against me, and was deliberately trying to prejudice me in my affairs in making up all this litigation.

Continue reading →

Lost Journeys: The Stories of Child Refugees

5 November 2015 by Guest Contributor

On behalf of Professor Van Bueren and the Human Rights Collegium at the School of Law, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) is featuring a theatre play and expert discussion on child refugees to honour the life of Lisa Jardine (pictured).

The Human Rights Collegium is hosting this event with the theatre group Ice and Fire to raise awareness about the situation of child refugees in the current refugee crisis. This multimedia initiative, featuring a theatre performance followed by discussion and Q&A, offers an opportunity to reflect upon the journeys of children in flight, from the moment they start their journey to the point they reach their destination in Europe and the UK, tracing their experiences of the asylum process and their life after status recognition and/or as failed applicants.

Details:

Tuesday 17 November 2015, 6:30-9pm

Arts Two Lecture Theatre
Queen Mary University of London
Mile End Road, E1 4NS

To register for this event, please visit the QMUL Department of Law Eventbrite page.