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]
UK Human Rights Blog - 1 Crown Office Row
Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/43/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
At the end of the Wizard of Oz Dorothy manages to find her way back from the land of Oz to her farmstead in Kansas by closing her eyes, clicking the heels of her ruby-red slippers together, and repeatedly murmuring the incantation “There’s no place like home; there’s no place like home …”.
In his Bringing Rights back home: making human rights compatible with parliamentary democracy in the UK (Policy Exchange, 2011)the political scientist Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky attempts a similar feat, seeking to bring human rights back from the Land of Stras(bourg).
The Bill includes the much-discussed proposal to restrict the availability of jury trial by removing the right to elect trial on indictment for either way offences that are likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less. The Bill also introduces judge-only trials for complex fraud or related financial offences, and replaces the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates’ court with a permission stage. Assuming the reforms are implemented, the Ministry of Justice predicts it will take a decade for the criminal court’s backlog to fall below pre-Covid levels.
Separately, the Bill reforms evidential rules in sexual offence trials. A complainant’s previous false allegations will only be admissible where there is a “proper evidential basis” for concluding the allegation was false. The Bill also provides guidance on when evidence of a complainant’s sexual behaviour is admissible, and raises the threshold for the inclusion of evidence regarding a complainant’s previous compensation claims.
Desmond v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police 2011] EWCA Civ 3 (12 January 2011)- Read judgment
The Court of Appeal has ruled that it is not possible to sue the police in negligence for not filling in an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC). The ruling shows that the courts are still reluctant to allow negligence claims against the police, and provides useful guidance as to the duty of care of public authorities towards the general public.
Vincent Desmond was arrested in 2001 for a late-night sexual assault in Nottingham. He denied the crime, and a week later the police decided to take no action against him. When closing the file, a detective constable wrote in his notebook “It is apparent Desmond is not responsible for the crime. The complainant visited and cannot state for certain if Desmond is responsible.”
Yes, says the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, upholding the validity of human gene patents related to breast and ovarian cancer (Association for Molecular Pathology and others v the Patent Office and Myriad Genetics – read judgment) UPDATED
The three judge panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that the biotechnology company Myriad was entitled to its patents on the molecules because each of them represented “a non-naturally occurring composition of matter”. The court also upheld Myriad’s patent on a technique for identifying potential cancer therapies by monitoring effects on cell growth, but denied their claim on assessing cancer risk by comparing DNA sequences because the method is based on “abstract, mental steps” of logic that are not “transformative”.
This fascinating judgment is a model of clarity and fluency in this difficult area. But what does this intellectual property tussle have to do with human rights? Well, there is nothing unfamiliar to human rights lawyers in litigation over the availability of life-saving treatment (patient B, the Herceptin case and the antiretroviral litigation in South Africa are three examples that spring to mind). And much of it begins in the laboratory, with the critical allocation of exclusivity rights. Continue reading →
As the August news lull continues, the David Miranda controversy is still troubling commentators – see Daniel Isenberg’s superb roundup. In the past week or so, an interesting symmetry has arisen between those defending and criticising the Police’s actions.
The Police’s critics say the detention was probably unlawful, but even if it was lawful it shouldn’t have been as, if this non-terrorism case can fit within existing anti-terror law, then terrorism powers are too wide. This more or less fits with my view, although I am not sure yet about the lawfulness of the detention. A reverse argument is made by the Police’s defenders: the detention was probably lawful, but if if it wasn’t then it should have been, as we need to be able to prevent these kind of dangerous intelligence leaks from occurring. See e.g. Matthew Parris and to an extent Louise Mensch.
Into the second category steps Lord Ian Blair, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He has told the BBC that the threat from international terrorism was “constantly changing” and there was a need to “review the law”:
A proposal to retain DNA samples taken from people who have been arrested but not charged with a crime for up to five years has come under criticism from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
On the one hand, many people feel strongly that retention of something as personal as someone’s genetic code should never be done when the person has not been convicted of a crime. As DNA analysis gets more advanced, it can reveal increasingly large amounts of information about a person.
Adakini Ntuli v Howard Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276 – Read judgment
Take That’s Howard Donald has failed to maintain an injunction against the press reporting details of his relationship with a former girlfriend. He had originally sought the injunction after receiving a text from the woman saying: “Why shud I continue 2 suffer financially 4 the sake of loyalty when selling my story will sort my life out?”
‘Superinjunctions’ have received a great deal of press coverage recently, not least because they are usually granted in cases involving celebrities’ private lives. They are injunctions, usually in privacy or breach of confidence cases, which prevent not only the publication of certain matters, but even the publication of the existence of legal proceedings. These cases are of particular interest because of the competing ECHR rights in play: Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 10, the right to freedom of expression.
In Episode 211 of Law Pod UK I am joined by former President of the Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, first female law lord in the Court of Appeal, one time Professor of Law at Manchester University and participant in many Law Commission projects during her nine year sojourn there. She discusses with me the emergence of the English law of privacy from the network of common law torts such as breach of confidence, misuse of private information and libel, in the constellation of cases that reached the courts before the 1998 Human Rights Act ushered in the right to respect to private life and the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms. The balancing act between Article 8 and 10 is not always straightforward, as Lady Hale points out, where different members of the appellate committee have differing views on transparency and confidentiality.
She talks about her years at the Law Commission and her role in the team collaborating with what was then the Department of Health and Social Security to come up with a systematic drawing together of all the different rules about the care and upbringing of children the Children Act 1989. At this point of the discussion, Rosalind and Lady Hale touch upon the novel by Ian McEwan by that very title, The Children Act (2014), which gets Lady Hale’s full endorsement.
The full citations of the cases we discuss are set out below.
Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 (general principles of illegality)
Law Pod UK starts 2025 with nearly 950K listens. We aim to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, Mr Justice Johnson held in R (Humnyntskyi) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1912 (Admin) that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.
Matthew Fisher is a doctor and aspiring barrister with an interest and experience in MedTech.
Might Uncle Ben’s words prove prescient in the context of medical negligence?
Regardless of whether one attributes this famous quote to Voltaire or Spider-Man, the sentiment is the same. Power and responsibility should be in equilibrium. More power than responsibility leads to decision-making with little concern for the consequences and more responsibility than power leads to excessive caution. This article argues that there is now a disequilibrium in the NHS, which is the root cause for defensive medical practice and the growing NHS litigation bill.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire affirmed a transition from patients as passive receivers of care to active consumers by making the collaborative patient-doctor relationship a legally enforceable right. However, as yet patients are not expected to share responsibility for a negative outcome. Medical paternalism may now be dead but judicial paternalism appears to be alive and well. However, contributory negligence is a necessary counter-weight in this balance and it must urgently be applied to restore equilibrium.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] EWHC 3631 (Admin), Collins J, 5 November 2014 – read judgment UPDATED POST
Fireworks here from Collins J in making sure that Bank Mellat got some disclosure of information in its fight to discharge a financial restriction order against it.
Bank Mellat is an Iranian bank, initially singled out by an 2009 order which prohibited anybody from dealing with it. The order was part of sanctions against Iran in respect of its nuclear and ballistic missiles programme. However, it bit the dust, thanks to the Supreme Court: see judgment. I did a post on that decision, and followed it up with one (here) on the (dis)proportionality arguments which led to the order’s downfall.
However the Bank was subject to two further orders, made in 2011 and 2012. They led to the freezing of €183m held by it in London. The 2012 order has since been revoked, but the 2011 one remains. This is the subject of the Bank’s application to set it aside. On any view, as Collins J recognised, it had caused very serious damage to the Bank’s business.
M.M. v United Kingdom (Application no. 24029/07) – read judgment
The European Court of Human Rights yesterday handed down a Chamber judgment in declaring that the arrangements for the indefinite retention of data relating to a person’s caution in a criminal matter and for the disclosure of such data in criminal record checks infringe Article 8 of the ECHR.
Although the Court recognised that there might be a need for a comprehensive record of data relating to criminal matters, the indiscriminate and open-ended collection of criminal record data was unlikely to comply with Article 8 in the absence of clear and detailed statutory regulations clarifying the safeguards applicable and governing the use and disposal of such data, particularly bearing in mind the amount and sensitivity of the data.
The case arose from a family dispute in Northern Ireland in the course of which the applicant, a grandmother, took her grandson away from his parents for two days before returning him unharmed. This resulted in her receiving a caution for child abduction in November 2000. In 2003 the police advised her that her caution would remain on record for only five years, i.e. until 2005. However, following the Soham murders and the Bichard report, there was a change of policy whereby any convictions and cautions where the victim was a child would be kept on record for the offender’s lifetime. Continue reading →
The Coalition Government has presented its legislative agenda for the coming year in the Queen’s Speech. Below are links to some of our previous posts which address some of the proposed policies.
The full line-up of bills announced can be found on the Number 10 website, or you can also read the full transcript. Our analysis of the Coalition’s human rights policies is here. The list will probably not be exhaustive, as some of the promises made in the Programme for Government may be instituted via secondary legislation or attached to other related Acts of Parliament.
One notable absence is any mention of reform to extradition policy (see our post from yesterday). The Programme for Government included the promise to “review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed.” Liberty, the human rights organisation, had already welcomed the change in a statement on Monday. The family of Gary McKinnon would have also been waiting for this, as Mr McKinnon is currently awaiting a decision from the new Home Secretary as to whether he will be extradited to the United States on computer hacking charges. That being said, a change to the extradition arrangements may be included in another bill, although this seems unlikely.
The Ministry of Justice’s plan to roll out the chemical castration of convicted sex offenders has met with academic criticism, legal warnings, and comparisons to controversial schemes in other jurisdictions. The programme, announced this week by justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, is set to be piloted in twenty prisons in England and Wales as one of a number of “radical” reforms proposed in former Lord Chancellor David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review. Professor David Grubin of Newcastle University joined other forensic psychiatry experts expressing scepticism of the measure, saying that, although it was likely to reduce reoffending rates significantly, its “mandatory element” was “very unethical and… most doctors I know would be resistant to it.” Similar ‘Anti-Libidinal Intervention’ (ALI) schemes have been been introduced on a voluntary basis in Denmark and Germany, and mandatorily in Poland and Moldova – in the latter case, lasting for barely one year, before the country’s constitutional court quashed the measure for what it ruled as its fundamental human rights infringements. ALI programmes elsewhere have seen widespread condemnation from human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, citing in particular their violation of European Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading punishment), 8 and 12 (right to private life and to found a family). Marcus Johnstone of PCD Solicitors has said that the current proposals for ALIs in the UK would lead to challenges in the courts.
An investigation by Liberty Investigates and Metro found that a number of UK universities have been providing intelligence on pro-Palestine student protesters to the police. The investigation described “varying degrees of cooperation and intelligence sharing” in correspondence between universities and police forces. A manager at Queen Mary University of London wrote to the police that “[w]e are monitoring closely the plans of the students in the encampment and will provide you with the details when they are known”. Universities named in the investigation said they were committed to protecting and encouraging free speech.
Student protesters are also facing challenges in the courts, with multiple universities seeking possession orders in order to evict pro-Palestine encampments from campus grounds. The University of Birmingham sought a possession order on Thursday. The defendant student argued that granting the University possession would be unlawful because it would discriminate against her protected philosophical beliefs and interfere with her rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The University argued that the occupation is not a mere expression of opinion, but is designed to interfere with the University’s activities, citing over £250,000 of costs incurred as a consequence of the encampment. Judgment has been reserved until a later date.
In other news, The Undercover Policing Inquiry started ‘Tranche 2’ hearings on Monday, entering a phase of the inquiry which covers the conduct and management of the Special Demonstration Squad between 1983 and 1992. The Metropolitan Police Service acknowledged wrongdoing during this period in its opening statement. The MPS described the fact that at least nine undercover officers engaged in “deceitful sexual relationships” during their deployments as “completely unacceptable” and apologised “for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen”. The MPS also acknowledged that there was “unnecessary reporting” on groups which “did not present any risk of serious public disorder and were not engaged in any criminal or subversive activity”, including groups which were campaigning for police accountability.
In international news
On Tuesday the President of Sierra Leone, Julius Maada Bio, signed the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act into law, banning marriage with a child under 18. In 2021 UNICEF reported that 30% of women and girls in Sierra Leone married in childhood. Sierra Leone’s First Lady Fatima Bio, who was a victim of child marriage and championed the bill, described how child marriage “destroys [children] before they even know who they are”. She said there was no excuse not to comply with the law. The law has been welcomed by human rights campaigners as a historic step forward for the rights of the child inthe country.
In the courts
The US Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority on Monday that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” when carrying out their constitutional powers. They remain liable for private conduct. Justice Roberts delivered the majority judgment, writing that the President must be able to “execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly” without the threat of prosecution. In a strong dissenting judgment Justice Sotomayor wrote that the president “is now a king above the law”. US President Joe Biden described the decision as setting a “dangerous precedent” which undermined the rule of law.
The Supreme Court of Kansas ruled on Friday that a state law banning the most common second-trimester abortion procedure violated the state’s constitution. Delivering the decision for the majority, Justice Eric Rosen wrote that the court stood by its 2019 decision that “the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy”. Several nearby states including Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri banned abortion following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the historic ruling in Roe v Wade, removing a right to abortion under the US Constitution. Kansas has become a destination where women living in those states can travel to obtain an abortion.
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.
At the end of the Wizard of Oz Dorothy manages to find her way back from the land of Oz to her farmstead in Kansas by closing her eyes, clicking the heels of her ruby-red slippers together, and repeatedly murmuring the incantation “There’s no place like home; there’s no place like home …”. 
As the August news lull continues, the David Miranda controversy is still troubling commentators – see Daniel Isenberg’s 
A proposal to retain DNA samples taken from people who have been arrested but not charged with a crime for up to five years has come under 
Recent comments