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/46/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
This has been a turbulent week for Brexit.
Despite gaining approval for his adapted version of Theresa May’s deal, Boris
Johnson has been unable to secure approval for his Brexit timetable, with a
narrow consensus in Parliament that the deal requires longer scrutiny.
Meanwhile, EU leaders have granted permission for a further extension to
Article 50 until 31st January 2020, in response to the letter sent
by the Prime Minister to comply with the Benn Act. Leaving on October 31st
is no longer possible; Parliament is preparing for a December general election.
An Amsterdam court has ruled that Google should bring down an unofficial “blacklist” of doctors maintained by a discussion group on the internet. This is said to be the first right to be forgotten case involving medical negligence by a doctor.
The judgment – available only in Dutch and heavily redacted – was handed down in July last year. But publication was delayed due to disputes over whether publication would compromise the anonymity not only of the claimant but of the other fifteen doctors on the blacklist. The claimant’s lawyer, reported in The Guardian, predicted that Google will “have to bring down thousands of pages” as a result of this ruling:
There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google has been the judge until now.
Background facts
The claimant was a surgeon who had been suspended by a disciplinary panel because of her postoperative care of a patient. This was changed to a conditional suspension after she appealed and she was allowed to continue practising.
Gough v UK (Application no. 49327/11), 28 October 2014 – Read judgment
The applicant in this case has been repeatedly arrested, convicted and imprisoned for breaching the peace by walking around naked in public. In a judgment handed down recently, the European Court of Human Rights found the UK authorities’ restriction of his rights under Articles 10 and 8 of the Convention, proportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime.
Stephen Gough has a strong conviction that there is nothing inherently offensive about the human body, and that he harms no-one by walking around naked. A really, really strong conviction. Since he set off on a naked walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats in 2003, he has been nicknamed the ‘naked rambler’ and has spent most of the last eight years in prison, and most of that time solitary confinement.
Patmalniece (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 11 – Read judgment / press summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that pensioners from other European Union states should not have the right to claim pension credits in the UK. Although the current ban on claiming these benefits is indirectly discriminatory, the discrimination is a justified response to the legitimate aim of protecting the public purse.
The 4-1 majority ruling (Lord Walker dissented) is likely to calm fears of “benefit tourism” and will probably be wrongly reported as a victory of sensible limits on public finances over human rights. For the record, the appeal was based squarely on EU freedom of movement law and had very little, if anything, to do with human rights.
Mr Justice Lewis has refused permission to bring a judicial review in what is arguably the most comprehensive and wide-reaching challenge brought to date to the legality of the lockdown Regulations and the decision to stop providing education on school premises (save for the children of key workers) in R (Dolan and Ors) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Secretary of State for Education[2020] EWHC 1786 (Admin).
Four and a half years after Britain voted to leave the EU, and 12 months after Boris Johnson was elected Prime Minister with his ‘oven-ready’ Brexit deal, the UK and European Union finally concluded a trade agreement on Christmas Eve. The deal, yet to be ratified by Parliament, is expected to gain approval without difficulty on 30th December, with the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, whipping his MPs to approve it. So did this deal supply the Christmas joy we’ve been missing in 2020? What does the deal contain?
Ross v Lord Advocate [2016] CSIH 12, 19th February 2016 – read judgment
The Inner House of the Court of Session has rejected a reclaiming motion (appeal) from a decision of the Outer House in which it was held that the Lord Advocate’s refusal to publish specific guidance on the circumstances in which individuals would be prosecuted for assisted suicide did not violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Factual and Legal Background
The petitioner, Gordon Ross, suffers from Parkinson’s disease. He anticipates that there will come a time when he will not wish to continue living but, because of his physical state, he would require assistance to end his own life. Mr Ross was apprehensive that anyone who assisted him would be liable to criminal prosecution and therefore sought clarification from the Lord Advocate (the head of the prosecution service in Scotland) as to the factors that would be taken into account in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Continue reading →
Re J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204 – read judgment
The Court of Appeal has ordered the the disclosure of serious allegations made against a parent by an anonymous third party in contact proceedings. In doing so, it has demonstrated the correct approach to balancing the many different human rights considerations involved.
Every day, family courts across the UK are required to determine the difficult question of how much contact there should be between a child and his or her parents. It is the norm for these cases to be factually complicated and emotionally draining. However, this case was exceptional. It was an appeal relating contact proceedings in respect of a ten year old girl (A). The court had made various orders for contact over a number of years, with a final order being made in 2009 that the she was to stay with her father for two weeks each February and four weeks each summer.
Hand and Anor v George [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch) (Rose J, 17 March 2017) – read judgment
The Adoption of Children Act 1926 s.5(2) had the effect that adopted children were not treated as “children” for the purposes of testamentary dispositions of property. The continuing application of this provision was a breach of the rights guaranteed by Article 14 in combination with Article 8 of the Convention. Therefore, the contemporary version of that provision, Adoption Act 1976 Sch.2 para.6, had to be read down so as to uphold the right not to be discriminated against.
Background Facts and Law
Henry Hand died in 1947. He was survived by his three children, Gordon Hand, Kenneth Hand and Joan George. In his will dated 6 May 1946, Henry Hand left the residue of his estate to his three children in equal shares for life with the remainder in each case to their children in equal shares. The question at the centre of this claim was whether adopted children count as “children” for the purposes of this will. Under Section 5(2) of the Adoption of Children Act 1926, which was in force at the relevant time, adopted children were not included as “children” for the purposes of a testamentary disposition of property.
The claimants, the adopted children of Kenneth Hand, accepted that under the domestic law in force, they were not included and their father’s share of the Henry Hand trust would go to the their cousins the defendants. However, the claimants maintained that they can rely on their rights under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights in conjunction with Article 8 to override the discriminatory effect of that domestic law so that they are treated as equals with the birth grand-children of Henry Hand. The defendants argued that the ECHR could not be applied to interpret an instrument that was drawn up at a time before it existed. Continue reading →
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel’s rejection of Hamas’ offer for the return of all hostages in return for the end of the war in Gaza on Sunday, claiming such a deal would ‘leave Hamas intact’ and render ‘the next October 7th only a matter of time’. The main conflict at the peace negotiations underway in Cairo appears to remain whether a ceasefire would be temporary, allowing Israel’s recovery of hostages, or permanent, as Hamas insists it must be. The US State Department also announced this week that they have found five Israeli military units committed gross violations of human rights before October 7th. Israel claims corrective action has been taken against four of these units but has declined to give any details. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State declined to confirm whether the US would therefore impose sanctions in line with the Leahy Law, which prohibits the US from allocating funds to foreign forces in the light of evidence of gross human rights violations. Netanyahu has said that ‘to impose a sanction on a unit in the IDF [would be] the height of absurdity and a moral low’ at a time when Israeli soldiers ‘are fighting the monsters of terror’. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice ruled in a 15-1 vote last week against imposing emergency measures to prevent military exports from Germany to Israel in a case brought by Nicaragua earlier this year. However, the Court also declined to throw out Nicaragua’s case in its entirety, taking the opportunity to ‘remind all states of their international obligations relating to the transfer of arms to parties to an armed conflict, in order to avoid the risk that such arms might be used’ to violate international law.
The debate about single-sex spaces has come back into the news this week after ministers have announced plans for transgender patients in hospital to be treated in separate wards. The Government argues that there is a legitimate basis for the segregation and that the measures are proportionate, thus preventing the policy from breaching the Equality Act 2010 or the ECHR. The proposals have received cross-party support; Sir Keir Starmer supported the proposition in an interview on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, stating that his views on gender ‘start with biology’. The plans were announced amongst other changes proposed to the NHS Constitution, including the right for patients to insist on having their care carried out by a doctor of their biological sex. Kemi Badenoch, Minister for Women and Equalities, has made a call for evidence of organisations who are ‘wrongly stating that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces according to their self-identified gender’. The information will be used to ensure the Government’s ‘policymaking continues to tackle any confusion’ so that ‘single-sex spaces can be maintained’. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, pleaded following the announcement that the NHS not be ‘dragged into a pre-election culture war’. Ministers should rather be ‘bringing forward detailed plans to improve NHS funding, tackle the decrepit state of many health facilities and get waiting times for A&E care and planned surgery back to the levels that existed when the constitution was first published in 2012.’
In the Courts
Several groups have announced legal challenges to the UK’s Rwanda Migrant Scheme in the wake of the passing of the Safety of Rwanda Bill in April. Asylum Aid announced last Friday their intent to challenge the legality of a Home Office policy document published last week on the grounds that it ‘fundamentally misunderstands the Act’. The policy requires caseworkers to consider Rwanda safe even in the face of compelling evidence that Rwanda would not be safe for the individual – ignoring Section 4 of the Act which provides a limited right to appeal against removal on the grounds that Rwanda would not be safe given the asylum seeker’s individual circumstances. The FDA Trade Union has also commenced proceedings on the grounds that the policy creates a conflict for civil servants between their obligations under the Civil Service Code and following the instructions of ministers. The Civil Service Code imposes a legal obligation upon civil servants to ‘uphold the rule of law’, which may not be possible if given instructions by a minister to ignore a Rule 39 Order from the ECHR – a breach of international law. Dave Penman, General Secretary for the FDA, has emphasised that the legal action is not a political decision nor about the policy itself, but about protecting civil servants and ‘the integrity of the Civil Service Code’. The case is to be heard the first week of June. In the meantime, detentions have begun for the first migrants set for removal to Rwanda, with more to come over the next few weeks. It has been suggested detentions have begun so far in advance – over nine weeks before the departures of the first flights – in anticipation of legal challenges. Earlier this week, a bus intended to remove asylum seekers from a South London hotel for transfer to the Bibby Stockholm barge had to leave empty after protestors surrounded the vehicle in a successful attempt to disrupt the removal. 45 protesters were arrested in total following the clash with over 100 Metropolitan police officers.
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the lack of protection given to workers on strike constitutes a breach of their human rights. The right to strike is protected under Article 11 ECHR, which ensures freedom of assembly and association. However, UK domestic law provides workers with no protections against detriments short of dismissal for exercising that right. While s146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protected workers from detriment for engaging in trade union activities, strike action has not been considered to qualify – a situation which the Supreme Court said ‘nullifies the right to take lawful strike action’. The Court found that the current legal position fell short of a fair balance between the interests of employers and Article 11 rights, and consequently has declared the relevant statute incompatible with human rights. A significant victory for worker’s rights, the Claimant, Fiona Mercer, has said: ‘I am delighted at today’s outcome. Although it won’t change the way I was treated, it means irresponsible employers will now think twice before behaving badly towards their unhappy staff.’ It remains to be seen whether legislation will now be amended to protect the rights of striking workers against detriment. While the government are under no legal duty to respond, Professor Alan Bogg, who was part of the Claimant’s legal team, has suggested not to do so would be ‘constitutionally surprising’.
The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has ruled it is not a breach of human rights for schools to exclusively teach about Christianity in religious education classes. The Court upheld a previous finding that the curriculum is not taught in an ‘objective, critical, and pluralistic manner’ and stated that the finding was ‘capable of constituting evidence supporting an inference that the forbidden line (of indoctrination) had been crossed’. However, this did not breach Article 2 Protocol 1 of the ECHR – the right to education – as parents are granted an unfettered statutory right to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship. The law in Northern Ireland demands that state-funded schools organise ‘collective worship’ in at least one assembly per day; while parents can withdraw their children from this activity, pupils are not granted the right to withdraw themselves. The Court recognised the ongoing review into teaching in Northern Ireland, suggesting that policymakers may soon implement a ‘refresh to the Northern Ireland curriculum that will inevitably include consideration of religious instruction to take into account the complexion and changing needs of our society’. The Claimant intends to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the UK there are at present no rights expressly cast in terms applicable to climate change, nor have our traditional human rights been extensively interpreted as covering climate change consequences. As David Hart QC identifies in his blog, Is climate change a human rights issue?, human rights principles, to be useful for climate change litigators, have to have some democratic backing somewhere. So is there any hope, in the near future at least, of formally or even informally establishing a link between climate change and human rights in the UK? Is human rights based climate change litigation as ‘radical’ as David Hart suggests?
Consider, for example, the situation where the avoidance of further climate change damage was possible through adequate mitigation and/or adaptation, but where adaptation measures were not implemented due to financial or technical constraints. Leaving aside the issue of whether the State would be liable for a moment, could existing human rights be engaged in this situation?
Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
The European Court of Human Rights has indicated that this Article contains three distinct rules ((1) Sporrong (2) Lonnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 85):
(1) The general principle of peaceful enjoyment of property (first sentence of the first paragraph);
(2) The rule that any deprivation of possessions should be subject to certain conditions (second sentence, first paragraph);
(3) The principle that States are entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose (second paragraph).
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions include the right of property (Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330). “Possessions” are not limited to physical goods: in Gasus Dosier-und Fordertechnik GmbH v The Netherlands (1995) 20 EHRR 403 it was considered immaterial that the property in issue was fully owned by the applicant, or whether it simply had a security right in it (retention of title). But to qualify under this Article the right or interest must have an economic value, or be of a pecuniary nature. In addition to property, possessions include:
Company shares: Bramelid & Malmstrom v Sweden, (1982) 29 DR 64.
Patents: Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v The Netherlands (1990) 66 DR 70;
Goodwill in business: Van Marle & Ors v The Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 483;
Licence to serve alcoholic beverages: Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden (1989) 13 EHRR 309;
Ownership of a debt (where it has crystallised): Agneesens v Belgium (1998) 58 DR 63;
An award, of court or arbitration, which is final and enforceable with no right of appeal on the merits: (1) Stran Greek Refineries (2) Stratis Andreadis v Greece (1994) 19 EHRR 293 and Pressos Compania Naviera SA & 25 Ors v Belgium (1997) 21 EHRR 301;
Interests in a pension scheme Wessels-Begervoet v The Netherlands (1986) (Admissibility Decision Application No. 00034462/97 October 10 2000
An additional gloss has been given to the meaning of “possessions” under this Article by the Court of Appeal in Wilson v First Country Trust [2001] 3 WLR 42 2000 – these include the rights of a leader to enforce a regulated loan agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
More recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that pension scheme regulations in Northern Ireland that required that unmarried co-habiting partners to be nominated in order to be eligible for a survivor’s pension, was interference with the appellant’s right under this provision. The requirement could not be “objectively justified” for the purposes of art 14. There was no similar nomination requirement for married or civil partner survivors (Re an application by Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] UKSC 8).
There is no possession in an item where the link between the applicant’s payment and the ultimate value of the thing is not established, so where an applicant has made contributions to a social security scheme but there is no link between the contributions and the ultimate share claimed by the applicant, this does not come within the scope of Protocol 1 Art.1 (G v Austria (1984) 38 DR 84); the same applies to contributions to pension schemes: (see X v Netherlands (1972) 38 CD 9.)
Expectation of an inheritance could not constitute a possession under Protocol 1 Art.1 : Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330.
A mere expectation that rates of fees would not be reduced by the law does not constitute a property right: Federal Republic of Germany Application No.00008410/78, (1979) 18 DR 170. Here the applicants, who were notaries, challenged regulations which obliged them to reduce fees for certain public bodies such as universities. The European Commission of Human Rights held that the claim for fees would only be considered as possessions when they came into existence on grounds of services rendered and on the basis of existing regulations.
In Matthews v MoD [2002] 3 All ER the Court of Appeal accepted that a right of action in tort was a possession.
As with the other qualified rights, most of the disputes in Article 1 Protocol 1 claims turn on the test of proportionality since the right to enjoyment of property is subject to many provisos and exceptions “in the public interest”. As a result the case law on A1P1 is a rich source of analysis on this question: see for example the Court of Appeal’s informative ruling in Sinclair Collis Ltd, R (o.t.a) v. The Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWCA Civ 437 and Lord Laws LJ’s important dissent, discussed here.
Bourgass and others v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 376 Read decision
The ability to interact with other prisoners is a major part of prison life, and not one many prisoners would give up willingly. But there are circumstances where prisoners have to be segregated from the rest of the prison population, such as where they are posing a violent threat to another prisoner or planning an escape. The Court of Appeal has recently looked into the question of how decisions to segregate are made, including the initial decision, the review of the decision and ultimately judicial review, in a human rights context.
George McGeogh for Judicial Review of the Compatibility with the Petitioner’s EU law rights of the Decision of the Electoral Registration Officer , Outer House, Court of Session [2011] CSOH 65, 08 April 2011 (Lord Tyre) – Read opinion
This was an attempt by a prisoner to argue that his disenfranchisement under Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act breached his human rights, not under the ECHR, but his rights under EU law. The case illustrates the widespread (and probably correct) perception that if you can bring your claim under European law by persuading the court that one or other of its principles and freedoms are involved, you have a better chance of getting home on the rights argument than if you are restricted to the weaker authority of the Council of Europe and its Convention. Continue reading →
The European Court of Human Rights has refused permission to appeal in a challenge to the ban on gay marriage in Austria. The effect of the decision is to make the court’s rejection of the same-sex couple’s claim final.
The decision means that the European Court of Human Rights will not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry, for now at least. This has a potential bearing on the UK, where a number of same-sex and heterosexual couples are currently bringing claims against UK laws which permit civil partnerships for same-sex couples but prevents them from marrying.
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.
Gough v UK (Application no. 49327/11), 28 October 2014 – 
Patmalniece (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 11 – 
Ross v Lord Advocate [2016] CSIH 12, 19th February 2016 – 
Re J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204 – 
Recent comments