Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/50/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
28 July 2011 by Adam Wagner
Condliff, R (on the application of) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 910 – Read judgment
A morbidly obese man has lost his appeal against his local Primary Care Trust’s (PCT’s) refusal to fund his anti-obesity surgery. The Court of Appeal ruled that the PCT had no obligation under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to consider social or non-clinical factors when deciding whether to grant a request for exceptional funding.
In his discussion of the case, Lord Justice Toulson began by saying that “Human rights law is sometimes in danger of becoming over complicated“. Underlying this point is the fact that it is already complicated enough. This is a good example: how could a court find that this case, which clearly involves the dignity and family life of a man whose life is difficult and miserable, not engage the protection of human rights law? I will try to explain.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 May 2014 by Celia Rooney
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular lightening rod 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.
In recent human rights news, the ECJ finds against Internet giant Google, strengthening the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’. In other news, the UK awaits to see if it will be prosecuted before the ICC in relation to allegations of war crimes in Iraq, while the Court of Appeal confronts the issue of legal aid cuts in serious fraud cases as the Operation Cotton scandal continues.
In the News
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
11 November 2010 by Adam Wagner
The Royal College of Nursing & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2010] EWHC 2761 (Admin) (10 November 2010) – Read judgment
The High Court has ruled that a scheme which prohibits people convicted or cautioned for certain crimes from working with children or vulnerable adults breaches human rights law.
The system of automatically banning those convicted for or who admit certain crimes from working with children and vulnerable adults without allowing them to make representations breached their rights to a fair trial.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 June 2010 by Elspeth Wrigley
TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2010] EWHC 1349 (Admin) (11 June 2010) – Read judgment
A man accused of harassing women he did not know has failed in his human rights challenge to his detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. Having successfully secured a writ of habeas corpus to release him from a mental health institution, he has lost his initial bid for the High Court to declare that his detention ran contrary to his human rights. He is now appealing the decision.
This case has raised important questions about the extent of the ancient right of habeas corpus (relief from unlawful detention) and its interaction with the far more recent Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (“ECHR”), as well as the ability of any wronged claimant to recover damages in circumstances where they are wrongly detained.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
28 February 2023 by anuragdeb
Introduction
Two men are in a relationship and want to have a child. They approach a female friend who is happy to be their surrogate. She has previously had a voluntary sterilisation procedure, so she would need in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) using a donor egg (a procedure known as gestational surrogacy), to help her friends realise their wishes. This is where they all encounter a problem: voluntary sterilisation makes the woman ineligible for publicly funded IVF.
In JR176(2)’s application for judicial review [2022] NIKB 21, the two men challenged the eligibility criteria for publicly funded IVF on a number of grounds, among which this post will focus on two: a breach of the right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR and Article 8 taken with the right not to be discriminated against contrary to Article 14 ECHR.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
23 September 2010 by Rosalind English
Updated x 2 | Kay and Others v United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 21st September) – Read judgment
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK violated the human rights of short-term tenants of council property whose leases had been terminated. The decision will not, however, prove much help to evicted tenants in similar situations in the future, although it should encourage courts to take their personal circumstances into account when deciding if they should be evicted.
The applicants were occupiers of housing units owned by Lambeth borough council under leases which had been provided by a charitable housing trust. Lambeth brought possession proceedings after the leases were terminated in 1999. The applicants complained that these proceedings breached their right to respect for private and home life under Article 8 (the right to a family life). They were unsuccessful before the domestic courts but the Strasbourg Court found a violation of Article 8, insofar as the applicants had been prevented from raising it as a defence.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 May 2011 by Melina Padron
Last week’s human rights news received an enormous amount of coverage, which means that we were unable to fit all of them within this humble post. However, we do recommend that you click here to access the full list of some of our favourite articles pertaining to last week’s hotly debated topics.
by Melinda Padron
The week started off with a Twitter account supposedly “outing” a number of individuals who had taken injunctions with anonymity clauses or “superinjunctions”. As we all know, this topic has been the subject of attacks by the press and politicians over the past few weeks. Judith Townend wrote an insightful post on the incident for the Inforrm’s Blog, which contained opinions from media lawyers and experts, and also links to many of the articles featured in newspapers and law blogs alike.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
22 July 2024 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
The King’s Speech on Wednesday opened the first session of the new parliament, announcing 40 bills – the highest number announced in a King’s Speech since 2005. The bills announced included several relating to human rights, such as a Victims Bill, Mental Health Bill, and two draft bills – one on Race and Disability, predominantly concerning the right to equal pay, and another on Conversion Practices, seeking to ban conversion therapy. Several bills make provisions to combat violence against women and girls. A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission responded to the announcements, welcoming the ‘positive developments for equality and human rights’, emphasising that the watchdog ‘stands ready to provide government and Parliament with advice as the detail of all the proposed legislation is developed’. In contrast, the organisation Human Rights Watch have suggested that the new Government’s vision ‘falls short’ in key areas, calling for ‘bolder action’ to secure better living standards for British citizens.
Last Tuesday, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act came into force, making Scotland the first UK country to incorporate the children’s rights charter into national law. While the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that certain provisions of the original bill passed by the Scottish Parliament exceeded its legislative competence, subsequent amendments to the bill enabled a revised version to pass last December. Now that the Act is in force, all Scottish public authorities are under a direct legal duty to consider and promote children’s rights in policy decisions. The Act also improves children’s ability to enforce their rights in the courts. An announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice reads: “The Act is a landmark piece of legislation that incorporates the UNCRC into Scots law, empowers our children and young people to claim their rights and will help to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up”.
Following the new Government’s statement that the Rwanda Plan is ‘dead and buried’, £84 million of funding has been announced to ‘address the reasons for illegal migration’. The funding package will support projects in Africa and the Middle East in an attempt to ‘tackle illegal migration at source’. The announcement acknowledges the roots of illegal migration in conflict, climate change, and more, emphasising that the funding will be utilised to build resilience against such events. Initiatives are targeted towards skill-building, education, and employment. The funding will also support refugees hosted in countries within their home region with the aim of allowing their return home when conditions improve, as well as supporting reintegration of refugees in their home nations. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “Our package of up to £84 million will improve education, boost employment and build resilience to conflict and climate change across the Middle East and North Africa – to help bring down migration figures whilst improving lives for the world’s most vulnerable people.”
In Other News
As the Paris Olympics approach, the conversation regarding France’s hijab ban has resurfaced. Though originally announced in September 2023, the ban, prohibiting France’s athletes from sporting any form of religious headwear, has received fresh criticism in the form of a report published last week by Amnesty International. While Amélie Oudéa-Castéra – France’s Minister for Sport – stated that the ban has been imposed in line with the country’s principle of secularism, Amnesty have claimed the ban makes a ‘mockery’ of claims by the International Olympic Committee that Paris 2024 is the ‘first gender-equal Olympics’. The human rights organisation noted that the official Olympic Charter states that “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement”, a sentiment they claim is in manifest contradiction with the hijab ban. “Amnesty International believes that when the world will be watching its athletes compete for medals and exercising their right to practice sport without discrimination, it should also cast a critical eye on the Olympics host country, which does not apply Olympic values to everyone”.
In the Courts
On Friday, the International Court of Justice published its Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court made several seminal conclusions, finding that:
- Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories is unlawful;
- That Israel is under an obligation to therefore end its unlawful presence as soon as is possible;
- That Israel is obliged cease all settlement activities and evacuate all settlers;
- That Israel is obliged to make reparations for any damage eventuating from its unlawful presence;
- And that all other States, alongside international organisations, are obliged not to assist the ongoing presence of Israel in the Occupied Territories, nor recognise it as legal.
The Court recalled its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which found that Israeli settlements were established and maintained in breach of Israel’s international legal obligations. The Court expressed grave concerns that in the years since, the Israeli settlement policy has continued to expand. The Court noted that a variety of Israeli legislation and administrative measures relating to its occupation treated Palestinians differently without justification or legitimate aim. This finding led the Court to conclude that the Israeli regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories constituted ‘systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin’ in violation of a variety of international conventions. Vital to the Court’s determination was the finding of the ‘prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination’, a right the Court viewed as ‘fundamental’. However, Judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu issued a joint opinion stating that they could see ‘no legal connection whatsoever’ between the Palestinian right to self-determination over the territories and the extension of the illegality of Israel’s occupation. Judge Sebutinde’s dissenting opinion was the subject of discussion by legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, who has expressed the view that litigation ‘will not bring peace to the Middle East’.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that the failure of Latvian authorities to bring charges for a homophobic hate crime constituted a breach of ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Given that the assailant had admitted to police the use of homophobic slurs and personal homophobic beliefs that ‘clearly’ motivated the attack, the Court found that the proceedings brought against him, culminating only in a ‘manifestly lenient fine’, breached Mr Hanov’s human rights. The Court expressed the view that the actions of the Latvian authorities ‘fostered a sense of impunity for hate-motivated offences. […] Failure to address such incidents can normalise hostility towards LGBTI individuals, perpetuate a culture of intolerance and discrimination and encourage further acts of a similar nature’.
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 September 2011 by Daniel Sokol
W (by her litigation friend, B) v M (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam). Read judgment.
In the first case of its kind, the Court of Protection ruled that withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a minimally conscious state was not, in the circumstances, in that person’s best interests. The Court also made general observations for future cases.
See our earlier posts here and here for a summary of the facts of this case.
The judgment
Since M had left no legally valid advance decision expressing her wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the court had to determine whether it would be in M’s best interests to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
27 September 2018 by Guest Contributor
Raychaudhuri v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2027
On 14th September 2018 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a doctor against a finding that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of dishonesty.
This case concerned professional disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, Dr Hemmay Raychaudhuri. A complaint had been made in relation to how the appellant had filled in a form to record the medical examination of a child patient. This complaint was referred to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT). Assessing the scope for misunderstanding between the appellant and other medical staff, the MPT upheld the charge of ‘misleading actions’ rather than ‘dishonest actions’. As such there was no impairment of his ability to practice as a doctor.
The General Medical Council (GMC), however, alleged dishonesty on the part of the appellant. The GMC appealed to the High Court in reliance on section 40A Medical Act 1983. This stipulates the conditions under which the General Council may challenge a decision of an MPT if it believes a disciplinary decision made under section 35D does not sufficiently protect the public.
In the High Court, Sweeney J followed the decision of the Divisional Court in General Medical Council v Jagjivan [2017] EWHC, which held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the GMC against a ruling by an MPT. He substituted the MPT’s finding to declare that the appellant had in fact behaved dishonestly and that therefore his fitness to practice was impaired.
There were three grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal.
- The High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 40 to hear an appeal by the GMC against a finding by an MPT that a doctor’s fitness to practice is not impaired. This was an invitation to overrule Jagjivan;
- The High Court was wrong to substitute a finding that he had behaved dishonestly, where the MPT had acquitted him of dishonesty;
- Even if the conduct was dishonest, the High Court was wrong to find his fitness to practice was impaired and was wrong to remit the case to the MPT.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 May 2014 by Rosalind English
Paulet v United Kingdom Paulet (application no. 6219/08) – read judgment
The Strasbourg Court has declared, by five votes to one, that the UK authorities had acted unlawfully by seizing the wages of an Ivorian worker who used a false passport to gain employment. The majority ruled that the UK courts should have balanced individual property rights against interests of the general public.
This case on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime raises many difficult legal questions such as the nature of the link between the crime and the proceeds and the distribution of the burden of proof in establishing this link. Mr Paulet complained that the confiscation order against him had been disproportionate as it amounted to the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four years of genuine work, without any distinction being made between his case and those involving more serious criminal offences such as drug trafficking or organised crime. The Court found that the UK courts’ scope of review of Mr Paulet’s case had been too narrow. The majority objected to the fact that the domestic courts had simply found that the confiscation order against Mr Paulet had been in the public interest, without balancing that conclusion against his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as required under the European Convention.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 September 2010 by Rosalind English
J M v. The United Kingdom – 37060/06 [2010] ECHR 1361 – Read judgment
The European Court of Rights has declared that rules on child maintenance prior to introduction of the Civil Partnership Act discriminated against those in same-sex relationships.
The events happened nearly a decade ago and the law in relation to same-sex couples has greatly altered since, so it will be of limited relevance to those paying child benefit now. Of more interest is the reasoning of the majority in deciding the case under the right to peaceful enjoyment of property rather than the right to family life.
The case summary is based on the Court’s press release, and is followed by my comment.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 March 2016 by Fraser Simpson
Hammerton v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6287/10 – read judgment.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person). However, the decision not to provide compensation to the individual following a failure to provide him with a lawyer during domestic proceedings resulted in a violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial).
by Fraser Simpson
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 July 2012 by Guest Contributor
Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the second consultation of the Bill of Rights Commission. This consultation invites views on a number of key issues that form part of the Commission’s mandate. In the Daily Mail’s correspondent’s view, the Commission has committed an appalling transgression by asking potential respondents whether the UK Bill of Rights should include additional rights, referring amongst other things to socio-economic rights. This is echoed by the Sun which argues that the Commission has ‘suggested’ (which it clearly has not) that ‘all Brits be given handouts as a birth right’, and the Daily Express which suggests “Spongers can Sue to Claim Benefits”.
Socio-economic rights are rights that relate to human survival and development. Like the majority of European and other countries, the UK has volunteered to be bound by a range of such rights as a result of ratifying a number of international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1992) and the European Social Charter (ratified by the UK in 1962). While these treaties haven’t been made part of our domestic law in the way the European Convention on Human Rights has been as a result of the Human Rights Act, they impose a range of human rights obligations on the UK. The government reports back periodically to the UN expert committees that monitor the implementation of these treaties.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 July 2013 by Rosalind English
Malik v Fassenfelt and others [2013] EWCA Civ 798 – read judgment
A common law rule that the court had no jurisdiction to extend time to a trespasser could no longer stand against the Article 8 requirement that a trespasser be given some time before being required to vacate:
The idea that an Englishman’s home is his castle is firmly embedded in English folklore and it finds its counterpart in the common law of the realm which provides a remedy to enable the owner of the castle to secure the eviction of trespassers from it. But what if the invaders occupy for long enough to establish their home within the keep? Whose castle is it now? Whose home must the law now protect?
This was the question before the Court of Appeal in a challenge to a possession order requiring the removal of squatters from private land.
Although there is now some doubt as to whether the leading authority on landowners’ rights against squatters is still good law, Article 8 still does not entitle a trespasser to stay on the land for ever. At its highest it does no more than give the trespasser an entitlement to more time to arrange his affairs and move out.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments