Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/52/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
18 November 2013 by David Hart KC
Gemeinde Altrip et al v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, CJEU, 7 November 2013 – read judgment
When you challenge a decision in the courts on the basis that it was unlawful, you must show that the wrong is material. The other side may say that the wrong led to no difference in the decision; it would have inevitably have been the same even if the defendant had acted lawfully. The onus is on you the claimant, but it is not at the moment a high one. Only a possibility of a different outcome is enough to get you home and the decision quashed.
This materiality issue was one of the points in this challenge by local landowners to a flood retention scheme affecting some 320 ha of their land in the former Rhine flood plain. The scheme had undergone an environmental impact assessment which the locals said was defective. But did the locals have to show that correcting the defects might have made a difference to the ultimate decision? That was one of the questions which the German federal administrative court referred to the EU Court.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 December 2023 by Lance Baynham
In For Women Scotland Limited v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37 (“For Women Scotland 2”), the Inner House of the Court of Session has confirmed (for Scotland, at least) the relationship between the Gender Recognition Act 2004(“GRA”) and Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”). In summary, it was held that the meaning of sex in s.11 EqA incorporated the GRA framework. The upshot is that, for transgender people, sex under the EqA is determined by possession of a GRC. Thus, for EqA purposes, the sex of a transgender person without a GRC is their natal sex. On the other hand, the sex of a transgender person with a GRC is their “acquired” (to use the language of the GRA) gender.
This case note briefly sets out some of the relevant law, explores the background to the case and the judgment, and then offers some brief comments by way of conclusion. References in square brackets are to paragraphs of the judgment.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
16 October 2012 by Adam Wagner
A short post to say that I was interviewed by Joshua Rozenberg for today’s Law in Action programme on BBC Radio 4. I was debating, with Nadine Dorries MP, a recent series of criminal prosecution (see my post from last week) brought against social media users. The debate centred on the implications for freedom of speech as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The full programme can be listened to here (UK only, I think) – the social media section is from around 20 minutes in. You may have guessed from my post as well as this interview that I think the current state of the law under the Communications Act 2003 is causing very significant problems for freedom of expression.
Relatedly, I am chairing an interesting panel debate tomorrow (Wednesday) evening on this very topic. I understand the event is full but you can submit questions ahead of the event to or follow for live tweets @HumanRightsLawA ; #lawandtwittering
Enjoy the show, and be careful what you tweet.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 December 2011 by Melina Padron
Welcome back to the human rights roundup. Our full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.
by Melinda Padron
In the news
The Government’s Green Paper on secret evidence
In my previous roundup, I mentioned that the government had published a Green Paper which proposed the extension of “closed material procedures”. Last week, the blogger Obiter J wrote a three-part detailed piece about the Green Paper and its proposals, which you can read here and here. In our blog, Adam Wagner pondered whether more trials should be held in secret, whilst Angus McCullough QC expanded on Adam’s piece, offering his comment from the perspective of an experienced Special Advocate.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 August 2011 by David Hart KC
Jivraj v. Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40 Read judgment
We all know that these days you cannot just say you want to employ a Muslim or a Catholic without a good reason. But what about the potentially different question as to whether you can choose your own private judge, namely an arbitrator, by reference to his or her religion?
This problem faced the Supreme Court recently. Its answer involved a detailed analysis of what was involved in the whole process of arbitration, and the similarities and difference between it and a more typical relationship between client and professionals. The Court also touches on the exception to the rule against discrimination, based upon the job having a genuine occupational requirement for a person of a given religion.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 June 2018 by Guest Contributor
This week the US Supreme Court handed down judgment in Masterpiece Cakeshop et al v Colorado Civil Rights Commission et al. This is a decision which is of interest in the UK for its factual similarity with the case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company, otherwise colloquially known as the “gay cake” case which is currently being considered by the UK Supreme Court (and which has been discussed previously on this blog).
In both cases Christian bakery owners refused to create certain cakes for customers on the basis that it would contravene their religious objection to gay marriage. The judgments in Masterpiece may foreshadow some of the arguments to be discussed in the upcoming UK decision.
In this case, the US Supreme Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to approach the matter in accordance with its obligation of religious neutrality. The baker’s appeal was therefore upheld — but only on technical grounds.
Background
The owner of Masterpiece, Jack Phillips, refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony between two of his potential customers, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins. He did, however, say that he would be prepared to make birthday cakes or other products. His stated reason for refusing to make a wedding cake was that to do so would have been a personal endorsement and participation in a ceremony and relationship which contravened his deep and sincerely held religious beliefs.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 August 2021 by Robert Kellar QC
In Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB), the High Court was asked to answer the following question. Was the owner of a dental practice liable for the dental negligence of a self-employed dentist engaged to work in the practice? The claim arose from NHS care provided by three different associate dentists. The preliminary issue was whether the practice owner was liable by reason of: a) a non-delegable duty of care; or b) vicarious liability. The Court answered: “yes” and “yes”.
Non-Delegable Duty of Care
The Judge analysed the issue of non-delegable duty by reference to the principles affirmed by Lord Sumption in Woodland v. Swimming Teachers Association and others [2013] UKSC 66.
(1) The claimant is a patient or a child, or for some other reason is especially vulnerable or dependent on the protection of the defendant against the risk of injury. Other examples are likely to be prisoners and residents in care homes.
(2) There is an antecedent relationship between the claimant and the defendant, independent of the negligent act or omission itself, (i) which places the claimant in the actual custody, charge or care of the defendant, and (ii) from which it is possible to impute to the defendant the assumption of a positive duty to protect the claimant from harm, and not just a duty to refrain from conduct which will foreseeably damage the claimant. It is a characteristic of such relationships that they involve an element of control over the claimant, which varies in intensity from one situation to another, but is clearly very substantial in the case of schoolchildren.
(3) The claimant has no control over how the defendant chooses to preform those obligations i.e. whether personally or through employees or through third parties.
(4) The defendant has delegated to a third party some function which is an integral part of the positive duty which he has assumed towards the claimant; and the third party is exercising, for the purpose of the function thus delegated to him, the defendant’s custody or care of the claimant and the element of control that goes with it.
(5) The third party has been negligent not in some collateral respect but in the performance of the very function assumed by the defendant and delegated by the defendant to him.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
12 February 2024 by Kate Litman
In UK News
The Home Office has announced its intention to create new offences relating to actions taken by attendees at protests. The plans include making it an offence to possess flares or pyrotechnics at a protest, to wear a face covering at a protest, and to climb on war memorials. The changes will be added as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The Home Office has emphasised that the new rules are not a blanket ban on face coverings, and only apply where the protester’s intention is to conceal their identity. Police officers already have the power to order a person to remove any item which the officer reasonably believe is being worn wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. The changes will mean that a protestor who flouts such an order could be subject to a £1,000 fine or a one-month custodial sentence. The Home Office also added their intention to amend the law to prevent protestors from “using the excuse of protest to avoid prosecution” for offences such as criminal damage.
In international news
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the evacuation of civilians from the city of Rafah in southern Gaza ahead of an anticipated offensive operation. Rafah had a pre-war population of approximately 280,000 people and is now believed to be sheltering an additional 1.4 million Palestinians, making it home to over half the population of Gaza. The plans have attracted widespread international criticism. US President Joe Biden said that Israel should not conduct a military operation in Rafah without a “credible and executable” plan to protect civilians. Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin went further, stating that a military operation would “entail grave violations of international humanitarian law” and that the evacuation order “risks mass forced displacement”. Netanyahu has said that the offensive is necessary to achieve Israel’s strategic goal of eliminating Hamas and that the IDF will pursue a “combined plan for evacuating the population and destroying the [Hamas] battalions”.
In the Courts
On 5th February the Employment Tribunal handed down judgment in David Miller v University of Bristol. The Claimant had been dismissed from his position at the University following comments he made which included his view that Zionism is a “racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing” which “has no place in any society”. The Tribunal held that the Claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs constitute a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal concluded that the University’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was a disproportionate interference with his Article 9 and 10 rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and that his dismissal was unfair and wrongful. The Tribunal emphasised that the Claimant’s views were worthy of respect in a democratic society because he was not fundamentally opposed to the idea of Jewish self-determination, but rather to “the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population”, and because he did not support violence as a means of opposing Zionism [237]. The Tribunal reduced the Claimant’s compensatory award for unfair dismissal by 50% because his behaviour in commenting on individuals students and student societies was deemed culpable and blameworthy and had contributed to his dismissal [472].
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 November 2011 by Adam Wagner
JUSTICE, a law reform and human rights organisation, has today published a significant and wide-ranging critique of state surveillance powers contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
The report – Freedom from Suspicion – Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age – is by Eric Metcalfe, former director of JUSTICE and recently returned to practise as a barrister. It reveals some pretty stunning statistics: for example, in total, there have been close to three million decisions taken by public bodies under RIPA in the last decade.
The report is highly critical of the legislation, which it argues is “neither forward-looking nor human rights compliant“. Its “poor drafting has allowed councils to snoop, phone hacking to flourish, privileged conversations to be illegally recorded, and CCTV to spread.” Metcalfe recommends, unsurprisingly, “root-and-branch” reform.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
29 January 2023 by Hal McNulty
In the news
Nadhim Zahawi has been sacked from the Cabinet after making what he calls a “careless and not deliberate” mistake with his taxes. He reportedly paid a 30% penalty fee on top of the money owed to HMRC in connection with his use of an offshore company to hold shares in the polling company YouGov. The Prime Minister had been resisting calls to fire his Minister Without Portfolio, who also serves as Chairman of the Conservative Party, until the independent advisor tasked to investigate the issue made clear that there had been a “serious breach of the ministerial code.” Zahawi’s lawyers had been attempting to obstruct journalists exposing that he was being investigated over his tax affairs with threats of legal action.
Another investigation is being launched by the BBC into the hiring of its current chairman, Richard Sharp. The Tory donor allegedly helped Boris Johnson secure a large loan soon before being recommended by the then prime minister for the job. Sharp has denied he was involved in making the loan, claiming that he had “simply connected” people. The Labour Party has called for a parliamentary investigation into the allegations.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
24 December 2014 by Martin Downs
Photo credit: guardian.co.uk
Using the inherent jurisdiction against Child Sexual Exploitation: Birmingham City Council v Riaz & Ors, 15 December 2014, read judgment
As prefigured on this Blog here, Keehan J has handed down a public Judgment explaining how he used the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make novel and far-reaching Orders against ten men.
The inherent jurisdiction is the power vested in the Higher Courts to maintain their authority and prevent their processes being obstructed and abused. Traditionally this has also included the exercise on behalf of the sovereign as parens patriae of particular powers concerning children – most commonly wardship.
Birmingham City Council were addressing a real and significant issue. This had been highlighted in Rotherham. The gold standard response is to secure criminal convictions as occurred in Bristol. However, in some instances, the evidence will not secure jury convictions and hence the search is on for alternatives.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
25 January 2021 by Rosalind English
Following my post on the Weimar District Court judgment, here is news from Belgium. This summary of the ruling is from the journal LeVif.
The police tribunal in Brussels issued a judgment on 12 January acquitting a man summoned for non-wearing of a mask, according to his lawyer, Hélène Alexandris. The judge concluded that the enforced wearing of the mask in public space was unconstitutional. Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden said the public prosecutor has appealed against the decision.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
30 November 2017 by Rosalind English
Updated: Brexit, Article 13, and “animal sentience” in law (28 November 2017) – Animal Law’s Expert Briefing Note
In November 2017 a vote took place in the House of Commons on a proposed amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. The Commons Library briefing paper was published on 7 December: Animal Sentience and Brexit. The amendment sought to incorporate into UK law a provision in the European treaty that stated the EU and its member States “shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” when formulating and implementing the EU’s policies. The vote was defeated by 313 to 295 votes.
The story of this debate has prompted a great deal of comment in newspapers and on social media, mostly critical of the UK Government’s position. The coverage reflects much of the prejudice and confusion attaching to animals reared for our use, be it for medical therapy, food or companionship. That is to be expected. But what is less excusable is that most of the coverage was based on misunderstandings of both the Treaty Article and other EU provisions relating to animals.
So may I put in a plea for anyone who is interested to read the clear and balanced account of this issue set out by the UK Centre for Animal Law in their Briefing Note, which I will attempt to summarise here. I do urge reading the original document, which is an excellent summary of the legal and factual issues involved.
A quick reminder
When the Brexit vote came in, I wrote a post under the heading of One Trade Freedom We can Do Without. Maybe not tactful timing then, but this question is now ripe for consideration, with DEFRA secretary Michael Gove promising better protections for animals raised for food, and even for companion animals such as dogs and horses, once they are no longer trapped in the imperative of free movement of goods under the EU Treaty provisions.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 June 2020 by Thomas Hayes
Protesters in Los Angeles on Saturday. Credit: The Guardian.
The usual purpose of these round ups is to try and avoid repeating the headline news of the previous week whilst instead summarising the key legal developments. There are some weeks, however, in which events tend to put the judgments of the Court of Appeal into the shade.
The death of George Floyd on May 25th not only placed concerns about policing attitudes and deaths in custody onto the front pages, but also shone a light on to wider systemic racism. Protests in response were ongoing as of Sunday, both in the USA and around the world. The use of force by police in the aftermath of demonstrations has been widely reported upon, particularly in the United States, where the extent of force deployed against the British media led to a formal raising of the matter by the British embassy in Washington.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 October 2011 by Shaheen Rahman
Updated | Bailey & Others v London Borough of Brent Council [2011] EWHC 2572 (Admin) – Read judgment
Every Wednesday my daughter looks forward to the arrival of the mobile library at her nursery. Two by two the children go into the little world of books and emerge holding a new story they have chosen for themselves.
Not for long. Despite the well-documented advantages of exposing children to the joys of reading at an early age – before the attractions of TV, video games and looting shops take hold – library services across the land are being targeted for cuts.
The duty to provide library services for children was one of the key arguments advanced by campaigners in Brent challenging the council’s decision to close 6 of its 12 libraries. Reliance was placed upon section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. This requires local authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Gemeinde Altrip et al v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, CJEU, 7 November 2013 – read judgment
Recent comments