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]
In Westminster: Parliament rises for summer recess, Immigration and Asylum Bill latest, and FAC inquiry into UK-Russian long-term relationship launched
The House of Commons adjourned on Thursday for the summer recess and will not sit again until Tuesday 1st September. It rose with the Immigration and Asylum Bill, debated at second reading the previous Monday, fresh in its wake, and with the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ (‘JCHR’) legislative scrutiny of the Bill under way.
The JCHR has invited written submissions on the Bill’s compatibility with domestic and international human rights obligations until 1st September, so the recess will be no quiet interlude for those preparing evidence.
On Wednesday, the Chair of the JCHR, Lord Alton of Liverpool, welcomed the Bill’s strengthened safeguards against forced labour in UK supply chains. The Committee’s July 2025 report on the same had warned that the UK risked becoming a ‘dumping ground’ for goods made using forced labour, and called for mandatory human rights due diligence and improved access to justice for victims in the UK courts. That report is to be debated in the House of Lords on Friday 4th September. Lord Alton’s welcome of these safeguards is notable for its selectivity: the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill’s more contested provisions, not least the proposed restriction of Article 8 claims in immigration appeals, continues.
—
Elsewhere in Westminster, the Foreign Affairs Committee (‘FAC’) launched an inquiry into Russia, which will consider the UK’s bilateral relationship and ask whether the UK’s long-term strategic approach to a post-conflict Russia is clearly defined.
A challenging week for the International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) has had a week of striking contrasts. As the week opened, the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, announced a campaign to ‘dismantle’ the Court, contending that it had strayed beyond its mandate in pursuing American personnel. The United Nations responded the same day by defending the Court’s critical role in the global fight against impunity and, on Wednesday, a resolution urging the United States to join the Court was introduced in the House of Representatives.
The diplomatic pressure formed the backdrop to the Court’s Security Council briefing on Darfur (on which, see below).
The ICC’s difficulties are not only external. On Tuesday, the Bar Standards Board confirmed that the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan KC, has been suspended from practice as a barrister pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies. Mr Khan was separately suspended by the ICC’s governing body in June.
In the Courts
R v McCafferty and others: the Supreme Court narrows statutory public nuisance
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R v McCafferty and others [2026] UKSC 20, unanimously allowing the appeals of six Animal Rising (then Animal Rebellion) protestors, with the result that they stand acquitted. Lord Leggatt gave the main judgment, with which Lord Reed, Lady Simler and Lord Doherty agreed; Lord Sales concurred in the result.
On the morning of 8th September 2022, the six defendants obstructed the entrance to a dairy works owned by Müller UK, chaining themselves to temporary fencing and gluing themselves to the surface of Pointon Way — a private road providing the only access to the site — so that for some four hours no vehicle could enter or leave. They were charged under the second limb of the statutory offence of public nuisance (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, s.78): an act which obstructs the public, or a section of the public ‘in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large.’
The trial judge found no case to answer, on the basis that the defendants had obstructed a private road leading to private premises. The Court of Appeal reversed that ruling, and certified a question of general public importance: whether those who go to private business premises — as employees, customers or suppliers — are a section of the public exercising such a right when they approach, enter or leave.
The Supreme Court’s answer was no. A ‘right’ within s.78(1)(b)(ii) means a genuine public right — the paradigm being the right of passage along the highway — and is to be distinguished from a mere licence or permission granted by a landowner, which confers no right at all. There was no evidence that the public at large had been granted permission to use Pointon Way, let alone a right to do so. Lord Leggatt invoked the principle that a criminal penalty — particularly one carrying a potential loss of liberty — should not be imposed on a doubtful construction of a statute.
The Crown’s fallback argument, that the protestors had at least obstructed the right of those inside to leave the premises, fared no better: a trespasser does not cease to be a trespasser upon making for the exit. Nor could the prosecution salvage matters by pointing to offences it had never charged: no application had been made to amend the indictment to allege the first-limb offence or aggravated trespass, and there was accordingly no basis for disturbing the judge’s ruling.
The judgment substantially narrows the reach of the second limb of s.78 as applied to protest at private premises, and channels such conduct towards the offences Parliament actually designed for it. Coming a month after the Court of Appeal upheld the proscription of Palestine Action, it is a reminder that the law of protest continues to develop in both directions at once: the courts will uphold broad executive and legislative measures where lawfully made, but will not stretch penal statutes beyond their terms to catch disruptive protest.
S.T. v. the Czech Republic: a death in police custody and the duty to investigate
On Thursday, the Strasbourg Court gave judgment in S.T. v the Czech Republic, finding several violations of the Convention arising from the death of the applicant’s brother, a Roma man, following a police intervention in 2021, and from the ensuing investigation. The Registry’s summary is stark: the use of the prone position by police was followed by the man’s death, and the authorities failed both to protect his life and to investigate effectively the use of force and its potential discriminatory motives (see the Court’s press release).
The case arises from the death of Stanislav Tomáš in Teplice in June 2021, after an officer knelt on him in the course of his restraint: an incident captured in footage and circulated widely which drew comparisons, at the time, with the death of George Floyd. The domestic authorities had concluded that there was no causal link between the police intervention and the death. Strasbourg’s insistence that allegations of racially discriminatory motives in policing must themselves be effectively investigated continues a line of authority of obvious relevance on this side of the Channel, where the disproportionate use of force against minority communities remains under scrutiny.
Bazhenov and Others v. Russia and Ukraine: property rights in occupied Crimea
Between 2015 and 2017, the Russian authorities cancelled the applicants’ titles to plots of land in Sevastopol, Crimea, which had originally been transferred into private ownership by the Ukrainian authorities. The plots were reclaimed as public property on the footing that they were forest lands which ought never to have been privatised.
The Court held that there was no legal basis for the Russian authorities to deprive the applicants of their ownership. The applications were directed against both Russia and Ukraine, though the findings summarised by the Registry concern the acts of the Russian authorities.
The judgment adds to the growing body of Strasbourg case law on the consequences of the occupation of Crimea for private rights, following the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), and is a further instance of the Court adjudicating upon the acts of an occupying administration against Convention standards notwithstanding Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe.
In The Hague: The ICC’s first Libya case goes to trial, Darfur update, and Rome Statute anniversary
On Wednesday, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC rejected the defence challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction in The Prosecutor v. Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, holding unanimously that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the case.
The majority reasoned that the alleged conduct remains covered by the Security Council’s referral of the situation in Libya under Resolution 1970 (2011), notwithstanding Libya’s more recent acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction by declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute.
The following day, the Chamber unanimously confirmed all charges against Mr El Hishri and committed him to trial. The Chamber found substantial grounds to believe that Mr El Hishri — alleged to have been one of the most senior officials at Mitiga Prison in Tripoli — is responsible for seventeen counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against thousands of detainees between May 2014 and June 2020, comprising torture, cruel treatment, imprisonment, outrages upon personal dignity and other inhuman acts; rape, attempted rape and other forms of sexual violence; murder and attempted murder; enslavement; and persecution.
Mr El Hishri was arrested in Germany on 16 July 2025 and surrendered to the Court in December 2025, with the confirmation hearing held in May of this year.
This is the first case in the ICC’s Libya situation to be sent to trial in fifteen years of investigation; Human Rights Watch described the decision as a ‘milestone for justice’ in Libya.
—
Meanwhile, regarding the situation in Darfur, the Office of the Prosecutor announced on Tuesday that it seeks to withdraw the charges against Abdallah Banda — a request originally filed confidentially in October 2023 and made public only this week — drawing the curtain on one of the Court’s longest-dormant cases. The charges against Mr Banda, arising from an attack on African Union peacekeepers in 2007, were confirmed in 2011, and he has been at large under a warrant of arrest since 2014.
On Wednesday, the Deputy Prosecutor, Nazha Shameem Khan, briefed the UN Security Council on the situation in Darfur pursuant to Resolution 1593 (2005), against the backdrop of continuing atrocities in the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces — and of the week’s diplomatic assault on the Court itself.
—
The week closed with the President of the ICC, Judge Tomoko Akane, marking the Day of International Criminal Justice on Friday: the anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, an occasion which this year found the Court as productive as it is embattled.
Described by the government as “a framework of new, enhanced powers and offences to improve UK border security and to strengthen the asylum and immigration system”, the Bill contemplates a raft of reforms which have been summarised in a previous post on this blog.
Launching the JCHR’s inquiry into the Bill, Lord David Alton said:
We need to make sure that, as the Government sets out to deal with long-term issues such as the asylum backlog, costly asylum accommodation and low public confidence in the asylum and immigration processes, it does not come at the cost of the human rights of those engaging with the system.
The JCHR invites written submissions until 1st September 2026 on a number of issues relating to the Bill’s compatibility with domestic and international human rights obligations.
UNHRC concludes 62nd regular session
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) concluded its 62nd regular session on 8th July, having adopted 28 resolutions on a range of country-specific and thematic issues.
The UNHRC adopted resolutions relating to the current human rights situations in Sudan, Myanmar and Eritrea and on a variety of thematic issues, including:
freedom of expression;
the rights of women and girls in humanitarian situations;
forced marriage;
protection of healthcare in armed conflict;
judicial independence; and
extreme poverty.
Calls for ICO to be investigated for eVisa oversight failures
The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee has been asked to open an investigation into the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for alleged failures in upholding data protection law in relation to the Home Office’s eVisa scheme.
In a letter to the Committee’s chair, a group of 20 immigration, data protection and human rights organisations assert that the eVisa scheme has been affected – since its rollout – by systemic data protection and accessibility issues.
The signatories note that these issues have had a “high and unjustifiable” price, preventing individuals from proving their immigration status, applying for jobs, enrolling in education, and claiming benefits.
Against this background, the signatories criticise the ICO’s failure to take any action as part of its oversight responsibilities, despite being approached in November 2025. They ask the Select Committee to consider whether institutional changes are needed at the ICO, as well as investigating the specific eVisa issues.
Concerns over facial recognition technology in UK shops
Civil liberties groups have described a “dangerous escalation” in the use of facial recognition technology in UK shops – such as Sainsbury’s, B&M and Spar – to monitor shoplifting.
The technology, known as Facewatch, is expected to alert police in real time to the presence of known offenders based on live facial recognition matching.
Critics say this raises proportionality issues given the risks of misidentification, as well as threatening infringements of data and privacy rights as people’s faces will be scanned and their features stored without meaningful consent.
In defence of the technology, Facewatch’s CEO has said:
This is about the people who commit dozens and, in some cases, hundreds of offences, not the millions of people who simply want to do their shopping. If technology can help protect retail workers, prevent further crime and support policing, we believe it has a responsible role to play.
The UK equality watchdog reports to the UN on race
On Thursday, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published the report it had submitted in May to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), under the Committee’s follow-up procedure.
After its last full review of the United Kingdom in 2024, the Committee had asked for evidence of progress in three areas: the right to peaceful assembly, the Windrush generation, and counter-terrorism.
On peaceful assembly, the Commission found that the cumulative expansion of police powers across the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023 and the Crime and Policing Act 2026 had placed mounting restrictions on the right to protest, and recommended that the legislation be amended to recognise a positive duty to facilitate peaceful protest. On counter-terrorism, while noting the recent reforms to Prevent, it pressed for stronger oversight against discriminatory application of the Prevent duty and for the publication of referral data broken down by race, ethnicity, religion and nationality. On Windrush, it called for better funding of the Windrush Compensation Advocacy Support Fund.
The Committee will consider the UK’s follow-up at its session in August. The report came a day after the Commission set out its latest equality objectives under the public sector equality duty.
Human rights and the Iran peace deal
On Friday, a group of independent UN experts welcomed the signing of a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran, intended to draw a line under months of conflict, but warned that any settlement which ignored the human rights situation inside Iran would be “fundamentally incomplete”. The Memorandum, they observed, is concerned almost wholly with military withdrawal, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear question, sanctions relief and a $300 billion reconstruction fund; the Iranian people, the experts said, must be heard in any negotiation that claims to secure their future.
Earlier in the week, two UN special rapporteurs voiced grave concern for a British couple wrongfully detained in Iran, both by then on hunger strike: one for more than thirty days, the other for more than twenty.
In the Courts
R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Palestine Action’s proscription upheld
On Monday, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 721, upholding the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000. A five-judge Court — comprised of the Lady Chief Justice (Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill CJ), the Master of the Rolls (Sir Geoffrey Vos), the Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Edis LJ) and Lewis and Whipple LLJ — allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal, holding that the ban was a lawful and proportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Founded in 2020, Palestine Action’s principal target has been Elbit Systems UK, the British arm of the Israeli arms manufacturer, with the aim of disrupting the Israeli arms trade in Britain. After an escalating campaign of property damage — including at Thales in Glasgow, Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems in Bristol, and, days before the decision, the breaking into RAF Brize Norton and the spray-painting of two military aircraft — the then Home Secretary announced the proscription to Parliament on 23 June 2025. It took effect on 5 July 2025, making it an offence under sections 11 and 12 of the Act to belong to, or invite support for, the organisation, punishable on indictment by up to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
In February, the Divisional Court ([2026] EWHC 292 (Admin)) had quashed the proscription on two grounds: first, that the Home Secretary had acted inconsistently with her own published policy by taking into account that proscription would give the authorities “additional levers to disrupt” the group’s operations; second, applying the four-stage test in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, the group’s qualifying activity had not reached the scale needed to justify the interference with Articles 10 and 11.
The Court of Appeal disagreed on both points. The Proscription Policy was a short, open-textured document whose list of relevant factors was not exhaustive and was never meant to fetter the Home Secretary’s discretion; the disruptive effects of proscription went to its efficacy and were a legitimate part of the proportionality balance. More fundamentally, the Divisional Court had afforded the executive too little latitude and had drawn the factual picture too narrowly, gauging the threat by reference only to the handful of incidents that met the statutory definition of terrorism, in isolation from Palestine Action’s wider conduct: its escalation, recruitment and fundraising, and the covert, cell-based model described in its own “Underground Manual”. The assessment of future risk to national security, the Court held, is pre-eminently a matter for the executive, which is better placed than a court to weigh it and entitled to a wide margin of respect. Once the fuller picture was restored, the Bank Mellat balance fell in favour of the ban: its objectives were sufficiently important and rationally connected to it, no adequate less intrusive measure had been identified, and a fair balance had been struck, notwithstanding the “chilling effect” the Court acknowledged the proscription might have on the significant number of people who wish to voice support for the Palestinian cause by wholly lawful means.
The quashing order is accordingly set aside and the proscription stands: expressions of support for Palestine Action remain capable of constituting a terrorism offence, and the ongoing prosecutions continue. Ms Ammori has said that she will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to Strasbourg.
V.T. and Others v Azerbaijan: a Strasbourg first on the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
On Thursday, in its first judgment arising from the “Four-Day War” of April 2016, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights found Azerbaijan responsible for the torture and unlawful killing of an ethnic Armenian serviceman. The case is V.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan (app. no. 20075/16).
The three applicants — the parents and sister of the deceased, an officer in the army of the then unrecognised “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (referred to by the Court as H.T.) — said that he had been captured alive, mutilated and killed during the fighting, his body recovered near the village of Talish.
The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), each in its substantive limb. He had, it held, been killed when already hors de combat: conduct the Court observed was also contrary to international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. The mutilated condition in which his remains were returned, which prevented his family from giving him a complete burial, had itself caused them suffering contrary to Article 3. It awarded €60,000 jointly to the parents and €30,000 to the sister in non-pecuniary damages, with a further €14,210 in costs.
The judgment is the first arising out of the 2016 fighting, with twenty-one similar applications still pending in Strasbourg. Azerbaijan, which disputes the Court’s jurisdiction, is expected to reject the judgment.
Tuncer Çetinkaya v. Türkiye: a Zaman journalist and the post-coup detentions
On Tuesday, the Second Section returned to the detention of journalists in the aftermath of the July 2016 attempted coup, in Tuncer Çetinkaya v. Türkiye (app. no. 79795/17) (judgment available only in French).
The applicant, the former regional representative of the newspaper Zaman in Antalya, was remanded in custody on 26 July 2016 on suspicion of membership of the organisation the authorities designate “FETÖ/PDY”. The Court found violations of Article 5(1) (no reasonable suspicion to justify the initial detention), Article 5(3) (the length of his pre-trial detention) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).
CNEWS v. France: no Article 10 violation for the news channel
On Thursday, by contrast, the Fifth Section found no violation of Article 10 in a complaint brought by the operator of the French news channel CNEWS (CNEWS v. France, app. no. 41355/23) (judgment available only in French). It should not be confused with a domestic development of the same week: on 15 June, the French broadcasting regulator, ARCOM, made public a formal notice of its decision dated 12 June requiring CNEWS to comply with its pluralism obligations, following a complaint lodged in January by Reporters Without Borders.
Ottlakán v. Hungary: an illusory remedy for poor prison conditions
On Tuesday, the Second Section found a violation of Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy) read with Article 3 in Ottlakán v. Hungary (app. no. 17201/23). The applicant, a whole-life prisoner with no prospect of release, had been awarded some €1,500 in the domestic courts for 488 days spent in cells below the statutory minimum of four square metres of personal space. That remedy was inadequate: the money was set aside in an account administered by the prison until his release and, because no mechanism could ever lead to this prisoner’s release, he had no real prospect of receiving it.
Iskrenović v. Serbia: insulting the police, and the right to examine witnesses
Finally, on Tuesday the Third Section found a violation of Article 6(1) read with Article 6(3)(d) (the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses) in Iskrenović v. Serbia (app. no. 39427/23), in the case of a man convicted, in minor-offence proceedings, of insulting police officers in the performance of their duties.
On the UKHRB
This week, Jonathan Metzer takes an extended look at the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Ammori, examining in greater detail the treatment of the Home Secretary’s proscription policy, the four-stage Bank Mellat analysis, the wide margin afforded to the executive in matters of national security, and the Court’s conclusion that Palestine Action could not properly be characterised as a non-violent civil-disobedience protest group.
Australian court rules against government in indefinite detention case
The Australian High Court has unanimously ruled against the federal government in a case concerning indefinite immigration detention. The case was a damages claim brought by an Austrian citizen, Safwat Abdel-Hady, who was detained for 18 months despite having no realistic prospect of removal due to health issues.
The government sought to rely on a previous ruling of the High Court (Al-Kateb) which was overturned in 2023. Commentators have suggested that the decision may lead to other compensation claims, leading to a bill which could “run into the tens of millions of dollars”.
Sara v Gheorgheni Court, Romania [2026] EWHC 1402 (Admin)
In Sara v Gheorgheni Court, Romania [2026] EWHC 1402 (Admin), the High Court has allowed an appeal against extradition on grounds relating to human rights law. The case concerns the definition of “conviction” and “trial” under s 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) and the impact of delay on the balancing exercise required under Article 8 ECHR.
Facts and background
The appellant was convicted and sentenced in respect of two driving offences in Romania in June 2016. He received a suspended sentence of two years and ten months imprisonment. On his own case, the appellant left Romania shortly afterwards. Following a complaint by the Probation Service, the suspended sentence was then activated in December 2016. In early 2017, the appellant arrived in the UK where he has settled.
Further proceedings in Romania ensued in which the appellant’s sentence was changed multiple times. The net result was reached in April 2022. The appellant’s original sentence (now activated and not yet served) was split into two sentences totalling two years and six months and then merged with sentences for a number of other offences. The appellant was not present for any proceedings following the initial sentencing in 2016.
Decision
The court allowed the appeal on two grounds.
First, the court held that the appellant could not be considered to have “deliberately absented himself from his trial” under s 20(3) of EA 2003 and therefore, since no right to a retrial or appeal was endorsed on the arrest warrant, he fell to be discharged under s 20(7) [113].
Second, the court held the district judge (DJ) was wrong to conclude that extradition was not a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR [118].
Reasoning on section 20
Where a person is subject to an extradition request on the basis that they are unlawfully at large after conviction, the court must decide whether the person was “convicted in his presence”: s 20(1). If the person was not present, then the court must decide whether the person “deliberately absented himself from his trial”: s 20(3). If the person was not deliberately absent, the court must make an order for discharge unless the person would be entitled to a retrial or appeal following extradition: s 20(5) and (7). These provisions are intended to ensure that a person is not extradited in breach of their right to be present at their trial under Article 6 ECHR: see [13] and Bertino v Italy [2024] UKSC 9 at [45].
The court accepted that the term “trial” (s 20(3)) means “the trial resulting in the decision” in respect of which extradition is sought and that this definition encompasses post-conviction sentencing proceedings where the court decides on a cumulative sentence, if the decision involves an exercise of discretion: [109]-[110] and see Case C271/17 PPU Zdziaszek [2017] 4 WLR 189.
The court acknowledged that the relationship between that definition (“trial”) and the definition of “conviction” (s 20(1)) is difficult to discern. That was important in this case because the appellant was present at his conviction and initial sentencing in June 2016 but not at the hearing in April 2022 where the Romanian court decided to impose a modified sentence. On its face, the structure of s 20 is that a person’s opportunity to be present at subsequent sentencing proceedings is irrelevant if they were present at conviction, even if the latter proceedings do (or at least could) lead to a different sentencing outcome.
Contrary to the decision of the DJ, the court ultimately held that the appellant’s case could not be determined purely on the basis of s 20(1) as that would be inconsistent with the approach in Zdziaszek and the fact that the Romanian arrest warrant expressly sought the appellant’s extradition in relation to the “decision” taken in April 2022. It was therefore relevant to consider whether the appellant deliberately absented himself from the hearing in April 2022. On that question of fact, the court was not satisfied that the appellant was summoned to the hearing or even knew about it. Therefore, in the absence of any right to a retrial or appeal, he was not liable to extradition.
Reasoning on Article 8
In the court’s view, the only question which it had to determine under this ground was whether the DJ adequately took account of the period of delay between the commission of the offences by the appellant and the extradition request. It concluded that the DJ had not done so and that this was another basis on which the appeal should be allowed ([118]).
The DJ did not directly address the overall length of the delay (nearly 10 years from the commission of the offences) and failed to give adequate weight to the requesting state’s culpability in respect of the delay ([117]). Based on its review of the case law, the court directed itself that long culpable delay by the requesting state diminishes the public interest in extradition, in particular because it can be taken to indicate the state’s own subjective view of the public interest in obtaining extradition ([21]). This was a “crucial factor” which should have weighed in the balance “significantly differently” when considering Article 8, so as to make the DJ’s conclusion wrong.
Reform UK reported to the Equality and Human Rights Commission
On Wednesday, a group of 27 MPs wrote to the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, calling for a formal investigation into Reform UK over alleged Islamophobia. The signatories – 26 Labour backbenchers, co-ordinated by Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) – contend that the party has breached its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and that it has no adequate internal process by which members can raise concerns. The letter points, among other things, to Nigel Farage’s criticism of a Ramadan event in Trafalgar Square. Reform UK rejects the complaint.
The referral is the latest test of the Commission’s appetite to deploy its enforcement powers against a political party. Dr Stephenson succeeded Baroness Falkner of Margravine as Chair at the end of November 2025.
Record drug-related deaths in prisons
On Monday, The Independent reported that drug-related deaths in prisons in England and Wales have reached a record high. Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, has warned that dealers are “operating with impunity” and that drones are used to deliver large consignments into prison estates. The figures sharpen the focus on the state’s positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR towards those whom it detains, and on the increase of Prevention of Future Deaths reports concerning the availability of novel psychoactive substances in custody.
UN High Commissioner warns of escalation in Ukraine
On Thursday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, warned against a dangerous escalation in Ukraine amid Russian threats to intensify its attacks, urging both sides back to the negotiating table: “I strongly urge restraint. Resume negotiations and end the suffering.” His Office recorded 815 civilians killed and 4,174 injured in the first four months of 2026: a 21% increase on the same period in 2025.
The High Commissioner reiterated that international humanitarian law obliges the parties to a conflict to take all feasible precautions to spare the civilian population.
In the Courts
Mavrakis and Kasapoğlu v. Türkiye: religious-minority foundations in Strasbourg
On Tuesday, the ECtHR considered the position of two Greek Orthodox priests, both Turkish nationals: the late Father Gennaidos (born Nikolaos) Mavrakis, who died during the proceedings in August 2025, and Father Georgios Kasapoğlu.
Mavrakis and Kasapoğlu had been removed by Türkiye’s General Directorate of Foundations from the boards of three Greek Orthodox community foundations: the Beşiktaş Cihannüma foundation; the Aya Konstantin foundation in Samatya; and the foundation of the Phanar Greek Orthodox College, the historic ‘Great School of the Nation’.
The sole ground for their removal was that they were members of the clergy. The applicants relied on Articles 9 (freedom of religion), 11 (freedom of association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), together with Articles 6(1) and 13. The case is Mavrakis and Kasapoğlu v. Türkiye (apps. nos. 12549/23, 71/24 and 2023/24).
The Chamber found a violation of Article 11 read in light of Article 9. The case falls within the established Strasbourg jurisprudence on the institutional autonomy of religious communities. Although Türkiye had in 2008 introduced elections to the boards of non-Muslim foundations, the Directorate continued in practice to bar serving clergy from standing, permitting only the election of lay members of a community whose numbers are in decline. The Court awarded €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages to each applicant (the late Father Mavrakis’s award being payable to his widow and two sons).
The decisive point was that the exclusion had no basis in domestic law. No statute or regulation barred clergy from foundation boards: the eligibility criteria turned on matters such as citizenship, age, residence and education, rather than lay status. The General Directorate had no power to remove a duly elected member on account of his clerical status. The interference was accordingly not ‘prescribed by law’. The Court awarded €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages to each applicant (the late Father Mavrakis’s award being payable to his widow and two sons).
These modest damages belie the practical significance of this ruling for the Greek Orthodox community in Istanbul – as well as a fifteen-year battle through the Turkish courts and then to Strasbourg to secure it. Community foundations administer churches, schools, cemeteries and property around which Greek Orthodox life in the city is organised.
The decision has been welcomed by minority-rights observers as dismantling a long-standing administrative doctrine, said to be derived from the Treaty of Lausanne, that members of the clergy could not exercise administrative functions within minority foundations. The judgment affirms that a state cannot invoke religious identity as an administrative pretext for paring back a minority’s right to run its own institutions.
Tožičková v. the Czech Republic: the arrest of a journalist at an environmental protest
On Thursday, Strasbourg returned to freedom of expression in Tožičková v. the Czech Republic (app. no. 21512/23). The applicant, a journalist, was covering a September 2020 environmental demonstration at a coal mine, wearing a visible press badge. When some demonstrators entered the mine’s restricted operating area, she followed them. Police ordered those present to leave and, on her refusal, arrested her, releasing her some two hours later. The domestic courts found that the order to vacate and a ban on filming during her arrest had both been unlawful, but nonetheless upheld the arrest, and the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint.
The Chamber unanimously found a violation of Article 10. A refusal to obey a police order did not, in and of itself, justify arrest: before detaining a journalist, the police had to weigh the alternatives open to them against her press status and the effect on her Article 10 rights, which they had not done. By treating her non-compliance with an order later acknowledged to be unlawful as automatic justification, and giving no adequate reasons, the domestic courts had sanctioned an arrest that was not necessary in a democratic society: the more so given the press’s watchdog role over the policing of protest and the correspondingly narrow margin of appreciation where a matter of public interest is in play.
The Court awarded €3,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
Kakar v London Borough of Harrow: access to justice and statutory time limits
Ms Kakar had sought council-tax discounts on two grounds: first, that her son, who had been suspended from his studies on medical grounds, should have been treated as a qualifying full-time student; second, that Ms Kakar was her son’s carer. The Valuation Tribunal for England held that time to appeal ran from a council email of 5 February 2024, rendering her October 2024 appeal some seven months out of time.
Before David Pievsky KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), counsel for Ms Kakar argued that to refuse an extension of time for a near-miss — the appeal having been filed only minutes after the deadline — was disproportionate. Counsel invoked the right of access to justice by analogy with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and also relied on the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Eskander v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 372.
The Deputy Judge distinguished Eskander, in which the appellant had adduced detailed evidence of the steps personally taken to comply, and observed that the council-tax context differed materially from the professional-regulatory appeals in which the Adesina line of authority had developed.
The appeal was dismissed. The case is a useful reminder of the limits of the discretion to relieve against rigid statutory time limits outside the regulatory sphere.
The former Philippine President is charged with three counts of crimes against humanity (murder and attempted murder) arising from the ‘war on drugs’. Duterte has been in the Court’s custody since March 2025, and was committed for trial following confirmation of the charges in April 2026.
Mr Duterte did not attend the first status conference, having waived his right to be present. He is now represented by a new defence team led by Peter Haynes.
The Chamber indicated that it was prepared to accede to the Prosecution’s application for the trial to open on 30 November 2026, sitting on a daily basis until the judicial recess. That date should, however, be treated as provisional: Judge Korner, citing Mr Duterte’s age and reported ill-health, directed that the three medical experts who had assessed his fitness at the confirmation stage be re-instructed to examine him afresh, a separate finding on fitness being required before trial can begin.
The Prosecution indicated that it intends to call between 60 and 70 witnesses.
Also this week, Rosalind English examines Rodoy v Optical Express Ltd[2026] EWHC 1219 (KB) (judgment available here), in which Griffiths J dismissed a libel claim over letters describing the claimant as a “self-confessed and known fraudster” who trolled the defendant’s staff online: the words had caused serious harm, but were substantially true and protected by qualified privilege.
On Wednesday May 20, the Ministry of Justice published a white paper regarding the reform of the youth justice system. It states the government will “carefully consider” whether the age of criminal responsibility (10) remains appropriate, and promises more effective early intervention in children’s lives. In particular, the government plans to reform the “youth out-of-court resolution framework”, including potentially changes to the requirement of admission of guilt for various outcomes (i.e., youth cautions). The government also plans to pilot Youth Intervention Courts, which will focus on child rehabilitation (likely through community-based sentences).
Anti-SLAPP Legislation to be brought forward
On Tuesday 19 May, Lord Chancellor David Lammy announced the government’s intention to “bring forward” anti-SLAPP legislation, after being pressed about its omission from the King’s Speech the previous week. Concerns over the absence of anti-SLAPP measures intensified following a report by Democracy for Sale on Friday 15 May, which alleged that the Society of Media Lawyers had persuaded the government not to proceed with the proposed legislation. The Society denied the allegations, stating that none of its committee members had met with ministers or MPs to discuss anti-SLAPP proposals. It also reiterated its position that any legislative reform should be preceded by a review by the Law Commission and, where necessary, followed by the development of workable proposals.
This application was made by prosecuting counsel in criminal proceedings against 24 Palestine Action protestors, arising out of their protest at the premises of Elbit Systems UK ([6], [14]). The proposed order sought, inter alia, to prevent the reporting of information concerning that protest, as well as any conclusion reached by Ministers, advisers, or officials that this protest satisfied the statutory definition of “terrorism”, until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings ([14]).
The Court declined to grant this order, finding that information about the incident had already been disclosed in the judgment of the court below, and that no application was made to postpone publication of that information to the first instance court ([23]). Moreover, with regard to the Secretary of State’s conclusion that this incident (and other protests by Palestine Action) satisfied the definition of terrorism, the Court found that this conclusion was “apparent from [the Secretary’s] statement to Parliament” and the Divisional Court’s judgment ([24]).
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the proposed order would not eliminate any risk of prejudice. Instead, the ordinary safeguards inherent in the criminal process should be relied upon to protect the fairness of the proceedings ([25]).
Rosalind English analyses the Advertising Standards Authority decision in favour of Chris Packham against the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board’s “Let’s Eat Balanced” campaign.
Council of Europe adopts political declaration on migration
All 46 member states of the Council of Europe have adopted the Chișinău Declaration on migration and the ECHR.
The declaration reaffirms the signatories’ commitment to the ECHR, while stressing the need for member states to be able to tackle “significant, complex, migration-related challenges … which were either unforeseen at the time the Convention was drafted or have evolved significantly since then”.
The declaration states that it is “an obligation and a necessity” for member states to protect their borders in compliance with the ECHR. A desire is expressed for further guidance from the ECtHR on a number of points, including the use of Article 3 to avoid expulsion or extradition.
The “living instrument” doctrine is pointedly highlighted twice, with emphasis on the ECtHR’s practice of interpreting the Convention in view of “present-day realities” and “novel challenges”.
The declaration also asserts that member states must be allowed to adopt new approaches to address irregular migration. Particular mention is made of the fact that several member states are currently envisaging the use of third countries as processing and return hubs.
Written ministerial statement on responding to antisemitism
In the wake of the Golders Green attack, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has issued a statement setting out the Government’s strategy on tackling antisemitism in the UK.
The statement refers to the Government’s recent command paper on improving social cohesion (published in March 2026) and announces additional measures, stating that “we all need to do more”.
The statement also commits the Government to fast-tracking legislation to introduce “new proscription-like powers to clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states”.
In the courts
Barrister contempt proceedings dismissed
The Court of Appeal has held that the Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to refer an alleged contempt of court directly to the High Court. Accordingly, the court dismissed High Court proceedings against the barrister Rajiv Menon KC, leaving the matter back in the hands of the Crown Court judge. The case is Re Contempt Proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Civ 573.
In January 2026, Mr Menon was held by a Crown Court judge to have breached, in his closing speech to the jury, the terms of a directions ruling which prohibited counsel from inviting the jury to disregard the court’s rulings of law, to disregard their juror oaths, or to apply the principle of jury equity. The judge then referred the matter to the High Court for consideration.
According to a statement by Mr Menon’s chambers, this was the first time in English legal history that a barrister had been prosecuted for contempt in respect of a closing speech at a criminal trial. The Chair of the Bar Council, Kirsty Brimelow KC, has also referred to the proceedings as “exceptional” and “troubling” and highlighted the risk of a chilling effect on the profession.
On Mr Menon’s appeal against a preliminary directions ruling, the Court of Appeal accepted the submission that the Crown Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making a direct reference to the High Court. The High Court would only have jurisdiction to deal with the case on an application by the Attorney-General ([62]).
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeal followed “the overwhelming weight of authority”, which indicated that the Crown Court has only two options when confronted with an alleged contempt in the face of the court ([55]). These are: (a) it can deal with the matter itself in summary proceedings; or (b) it can make a reference to the A-G, who may make an application to the High Court if doing so would serve the public interest.
The court’s conclusion affirms the A-G’s role as a necessary filter in the majority of contempt cases. This is consistent with the guidance given in the leading case of Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73, which is that the Crown Court judge should leave the matter to the A-G’s discretion unless it is imperative to act immediately ([57]).
The report noted that the Government had failed to provide legal assistance during the identification process and prior to entering the NRM, and to ensure that free legal aid is available for the procedure before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Schemes — despite the fact that these recommendations had been “made repeatedly” by GRETA in previous reports [287].
GRETA also warned that victims of trafficking continue to be prosecuted and convicted for offences that they were compelled to commit as part of their exploitation, despite the revised guidance on the non-prosecution of victims of human trafficking [236-253] — produced in response to the V.C.L. and A.N. v the United Kingdom (App nos 77587/12 and 74603/12) [2021] ECHR. In that case, the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK had breached the rights to freedom from slavery and to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Articles 4 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by prosecuting two potential victims of child trafficking.
GRETA recommends providing further training and guidance to law enforcement officers and legal professionals on the application of the non-punishment provision in order to “address the subtle ways by which victims can be compelled to commit offences” [253].
The publication of the report comes on the same day as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, warned that the Government’s current response to modern slavery is “no longer sufficient”.
According to the Commissioner’s report, referrals into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) reached 23,411 in 2025 — the highest number on record and a 22% increase from 2024. The report also highlights a 54% rise in the sexual exploitation of British girls in the last five years, with children accounting for almost a third of NRM referrals in 2025.
The report warned that technology — including AI, cryptocurrencies, and online platforms — is accelerating and obscuring exploitation.
Roman Abramovich has filed an application against the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that an investigation into his financial accounts by the Attorney General of Jersey (“the AG”) breached his Article 6 and 8 rights. The investigation that gave rise to this claim began in March 2022 and resulted in a freezing order over assets valued at approximately £5.2 billion.
This action follows Abramovich’s judicial review proceedings against the AG’s decision to commence and continue the money laundering investigation, which were dismissed in the Royal Court of Jersey and Court of Appeal of Jersey in June/July 2024 and June 2025 respectively. Mr Abramovich was denied permission to appeal these decisions to the Privy Council on 17 November 2025.
Assisted Dying Bill runs out of time
On 24 April 2026, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill ran out of time to become law. The proposed legislation could only be enacted if both Houses of Parliament agreed on its wording before the session of Parliament ended. While the House of Commons voted for the bill to progress to the House of Lords in June 2025, in the House of Lords, the bill received more than 1,200 amendments. Supporters of the bill have criticised the amount of amendments proposed, and the time taken to debate them, arguing that the volume of amendments intentionally frustrated the bill’s passage. Opponents have responded by stating that the bill required sufficient scrutiny to ensure vulnerable people are protected.
As the bill was proposed by a backbench MP, it cannot be carried over to the next session, and any renewed attempt to pass the bill will have to begin the parliamentary approval process from scratch. Lord Falconer has stated that he may push the bill using powers under the Parliament Act, “which, in certain circumstances, allows legislation passed by the House of Commons to become law without the consent of the House of Lords.
On Tuesday, the House of Commons approved an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill under which women convicted of historic abortion offences will be pardoned and have their criminal records expunged. The amendment was originally proposed in the House of Lords to complement the bill’s provision to decriminalise abortions by women acting in relation to their own pregnancies.
Bar Council publishes paper criticising jury curtailment proposals
As the Courts and Tribunals Bill continues its committee stage, the Bar Council has published a 31-page polemic by Geoffrey Robertson KC attacking the government’s proposals to limit jury trials.
Robertson argues that the proposals will not clear the criminal courts backlog and may worsen delays. He points to time being taken up on novel pre-trial allocation proceedings and on judges retiring to produce reasoned judgments.
Robertson also contends that the proposals overlook the constitutional significance of a jury’s power to show mercy and acquit on conscientious grounds. He positions this as a crucial safeguard against injustice and draconianism – a ‘proud boast of British justice’.
Concluding, he writes:
‘The proposed reforms take the axe to a substantial proportion of jury trials (half at a rough estimate), disadvantaging not only defendants but all who are proud of the way in which justice has been delivered, through majority deliberation of a dozen community representatives, more in touch with current values than judges or magistrates and able, in their own way, to show mercy when the law does not allow for it.’
In the courts
Assessing persecution under the Refugee Convention
Dismissing an appeal against refusal of a protection claim, the Court of Appeal has reiterated that the question whether an asylum-seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution is ‘acutely fact-sensitive’. The court also echoed previous cautions against overly ‘forensic’ reasons challenges. The case is MN (Vietnam) v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 485.
The appellant (MN) was a Vietnamese national. In 2014, he attended a demonstration in Ho Chi Minh. On his account, he was arrested by police, beaten, charged with attending an illegal demonstration, and returned to his home area. Once there, the authorities told him that he was on a blacklist and would be watched.
Later that year, MN entered the UK using a business visa and overstayed. He sought to avoid removal by claiming entitlement to refugee status under Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention on the basis that he had a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ if returned to Vietnam. The Secretary of State rejected his claim. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected his appeals.
On his further appeal to the Court of Appeal, MN argued that the FTT judge, whose reasoning and conclusions were adopted by the UT, had: (i) failed to make proper findings about, and failed properly to assess, MN’s ill-treatment in 2014; and (ii) operated on the mistaken basis that ill-treatment must be ‘systematic’ to constitute persecution.
The court rejected both arguments. As to the first, the judge had clearly accepted all aspects of MN’s evidence about what happened to him in Vietnam and was not required to repeat every detail in his conclusions ([38]). The judge had also accepted evidence of intolerance of protests and action taken by the Vietnamese authorities to suppress state opposition ([41]).
As to the second argument, the court rejected the contention that, by using the word ‘systematic’, the judge had been applying an erroneous threshold test. This was an ‘overly forensic scrutiny or dissection’ of the judge’s language ([46]). Stating that MN would not be subjected to ‘persistent or systematic’ ill-treatment was simply a way of reiterating that MN was not likely to face adverse interest from the authorities upon his return.
Although it was true in law that a single episode of ill-treatment could amount to persecution, this was an ‘acutely fact-sensitive’ evaluation ([47]). Thus, despite the acknowledged possibility that MN might face a further beating, the judge was not prevented from concluding that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, taking the circumstances in the round.
Determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking
In R (CGW) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 858 (Admin), the High Court has criticised an apparent understanding among Home Office officials about the level of detail required to meet the standard of proof as to whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.
The claimant for judicial review (CGW) arrived in the UK on a small boat in 2021. His account was that, while in asylum accommodation, he was approached by some men who purported to offer him work. He was then transported to a series of indoor cannabis farms where he was held against his will, beaten, and forced to tend the cannabis plants. He was eventually found by police, who referred him to the Home Office to assess whether he was a victim of human trafficking.
The Home Office’s Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority eventually took a negative ‘conclusive grounds’ decision to the effect that CGW was not a victim of human trafficking. CGW challenged this decision from multiple angles, including that the decision-maker had failed to give legally adequate reasons.
The Deputy Judge accepted this ground of challenge, holding that the purported reasons were ‘plainly deficient’ ([24]) and simply did ‘not provide rational justification for the conclusions reached’ ([25]). There were two fatal problems:
the reasons were ultimately bare conclusions because they stated that there was ‘insufficient’ information for a positive decision but did not explain why; and
the reasons were non sequiturs because CGW’s account of what happened to him appeared sufficient and the decision did not say that his account was not credible.
The Deputy Judge also responded to his impression that Home Office officials were taking ‘conclusive grounds’ decisions on the understanding that a person will not meet the required standard of proof unless they have provided ‘detailed’ information about their exploitation.
This approach was ‘legally wrong’. The decision-maker was simply required to determine on the balance of probabilities whether the individual was a victim of human trafficking or slavery, basing that decision on the totality of the evidence available, including any circumstantial evidence. There was no minimum requirement as to the level of detail that an individual had to provide ([30(2)-(3)]).
Upcoming ICLQ Annual Lecture, 12th May 2026
The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Annual Lecture will be taking place on Tuesday 12th May, at 17:30 to 19:30, followed by a reception or online via Zoom.
The lecture will be delivered by Dr Sofia Galani on ‘Human Rights Obligations in Maritime Search and Rescue’, based on her article which was recently published in ICLQ vol. 74(1).
On Monday, the House of Commons International Development Committee (IDC) published a report which found that the Government had failed to deliver on its Women, Peace and Security (WPS) policy commitments.
According to the Peace under pressure: Protecting WPS report, the UK’s willingness or ability to facilitate high-level discussion within the UN on WPS appears weak, despite commitments to the WPS agenda [24]. The report also raised concerns that the UK Government is “at risk of inflicting damage to its reputation as a WPS penholder and convenor” [27].
The Committee further pointed to the reduction in development and gender expertise within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) as a significant hindrance to the WPS agenda [3]. Additionally, the Government was found to have reduced funding and resourcing for WPS initiatives [4].
The publication of the report comes at a time of the highest number of conflicts since 1946 [11] coupled with a growing global “anti-gender” movement and backlash against gender equality [13].
In other news:
In a landmark ruling, the California Superior Court ruled that Meta and Google were liable for creating addictive products that caused the deterioration of a young woman’s mental health. The social media companies were ordered to pay $3 million in compensatory damages.
The European Parliament plenary endorsed the opening of negotiations with the Council on a new legal framework for the return of people without the right to stay in the UK. The proposed Return Regulation would enable Member States to deport people to countries with no prior ties and require Member States to put in place measures to detect people staying irregularly in their territory.
The Metropolitan Police revised their enforcement approach in response to displays of support for Palestine Action, reversing their interim position – adopted after the High Court ruling that its proscription was unlawful – not to arrest its supporters.
The High Court ruled that the Home Secretary was in breach of her statutory duty to provide “adequate” initial accommodation (IA) for asylum seeking families [82] and [102].
Although IA is intended as a “stopgap” [2], asylum seeking people, including the Claimants, have been accommodated in IA for as long as 3 years, often in hotel rooms or hostels [3].
Bates J held that a hotel room provided for an asylum seeker and her family is not a “dwelling” for the purposes of Part X of the Housing Act 1985 (HA), on the basis that the accommodation is a temporary interim measure [34].
However, Part X HA is not “entirely irrelevant” when considering whether hotel accommodation meets the “adequate” standard, as provided by ss. 95-96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IA) [42].
The case stemmed from an application for judicial review of the adequacy of IA provided for a prolonged period to two asylum seeking mothers, SH and BWO, with dependent children. Bates J described the accommodation arrangements for SH – who shared a hotel room with her husband, their young school-age child and a newborn baby – as “extraordinarily stressful” [82]. The Court held that BWO’s living circumstances were “incompatible with personal dignity” because she was accommodated in a two-bed hotel room with her two sons of sexually mature ages and had to share a bed with one of her sons [100].
Bates J also confirmed that where the Home Secretary refuses a request for accommodation in a particular geographical area, she has a duty to identify the asylum seeking person’s needs and ensure that the accommodation outside the requested area is adequate to meet those needs [95]. There is no requirement for asylum seeking people to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” to satisfy such a request [94].
Additionally, Bates J raised concerns that there was a lack of a specified minimum standards regarding the minimum amount of space that should be provided for families in hotel accommodation, prior to the Space Standards Paper circulated in June 2024. The Court held that the lack of policy or guidance had the potential to contribute to accommodation falling below the “adequate” standard [48].
Over 35,000 asylum seeking people – including 4,300 families – were being accommodated in hotels for IA purposes in September 2025 [3].
On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the deportation of an Afghan national would be a violation of the right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment as guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights [199].
The case concerned an order by the Swedish authorities to remove an Afghan national, DM, from Sweden, following several unsuccessful applications for asylum since 2015 [5 – 59]. DM alleged that, if deported, he would risk being ill-treated in Afghanistan [132].
In the first ECHR judgment of this type since the Taliban takeover in 2021, the Court held that an assessment of whether there was a real risk of ill-treatment had to be made on the basis of all relevant factors, considered cumulatively. The Court found that the Swedish authorities had erred when separately considering the individual factors, including the “serious and fragile” security situation in Afghanistan, the deterioration of human-rights in Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover and DM’s Hazara ethnicity [197].
Furthermore, the Court was not satisfied that the assessment undertaken by the Swedish authorities was “sufficiently and adequately” supported by domestic and international materials [157].
The Court observed that most European States had not carried out any involuntary returns to Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover [160].
The Court granted interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, until the judgment becomes final [199 – 201].
In the first of a series of Law Pod UK episodes relating to investigations, Marina Wheeler KC speaks to Jim Duffy about the evolving role of barristers in this area.
Scottish assisted dying bill falls while Westminster proposals lag in the House of Lords
Tuesday evening saw the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill defeated at the last stage of the Holyrood legislative process. After a final debate, Members of the Scottish Parliament voted against the bill by 69 votes to 57, with one abstention. The bill would have allowed some terminally ill patients to be assisted to end their lives. Patients would have been required to make two declarations of their wish for assisted dying and to undergo assessment by two doctors as to their eligibility and freedom from coercion or pressure.
Meanwhile, the House of Lords continues to debate amendments to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales. Owing to the 1,200+ amendments which have been tabled, the bill is now widely expected to run out of time – despite passing the Commons in June 2025. The bill’s proposer, Kim Leadbeater MP, is reported to have said that the House of Lords has ‘signed its own death warrant’ by stalling the legislation.
NHRI joint statement urges UK government not to dilute the ECHR
On Thursday, the UK’s three National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) issued an unusual joint statement urging the government to ‘commit to no reduction in rights protections’.
The NHRIs note that the UK government has expressed an intention to ‘re-balance’ and ‘clarify’ the position relating to migration by adopting political declarations on Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. They ask the government to explain how it will ensure that its proposals do not weaken ECHR protections. The statement continues:
‘The erosion of anyone’s rights puts us all at risk; it signals that these shared standards are not guaranteed and that any of our rights could be subject to debate.’
The UK’s NHRIs – the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission – are required to abide by the Paris Principles. These call on them to promote and protect all human rights by acting independently from government.
The UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine found that 1,205 children have been systematically deported and forcibly transferred from Russian-occupied areas in Ukraine to Russia. Of those cases, eight in ten children have not yet returned. According to the findings, Russian authorities have acted in contravention with international humanitarian law, under which evacuation can only be temporary and for the legally justifiable reasons of health, medical treatment or safety.
The Courts and Tribunals Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons last week. The Bill introduces a range of reforms aimed at reducing court backlogs, including proposals to restrict jury trials and raising magistrates’ sentencing powers. The House of Commons Public Bill Committee has issued a call for evidence from experts in fields relevant to the Bill.
The Netherlands and Iceland sought permission to intervene in the International Criminal Court (ICJ) case initiated by South Africa against Israel’s actions in Gaza. The ICJ had previously received 16 requests to intervene, including from Palestine, Ireland and Colombia.
[* note from editor: The United States and other countries have also filed declarations of intervention in South Africa’s case of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Article 63 of the Statute of the Court allows countries to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of a convention to which they are parties, even if they are not parties to the dispute.
In its 11-page declaration the US rejected South Africa’s accusations of genocide against Israel.
“To avoid any doubt, the United States affirms, in the strongest terms possible, that the allegations of ‘genocide’ against Israel are false. They are also unfortunately nothing new,” it said.
The US said it considered it necessary to intervene in this case in order to offer its interpretations of the provisions of the Genocide Convention, informed by its role in drafting the 1948 text]
In the Courts:
On Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) launched an inquiry into the recent changes to laws relating to protest. The inquiry will examine whether the Government has correctly balanced its duty to protect the public from disruption or fear, with its duty to protect the right to protest – described by JCHR chair, Lord David Alton, as “a cornerstone of our democracy”.
On Thursday, the High Court ruled that the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) refusal of an Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) application was unlawful, on the grounds of an error of fact and a failure to publish related caseworker guidance. Although the MoD withdrew the decision shortly after the hearing, Saini J still handed down judgment, noting that the Court’s findings could affect other ARAP cases [1-2].
The judicial review challenge was brought by CHD, an Afghan national who was tortured by the Taliban and is currently in hiding in Afghanistan. For 13 years, until the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2021, CHD held a key public-facing role within a partly UK-funded organisation that promoted the rule of law and combatted the Taliban’s influence.
CHD’s application to re-locate to the UK was rejected by the MoD on the grounds that he failed to meet Condition 2 Category 4 of ARAP, which requires applicants to have made, in the course of their employment, “a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s military objectives or national security objectives (which includes counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and anti-corruption objectives) with respect to Afghanistan” [15].
Saini J held that MoD decision makers had made an error of fact when determining that the objectives of CHD’s employer – the advancement of the rule of law and a functioning legal system – were not also part of the UK’s national security objectives at the time of CHD’s employment [75-77].
Saini J also noted that he would have been inclined to find the unpublished guidance and any decision made pursuant to it unlawful, had it been necessary to decide the issue [21]. Applying R (Lumba) v SSHD [2012] 1 AC 245, Saini J held that the MoD’s failure to publish interfered with the general rule of law that the publication of policies is necessary for applicants to make informed and meaningful representations [84].
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.
Rights groups criticise airlines for removals under ‘one in, one out’ scheme
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and 27 other human rights organisations have written letters to four airlines criticising them for providing removal flights under the UK and France’s ‘one in, one out’ pilot scheme.
Under the scheme, which became effective in August 2025, asylum-seekers arriving in the UK from France in small boats can be detained and removed to France for readmission. The UK has a reciprocal obligation to maintain a voluntary application route for qualifying individuals to be transferred legally from France to the UK.
The letters call on the airlines – Air France and three private charter companies – to cease participation in the scheme or face boycotts. They refer to correspondence published earlier in February, in which UN mandate-holders said that the scheme ‘may result in serious violations of international human rights law’ and urged the UK and French governments to end it.
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.
Recent comments