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]
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.
The HM Inspectorate of Prisons has published a report which found that there was an “inadequate provision of interpretation” and “almost no information was available” to migrant people, during their removal to France under the ‘one in, one out’ pilot scheme. Almost all of those removed had arrived recently at the Kent coast and few were able to understand English.
Under the ‘Agreement on the Prevention of Dangeround Journeys’, ratified in August, any asylum seeker who has crossed the Channel unlawfully can be returned back to France. There is also a provision for “reciprocal admittance”, whereby an asylum seeker in France who has a genuine family link to someone in the UK and has not attempted to enter the UK unlawfully, will be allowed to enter the UK.
The report also raised concerns that migrant people did not have proper access to justice prior to their removal to France under the scheme. Although migrant people were signposted to legal firms while detained at Immigration Removal Centres, the report noted that many people’s cases were refused by solicitors and they were unable to access legal advice.
The publication of the report comes as a legal challenge against the removal of 16 migrant people under the ‘one in, one out’ scheme was heard at the High Court on Wednesday. The case centres on whether it was unlawful for the Homes Secretary to withdraw migrant people’s right to have rejected modern slavery claims reconsidered. The claimants also allege that French authorities do not adequately support trafficking victims. The Court heard that 40 per cent of migrant people detained under the scheme have made trafficking claims.
In international news
Last week, pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. The 78-year-old Apple Daily founder was found guilty last December of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and publishing seditious materials. Thibaut Bruttin, the director of Reporters Without Borders, warned that “the court decision underscores the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong”.
On 10 February, the European Parliament approved the amendments to the ‘safe third country’ concept in the EU Asylum Procedures Regulation and adopted an EU-wide list of “safe countries of origin”, making it easier for member states to reject asylum applications as inadmissible and to forcibly transfer people seeking safety to countries to which they have no connection. The new rules also remove the suspensive effect of appeals in asylum cases, meaning that a person could be removed while waiting for determination of their claim and any judicial review.
On Friday, the High Court ruled that the former home secretary Yvette Cooper had acted unlawfully when banning Palestine Action last year, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Court concluded that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was “disproportionate” [138].
The judicial review proceedings were brought by Huda Ammori, Palestine Action’s co-founder.
The Court upheld the claimant’s challenge that the proscription breached the rights of freedom of expression and assembly as guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. The Court found that the offences under the Terroism Act 2000 “comprise a very significant interference with the right to free speech”. For example, a person cannot address a meeting to encourage support for Palestine Action [106]. The Court also concluded that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action had resulted in a “stark” interference with Article 11 rights, since the purpose of proscription is to put measures in place that prevent the organisation from continuing to exist [135].
Additionally, the Court concluded that the Home Secretary failed to properly apply her policy on the use of the discretion to proscribe [89 – 95]. The policy required the Home Secretary to approach the exercise of her discretion comprehensively, taking into account the consequences on Palestine Action members, the characteristics of the organisation, foreign policy and “other factors” [74]. Instead, the Home Secretary presented the “significant disruptive benefits” to “deal with” Palestine Action as a central reason for exercising the discretion to proscribe [89]. The Court clarified that Home Secretary’s policy did not include the expected significant disruptive benefits of proscription as a relevant consideration [90].
According to evidence submitted by the claimant, there have been many arrests since proscription referring to Palestine Action, including more than 2,000 people at protests immediately following the proscription decision [118].
In a statement after the judgement, the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said the government intends to appeal the decision.
The High Court ruled that Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) is “likely to have a more muted practical impact” [168]. The Court clarified for the first time that the right to liberty under Article 5 ECHR constrains the effect of IMA on the judicial oversight of immigration detention decisions.
The case stemmed from a claim alleging the unlawful detention of MXV, a Zimbabwean national, who was held under immigration powers for 101 days from 11 March 2024.
Section 12 of the IMA sought to “overturn” the Court’s role as primary decision maker when it comes to assessing limbs (ii) and (iii) of the Hardial Singh principles, which relate to the reasonableness of the period of detention and whether deportation can be effected within such a reasonable period. Instead, Section 12 requires the Court to assess whether the Secretary of State’s decision about the period was a reasonable assessment.
The Court ruled that Parliament had expressly restricted judicial oversight and Section 12 should be followed [166]. However, compliance with Article 5(1)(f) ECHR requires the Court to retain its role as primary decision maker. The Court confirmed that Article 5(1)(f) ECHR “mirrors” the domestic application of the Hardial Singh principles [144] and, where Article 5 is relied upon, the Court remains able, as primary decision maker, to assess the reasonableness of detention.
The court found that the detention of MXV was unlawful in the period from 1 June 2024 to 19 June 2024.
On the UKHRB
Dr Lewis Graham considers the potential far-reaching effects in Hall v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 124 (TC), where the First-Tier Tribunal ruled that it had the jurisdiction to consider public law grounds, despite the tribunal having no inherent public law jurisdiction.
Rosalind English explores the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB UKSC 4, in which the Court held that Oatly’s registered trade mark “POST MILK GENERATION” cannot lawfully be used in relation to their oat-based food and drink products.
Rosalind English also reviews a letter about animal welfare from The Animal Law Foundation and the League against Cruel Sports, that was presented to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week.
On Monday, the Home Secretary published a white paper outlining her proposals for reforming the police. The proposed changes include the establishment of a National Police Service to oversee policing of organised crime, counter-terrorism and trafficking across England and Wales. This body will also appoint a Senior National Coordinator for public order policing, who will manage police responses to large scale national protests, such as the riots following the Southport stabbings in July 2024.
The Home Secretary also seeks to invest in new policing technologies, establishing a National Centre for AI policing and expanding the use of Live Facial Recognition vans to locate offenders. Meanwhile, on Tuesday and Wednesday this week, the High Court heard a judicial review challenge to the Met Police’s September 2024 Live Facial Recognition policy, on the basis that it violated Articles 8, 10 and 11 ECHR (R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis).
Finally, the white paper also suggests that the policing of non crime hate incidents is to be overhauled, with the aim of ‘reducing unnecessary recording burdens’.
Government confirms 20-25% cuts to prison education delivery hours
In November 2025, the Justice Committee released a report expressing its alarm regarding reports of cuts of up to 50% to prison education budgets. It recommended that the Government clarify the scale of, and rationale for, planned cuts to prison education budgets, and set out how it plans to ensure core education provision continues.
The government’s response was published this week, stating that whilst the budget had increased in recent years, these increases had been outpaced by rising delivery costs. As such, the government has implemented a national reduction of prison education delivery hours of around 20-25%, with some prisons experiencing more significant reductions.
UN Human Rights Council responds to situation in Iran
In its 39th Special Session on Friday, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) called for an urgent investigation into human rights violations by the Iranian state in the context of its repression of nationwide protests beginning in late December last year.
The UNHRC also extended the mandates of the Fact-Finding Mission and Special Rapporteur on Iran. The Special Session was informed of credible reports that thousands have been killed, many more injured, and over 24,000 arrested since the start of the protests, which have been accompanied by a complete internet and mobile services shutdown since 8 January. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said:
“The only way out of this frightening escalation is through dialogue based on the human rights of all Iranians. The aspirations and ideas in particular of women, girls, young people and ethnic and religious minorities must be allowed to shape Iran’s future. We remain available to support any change in direction that fully respects Iran’s human rights obligations.”
European Committee of Social Rights publishes 2025 Conclusions
On Wednesday, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) published its Conclusions on Labour Rights for 2025. The Conclusions for the UK make findings of non-conformity with Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter on several grounds, including:
a lack of a right to disconnect from work;
a lack of coverage by health and safety regulations for domestic and self-employed workers;
a failure to promote the freedom of association and collective bargaining of gig economy workers; and
the denial of the right to strike to the police, prison officers, and members of the armed forces without effective alternative means of negotiating terms and conditions.
The inquiry into the conditions at Manston Short-Term Holding Facility has begun hearing evidence in public. The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate “the decisions, actions and circumstances” that led to significant overcrowding, outbreaks of infectious disease and mistreatment of detained migrant people at the former military base between June and November 2022. The inquiry will also investigate the death of Hussein Haseeb Ahmed, who died from diphtheria after contracting the infection while detained at Manston. The inquiry was downgraded from statutory to independent in September 2024, reducing its powers to compel witnesses to attend. The Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Justice are due to participate in the inquiry.
On Sunday, the government pulled the third reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 — widely referred to as the ‘Hillsborough Law’ — from the parliamentary schedule, amid criticism of a proposed amendment. The draft legislation would create a statutory duty of candour and assistance for public authorities and officials when engaging with inquiries and inquests. The bill would also create a new criminal offence of misleading the public. However, a new amendment proposed by the government had been critcised for creating an opt-out for intelligence officials, by allowing heads of security services to decide whether information is released. Families of the Manchester Arena bombing wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this month, stressing the need for the law not to exempt security agencies. The UK’s Security Service (also known as MI5) was found by the Manchester Arena Inquiry not to have given an “accurate picture” of the key intelligence it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack, instead presenting “a retrospective justification” for their actions.
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