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]
A heated debate has arisen across the UK and abroad after Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips last week rejected calls for a public inquiry into child grooming gangs in Oldham. In a letter sent to Oldham Council in response to its request for a public inquiry, Phillips stated it was for “Oldham Council alone to decide whether to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene”. The decision has led to widespread criticism, with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick calling it “shameful” and Elon Musk arguing that Phillips “deserves to be in prison”. Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has defended Musk’s involvement as an exercise in “free speech”. Professor Alexis Jay, former Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), has suggested that it is change that is needed rather than a fresh inquiry. A statement published on Sunday by campaign group Act on IICSA warned against the politicisation of sexual violence, which only “hinders the implementation of vital and urgent overhaul” to existing systems. In a press conference on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer defended Jess Phillips and his own record as Director of Public Prosecutions, accusing critics of “spreading lies and misinformation” and of being interested in themselves rather than the victims.
Former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, has warned that legal aid cuts in family cases are denying parents their human rights, stating that the cuts are “wrong in principle”. Following legislative changes in 2013, parents in private children’s law cases are unable to access legal aid – irrespective of their means – unless abuse is alleged. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Neuberger called it “almost disgraceful” that parents are given human rights and then denied the ability to enforce them as a result of the lack of legal aid. “Rights aren’t meaningful unless they can be enforced”, he added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson responded to Neuberger’s position by emphasising the importance of families getting the “best outcomes as quickly as possible”, pointing to the mediation scheme available for family disputes which is partially Government funded.
In Other News
The latest report published by HRMMU, the UN team investigating human rights in Ukraine, details the deteriorating situation in the region with a surge in monthly civilian casualties and allegations of executions of Ukrainian Servicepersons. Evidence continues to suggest that individuals being held as Prisoners of War (POWs) are suffering torture and ill-treatment, including sexual violence. While the report acknowledges mistreatment of Russian POWs, these instances are said to appear more “isolated” than that of Ukrainians. As the war rages on nearly three years after the Russian invasion, the report calls for both countries to “intensify” their efforts to uphold international human rights law. The report was published just days before Ukraine launched a renewed offensive in Russia’s Kursk region on Sunday, leaving Russian civilians “shaken”.
Ireland’s landmark hate crime law – the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 – came into force last week, marking a historic moment in Irish law regarding the treatment of hate-motivated offences. The new law prescribes increased prison sentences where hatred predicated upon real or perceived protected identity characteristics either motivates a crime or is demonstrated during it. Ireland Justice Minister Helen McEntee said last Tuesday that the “legislation meets a clear gap in [Irish] laws and is widely supported by the public”, bringing Ireland out of the small group of EU countries that continue not to have specific hate crime offences set out in law. The bill had originally also contained provisions tightening the laws around hate speech, but this section was dropped in October after McEntee revealed there was no longer a “consensus” on its inclusion. The law around hate speech in Ireland is governed by the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which remains in force.
Activists are celebrating the inclusion of measures in the 2025 National Defence Authorisation Act (the annual US defence spending bill) to address the oppression of the Uyghur Muslim population in China’s Xinjiang region, which the US has labelled genocide. The bill was signed into law by President Joe Biden shortly before Christmas and incorporates the bipartisan Uyghur Human Rights Policy Reauthorisation Act 2024 which extended the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act passed under Trump in 2020. The Act greenlights sanctions against Chinese officials believed to be involved in Uyghur oppression. The renewal of these sanctions has been welcomed by the Uyghur Human Rights Project, with UHRP Executive Director Omer Kanat calling it “a gift of hope for Uyghurs”. The move represents the latest show of continued support for the Uyghur population by the United States.
In the Courts
On Sunday, the Criminal Division of the Seoul Western District Court rejected objections made by Yoon Suk Yeol, suspended President of South Korea, against the execution of arrest and search warrants against him. Yoon has been suspended as President pending impeachment proceedings following a failed attempt in December to impose martial law. Anti-corruption investigators issued the arrest warrant for Yoon and a search warrant for the Presidential residence after the suspended President ignored multiple summons for questioning. Yoon’s legal team filed an objection to the warrants in the courts last Thursday, arguing that they were illegal on the basis that the investigators did not have jurisdiction to issue them, and that, in any case, a criminal law prohibiting the execution of warrants in military areas should apply in his case. It has not yet been revealed on what grounds the court has rejected his arguments, and it is expected that a re-appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Court once this is clear. In the meantime, the Presidential Security Team are taking measures to block Yoon’s arrest, installing barbed wire and barricading the compound where he is residing. The arrest warrant expired at midnight on Monday January 6th with Yoon successful in defying arrest, although investigators are seeking an extension of the warrant’s deadline.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting revealed last week that the Government has placed an indefinite ban on the use of puberty blockers for trans youth, following advice from the Commission on Human Medicines that the medicines pose an ‘unacceptable safety risk’. The ban also follows the recommendations of the recent Cass Review, which was heavily criticised by rights groups. Speaking to the Commons on Wednesday, Streeting stressed that he was ‘determined’ to improve healthcare for trans youth. However, the ban has come under fire from a wide range of rights groups, educational psychologists, clinicians, and members of the British Medical Association. This news comes the same week that the Montana Supreme Court temporarily lifted the state’s ban on puberty blockers while its lawfulness is considered in the courts.
The Government announced last week that £75 million has been made available to compensate LGBT veterans who were affected by the historic ban on LGBT personnel in the Armed Forces. Veterans who were dismissed or discharged as a result of their LGBT identity, real or perceived, will also be able to apply to have their rank restored or discharge reason amended. The announcement represents a major step in the implementation of the recommendations made by the Etherton Review, which looked into the ill treatment of LGBT veterans in the past. Secretary for Defence, John Healey, has called the historic treatment of LGBT veterans a ‘moral stain on our nation’ and expressed his commitment to ‘righting the wrongs of the past’.
A report published by the Women and Equalities Committee this week has found that ‘medical misogyny’ is contributing to the underdiagnosis of serious reproductive health conditions, with women having their painful symptoms ‘normalised’ and ‘dismissed’. The report is critical of the speed of progress following the establishment of the Women’s Health Strategy in 2022, stating that implementation has been slow and incomplete. Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Sarah Owen, stated that women are “waiting years for life-changing treatment and in too many cases are being put through trauma-inducing procedures”. “All the while, their conditions worsen and become more complicated to treat”. The report “must act as a wake-up call” for the NHS, she added.
In Other News
The Assad regime, a hereditary totalitarian regime which has governed Syria since 1971, collapsed last week as Damascus was captured by opposition forces. Broadcasting on Syrian national television, the rebels announced at dawn on December 8th that the “tyrant al-Assad” had been “toppled”. It has been reported that Bashar al-Assad has fled to Russia, where he has been granted asylum on ‘humanitarian grounds’. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, released a statement celebrating that “after 14 years of brutal war and the fall of the dictatorial regime, today the people of Syria can seize an historic opportunity to build a stable and peaceful future”. Burcu Ozcelik, senior research fellow at London think tank Royal United Services Institute, has said there while there was ‘undoubtedly justified optimism in Syria’ at the news, it is ‘simultaneously true that Syria remains fragile and faces an uncertain future’. Since the overthrow, Israel has intensified airstrikes on Syria and invaded the demilitarised buffer zone between Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The UN has responded stating it is “deeply concerned by the recent and extensive violations of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The MPs who thwarted the declaration of marshal law by South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol in early December have now voted for his impeachment. The imposition of martial law was said to be necessary to protect the country from “anti-state forces” and the North Korean threat. Within two hours, MPs forcibly entered the National Assembly to vote against the declaration – with the Parliament’s speaker telling the BBC he climbed over a wall to gain entry so he could ‘protect democracy’. Large crowds gathered in Seoul as the impeachment vote took place, with police revealing they expected as many as 200,000 protestors. In a televised address, Yoon insisted that he will fight “until the end” to defend his “act of governance” in imposing martial law.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its second reading debate on 29 November 2024. The current draft of the bill is available here. The dates for the Committee Stage have not yet been announced. Supporters of the bill point out that the bill is limited to allowing assisted dying only for adults with mental capacity who have a terminal illness and can be reasonably expected to die within six months and has a range of safeguards. The process to request assistance requires the approval of two doctors (independent of each other) and a High Court judge. THe bill also creates an offence of dishonesty, coercion and pressure to protect vulnerable people from inappropriate pressures. However, critics of the bill cast doubt on the safeguards, arguing that people can shop around for doctors and that there are not enough High Court judges to provide sufficient scrutiny of applications. There are also continuing debates regarding whether the bill creates a “slippery slope” allowing assisted dying to be available to more people in the future (for example here and here).
In the courts The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has published a judgment that could have wide ranging impacts on states obligations with respect to protection for LGBTQ asylum-seekers. MI is a gay man from Iran who was facing threats from his relatives due to his sexual orientation. He was denied asylum in Switzerland with the Federal Administrative Court holding that while homosexuality is a criminal offence in Iran, in practice convictions are rare. The Federal Administrative Court held that MI’s sexual orientation was not widely known and so he would be safe in Iran provided that he lived “a life of discretion”. The ECtHR held that the Swiss authorities incorrectly determined that MI faced no real risk of ill-treatment because it was unlikely that MI’s sexual orientation would become known to the Iranian authorities. Further, the Swiss authorities failed to carry out the necessary assessment of the availability of state protection against harm caused by non-state actors (in this case MI’s relatives). The ECtHR went on to hold that it would be unreasonable to expect an LGBTQ person to seek protection from the Iranian authorities.
US President Joe Biden agreed last week to provide Ukraine with anti-personnel land mines as part of their 70th military aid package to Ukraine. The decision represents a significant departure from the Biden-Harris Administration’s 2022 policy which committed to limiting the use of landmines on the grounds that the weapons have a ‘disproportionate impact on civilians, including children, long after fighting has stopped’. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to the US in a video address last Wednesday, stating that the ‘essential’ mines will ‘significantly strengthen troops on the front line’. However, the decision has been met with widespread concern. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines has condemned the decision as ‘unconscionable’, expressing that the ‘human cost of this decision cannot be overstated. Ukraine already faces decades of demining work due to extensive Russian landmine use. Adding new mines to this contamination will only extend the suffering of civilians and complicate post-conflict recovery efforts’.
Uganda opposition leader Kizza Besigye appeared in military court this week after disappearing on November 16th in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi. Last Wednesday, it transpired that he was being held in Ugandan military custody when he appeared before the court charged with national security offences and unlawful possession of firearms. Winnie Byanyima, Besigye’s wife and human rights activist, said in a post on X that Besigye ‘has not owned a gun in the last 20 years’, and, as a civilian, ‘should be tried in a civilian court not a military court’. Human Rights Watch have stated that this is only the ‘latest example of Uganda’s authorities misusing military courts and military-related charges to clamp down on the opposition’. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk has released a statement expressing his ‘shock’ at the ‘abduction’ and the ‘deeply concerning practice in Uganda of prosecuting civilians in military courts, in contravention of the country’s obligations under international human rights law’.
In the Courts
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its decision to issue warrants of arrest for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, alongside Mohammed Deif, Hamas military leader whom Israel claim was killed earlier this year. The decision comes after the dismissal of two challenges launched by Israel disputing the Court’s jurisdiction. The warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant are issued after the Chamber found ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the individuals bear criminal responsibility for alleged ‘crimes against humanity and war crimes’. Netanyahu responded later on Thursday to the news of a warrant being issued against him, claiming that the ICC’s warrant is based on ‘false’ accusations made by ‘biased judges who are motivated by antisemitic sentiments against the one and only Jewish state’, and that ‘no war is more just than the war that Israel has been waging in Gaza’. US President Joe Biden has called the decision ‘outrageous’, stating that ‘whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas’. Downing Street, though declining to comment on the specific case, has indicated that it will fulfil its ‘legal obligations’ as imposed under international law. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, speaking to Sky News, added that it is ‘not really a question of should; we are required to because we are members of the ICC.’
A Wyoming Judge on Monday struck down the State’s ban on abortion – including its explicit ban on abortion pills – following a legal challenge brought by a group of women and non-profit organisations. Melissa Owens, Teton Country district judge, ruled that the ban violated a 2012 state constitutional amendment which enshrined the right of Wyoming citizens to have control over their healthcare decisions. Owens stated in judgment that ‘abortion procedures constitute essential health care for pregnant women’ and that there is ‘no compelling governmental interest to eliminate abortion procedures based on the State’s position that abortions are gruesome and barbaric’. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon announced the day after judgment was handed down that he has instructed the Attorney General to prepare an appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court, whose members were all appointed by anti-abortion Republican governors.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission published its written submissions last week in advance of the Supreme Court hearing in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, in which it has been granted permission to intervene. The case, which is likely to result in a landmark decision on the legal definitions of ‘woman’ and ‘sex’, is due to take place on the 26th and 27th of November. The appeal has been brought by the controversial gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland and contests the lawfulness of Scottish Government guidance which states that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate that recognises their gender as female is to be treated as having the sex of woman. The EHRC’s submissions on appeal take the view that the definition of sex in the Equality Act ‘creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people. […] As the equality regulator, we deem this to be a wholly unsatisfactory situation, which Parliament should address with urgency’. Amnesty International UK, who are also intervening, have stated that they are doing so because they believe ‘it is vital the Court is assisted by submissions setting out why legal gender recognition is a human rights issue and that trans people should not be expected to live without it’. A case note on the decision being appealed this week can be found here on the blog.
This week the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was published, with the second reading vote scheduled for 29 November 2024. The bill would allow terminally ill adults, who have capacity, to request to be provided with assistance to end their own life (clause 1). “Terminally ill” is defined in the bill to mean that the requestor has an inevitable progressive illness that cannot be reversed by treatment and as a result their death can reasonably be expected within six months (clause 2). The requestor would be assessed by two doctors (see clauses 7 and 8) and their request would be subject to approval from a High Court judge (clause 12). The bill confirms that medical workers who object to assisted dying will have no obligation to provide assistance (clause 23). The bill also creates offences of dishonesty, coercion or pressure in relation to requesting assistance (clause 26) and falsification or destruction of documentation regarding requests of assistance (clause 27). The controversial bill has stirred debate regarding the proper balance between bodily autonomy and safeguarding vulnerable people. On this blog, there has been a debate on whether the bill would place the UK in breach of article 2 ECHR (available here and here). There is also discussion of “slippery slopes” ie. whether once the bill has passed assisted dying could be made available to a wider range of requestors and the potential dangers (available here and here).
Last Thursday, legislation providing for safe access zones around abortion clinics came into force. Within these safe access zones, it is now a criminal offence to intentionally or recklessly:
influence any person’s decision to access or facilitate abortion services at an abortion clinic;
obstruct any person from accessing or facilitating abortion services at an abortion clinic; or
cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide or facilitate abortion services at an abortion clinic.
Dame Diana Johnson, Crime and Policing Minister, has stated that she is “confident that the safeguards we have put in place today will have a genuine impact in helping women feel safer and empowered to access the vital services they need”. Last week also saw the introduction of a new preventative duty under the Equality Act 2010 with employers now being required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the sexual harassment of their employees.
In Other News
The Israeli Knesset (Parliament) voted by a 92-10 majority last Monday night to adopt two bills banning the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) from Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and labelling it a terrorist organisation. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “UNRWA workers involved in terrorist activities against Israel must be held accountable. Since avoiding a humanitarian crisis is also essential, sustained humanitarian aid must remain available in Gaza now and in the future”. However, no alternative aid structure has been proposed, leading to serious concerns about the availability of aid in the region. The new laws are likely to have the effect of forcing the closure of the UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem. In response to the vote, UN Security Council President Pascale Christine Baeriswyl has issued a press statement confirming that the members of the Security Council have “underscored that UNRWA remains the backbone of all humanitarian response in Gaza, and affirmed that no organization can replace or substitute UNRWA’s capacity and mandate to serve Palestinian refugees and civilians in urgent need of life-saving humanitarian assistance”. Philippe Lazzarini, UNWRA Commissioner-General, has said that the vote “sets a dangerous precedent” and “will only deepen the suffering of Palestinians” who have already “been going through sheer hell”.
Charity Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised last week a bill under consideration by the Armenian government which is seeking to enforce mandatory video surveillance across the capital city. HRW have stated that the surveillance is “unjustified and interferes with privacy and other rights”, claiming that it would have a “chilling effect on fundamental civil and political rights”. The proposed laws would require private entities to install surveillance equipment and provide police 24/7 access to live video feeds. HRW referred to a 2022 report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age which states that mass surveillance for the purposes of general monitoring, of the same type the proposed bill would introduce, is an “almost invariably disproportionate” interference with the privacy of individuals. The Armenian parliament is expected to have a final vote on the bill before the close of the year.
In the Courts
The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the case of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, confirming that the police do not owe a positive duty of care in law to protect individuals from harm. The facts of Tindall concern a driver who, after hitting a patch of black ice on the A413 and temporarily losing control but escaping serious injury, reported the ice to the police. The police attended the scene but did not take any effective action to remove the danger, resulting in the deaths of two drivers shortly afterwards who collided after skidding on the same patch of ice. While the Court accepted that the actions of the police amounted to a ‘serious dereliction of their public duty owed to society at large’, it was held that public authorities such as the police are not liable for merely ‘failing to protect’ members of the public. The Court interestingly agreed that the police would have been liable had they actively made matters worse; however, this was not the case on the facts. Tindall is the latest in a controversial line of cases denying that the police should owe a legal duty of care to protect individuals from harm as a result of their special status.
Judgment has also been given in Abu Qamar v Secretary of State for the Home Department, a human rights appeal won by a Palestinian student who had her UK visa revoked after making highly controversial comments regarding the 7 October attacks last year. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that the Home Office decision constituted a “disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech” under the ECHR and that the Home Office had failed to show that Abu Qamar’s presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”. The Tribunal referenced the “clearly recognised and fundamental distinction between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Hamas and their actions,” stating that “nowhere” did the appellant “express support for Hamas specifically, or their actions”. In particular, her referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” was said to be “consistent with views expressed publicly by human rights organisations”.
A presumption of anonymity for firearms officers facing criminal proceedings following police shootings, up until the point of conviction.
Raising the threshold for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to refer police officers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) so that only cases with a reasonable prospect of conviction are referred.
A rapid independent review to consider the legal test for use of force in misconduct proceedings and the threshold for unlawful killing in inquests.
An examination of CPS guidance and processing in charging police officers for offences committed in the course of their duties.
Creating a national database of deaths or serious injuries following police contact or pursuits to incorporate the findings into training and guidance.
IOPC victims’ right to review to be placed on a statutory footing.
The Supreme Court has considered what alternative remedies claimants should seek instead of launching judicial review proceedings. Noeleen McAleenon claimed that she suffered physical symptoms and a deterioration in her mental health due to the odours emanating from a landfill site close to her home. She complained to her local council, Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council, and subsequently launched judicial review proceedings alleging that the council failed to conduct a proper investigation of the nuisance odour, as well as making an article 8 ECHR claim. The council argued that Mrs McAleenon should have sought alternative remedies such as a private prosecution or a nuisance claim against the manager of the landfill. The Supreme Court stated that judicial review is less time consuming and expensive than either a private prosecution or a nuisance claim. Either of those options would not provide Mrs McAleenon with remedies as extensive as her judicial review or article 8 claim, with regard to availability and the quantum. Furthermore, it is not appropriate for a public authority to seek to avoid liability by pointing to an alternative defendant, in this case the manager of the landfill.
Last week, the Government published the new Employment Rights Bill – a bill Deputy PM Angela Raynor has said seeks to “turn the page on an economy riven with insecurity, ravaged by dire productivity and blighted by low pay”. Among the measures included are steps towards ending “exploitative” zero-hour contracts, the introduction of a statutory probation period for new hires, and the removal of the two-year qualifying period for claims to unfair dismissal. The bill places significant emphasis on flexible working as the future of employment, stating that it will be “default for all, unless the employer can prove it is unreasonable”. With various aspects of the bill strengthening protections to women in the workplace, Jemima Olchawski, CEO of the Fawcett Society, has called the bill “a win for women”. However, the bill is not without its critics. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite union, claimed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill has “more holes than Swiss cheese”, leaving loopholes for employers to evade the provisions on zero-hour contracts and fire & rehire. Whistleblowing charity Protect have also expressed regret that the bill does not go far enough to strengthen protections for whistleblowers.
The Tory leadership race continued last week as the candidates were whittled down to a final two: Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, both considered to be on the right of the party. Membership of the ECHR has become an increasingly central issue in the race. While Jenrick has promised to leave the ECHR immediately if ever elected PM – calling the issue one of “leave or remain” – Badenoch told Sky News she believes that focusing on the ECHR “shuts down the conversation we need to have with the entire country” about migration. Both candidates have been the subject of criticism for comments made during the party conference. Jenrick, in support of his campaign to leave the ECHR, has controversially claimed that special forces are opting to kill instead of catch terrorists as otherwise the “European Court will set them free”. The charity Action on Armed Violence have stated that Jenrick’s comments “do a disservice to the serious allegations at hand” in the inquiry into SAS killings in Afghanistan, which must be “allowed to proceed without political interference”. Badenoch has come under fire for comments insinuating that maternity pay is “excessive” and that “about 5 to 10%” of civil servants are so bad that they “should be in prison”. She has backtracked on both fronts, claiming her comments were “misrepresented”.
In Other News
A UN report published last Thursday – three days after the one-year anniversary of the October 7th attacks – contains findings that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system”, committing war crimes in doing so. The report further states that Israeli security forces have “deliberately killed, detained and tortured medical personnel”, with children having “borne the brunt” of the health system’s “collapse”. It was further found that the “institutionalised mistreatment” of Palestinian detainees had taken place under direct orders from Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israeli National Security Minister. On Friday, in a statement from its mission in Geneva, Israel took strong objection to the report, calling its conclusions “outrageous” and a “blatant attempt to delegitimise the very existence of the State of Israel and obstruct its right to protect its population, while covering up the crimes of terrorist organisations”. Israeli representatives have accused the commission behind the report, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, of creating an “alternate reality” and refused to cooperate with the investigations preceding the report’s compilation.
On Wednesday, the United Nations Human Rights Council in their 57thsession adopted a resolution on Afghanistan in response to the escalating crisis in the country, extending the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan. The report resulting from resolution 54/1 to carry out a “stocktaking” of accountability options on Afghanistan was also presented at the session. The report detailed a variety of recommendations to Afghan de facto authorities, including the establishment of a moratorium on executions and the implementation of victim-centred transitional justice measures. While Amnesty International celebrated that the stocktaking marked the “first time in recent years that the UN is debating how to address serious accountability gaps”, the measure was nevertheless “inadequate” in the face of the crimes under international law being committed in Afghanistan. Amnesty also criticised the resolution adopted this week, claiming the council have “shied away from sufficiently supporting justice for the people of Afghanistan who have placed their hopes in the international community” by failing to establish an independent international accountability mechanism.
In the Courts
Last week, the European Court of Justice ruled that European Member States are obligated to recognise legal gender identity changes conducted in other Member States. The Court held that Romania’s refusal to recognise the applicant’s UK Gender Recognition Certificate constituted a violation of his right to move and reside freely within the Member States of the European Union. In a press release accompanying the ruling, the CJEU stated that “gender, like a first name, is a fundamental element of personal identity; […] a divergence between identities resulting from such a refusal of recognition creates difficulties for a person in proving his or her identity in daily life as well as serious professional, administrative and private inconvenience”. The applicant’s legal counsel, human rights lawyer Iustina Ionescu, told charity Transgender Europe that the “verdict has shown that trans people are equal citizens of the European Union”.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Cyprus’ immediate return to Lebanon of Syrian asylum seekers intercepted at sea constituted a violation of their human rights – in particular, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. There had also been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of the collective expulsion of aliens). Cyprus had failed to consider the risk of lack of access to asylum in Lebanon, the risk of refoulement, and the individual situations of the asylum seekers. The Court paid significant attention to a Human Rights Watch report published in September 2020 which revealed systematic mistreatment of asylum seekers by Cypriot authorities. The report had been referenced in the applicants’ arguments and was not challenged by counsel for the Government. Cypriot Government spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis has stressed that the events concerned occurred in 2020, under the previous administration, and has denied the allegation that the government has been carrying out further refugee pushbacks since the ruling.
At least 39 people were killed and over 3000 injured last week following a series of attacks in Lebanon and Syria in which electronic pagers and radios were remotely programmed to explode. The devices targeted appear to be those belonging to Hezbollah-affiliated individuals. The military group has claimed Israel was behind the attacks which UN experts have termed “terrifying” violations of international law. Amnesty International has called for the establishment of an immediate international investigation – arguing that the attacks “should be investigated as war crimes” should Israel be determined to be responsible. However, Israeli President Isaac Herzog has stated that the nation “rejects out of hand any connection” to the explosions. The attacks are deepening concerns about the risk of full-scale regional war breaking out in the Middle East, resulting in the calling of an emergency Security Council meeting on Thursday. Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the US Department of State, suggests that it is “too early to say” how this week’s events will impact Gaza ceasefire talks.
Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been given a six-month suspended sentence following his pleading guilty in July to the making of 41 indecent images of children. The ‘making’ of images can include the opening of attachments or downloading from the internet. Following the sentence, Claire Brinton, Specialist Prosecutor at the CPS, stated: ‘This prosecution sends a clear message that the CPS, working alongside the police, will work to bring to justice those who seek to exploit children, wherever that abuse takes place.” However, the sentence has been widely criticised as overly lenient, including by Reform UK Deputy Leader Richard Tice who has written to the Attorney General willing him to appeal the sentence. Various reports have featured lawyers explaining that such a sentence is not unusual given the offence and Edwards’ lack of priors, emphasising that “Mr Edwards fared no better and no worse in this sentencing exercise than he would have done were he not a well-known news presenter”. Opinions are surfacing that the public outrage in response to what is a regular sentence exposes deeper issues within the criminal justice system.
Proposed amendments to the Iraqi Personal Status Law, rowing back several aspects of women’s rights, passed a second parliamentary reading on Monday. The law will soon be put to a final vote. The amendments seek to lower the legal age of marriage for girls to nine years, remove important rights of women in divorce and inheritance settings, and grant religious authorities further command over family matters. Human Rights Watch have noted that “Article 14 of the Iraqi constitution, as well as international human rights law, guarantee all Iraqis the right to legal equality. This amendment would not just undermine this right; it would erase it”. Iraqi women are leading the charge against the amendments, including Noor al-Jilaihawi – an Iraqi MP who has revealed that the parliament’s president refused to acknowledge a request by 124 MPs (over a third of parliament) to remove the reading from Monday’s agenda. On Sunday, the Supreme Judicial Council of Iraq came out in support of the proposed amendments and stressed their view that the amendments would not infringe upon women’s rights.
In the Courts
Last week, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the Northern Ireland Troubles reconciliation law breaches human rights. The controversial first instance judgment in Dillon and others v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland disapplied large portions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 for contravening the Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, a post-Brexit measure ensuring that the UK does not erode the human rights protected within the Good Friday Agreement. While the Act had intended to facilitate the end of legal proceedings relating to the Troubles, it has been met with consistent opposition from victims. The Court of Appeal held the Act to be unlawful on various grounds, including that it seeks to create an immunity for criminal activity related to the Troubles and that it fails to sufficiently safeguard victims. The new Labour Government have suggested they intend to repeal several key features of the Act.
Former Tory MP Owen Paterson has lost his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court declined to grant the declaration sought that the parliamentary investigation into Paterson’s conduct whilst MP was unfair and procedurally flawed. The former MP resigned in 2021 following an investigation and final report which recommended his suspension for an ‘egregious’ breach of lobbying rules. The Court found that the inquiry had been “fair, rigorous and thorough” and emphasised it was not for courts to interfere with the “business of Parliament” – such as how standards are enforced. The Court were further unable to attribute Paterson’s claimed £120k per annum financial losses to the investigation since “as he himself resigned from the House of Commons before the house could consider whether or not to apply the recommended sanction [of suspension], neither the loss of his seat nor the loss of income from his position as an MP were a necessary consequence of the investigation”.
The European Court of Human Rights also handed down judgment last week in Pindo Mulla v Spain, holding that the administration of blood transfusions to a Jehovah’s Witness against her will “breached her right to autonomy”. There had consequently been a violation of her Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Although it was found that the situation had arisen out of improper documenting of Ms Pindo Mulla’s wishes not to receive blood, the Court emphasised that in all cases, “a patient’s autonomy was to be reconciled with their right to life”. As to the documentation, it was underlined that “where a State [has] decided to put in place a system of advance medical directives relied on by patients, it [is] important that the system functions effectively”. Speaking to AFP, Pindo Mulla said she was “very happy that justice has been done” and seemed hopeful that the ruling would “allow the rights of other people to be respected in the future.”
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has just published the newest edition of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide. The guide covers all the stages of judicial review proceedings, and is available here, for the perusal of practising and aspiring lawyers (as well as interested others).
In international news
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organisation has criticised the inadequate international response to the conflict in Sudan. Since April 2023, over 20,000 have been killed and over 10 million people are displaced, while 25.6 million people (around half of Sudan’s population) are facing high levels of food insecurity. Ghebreyesus has called for an immediate ceasefire with a lasting political solution as well as a scale up in the delivery of humanitarian aid. Human Rights Watch have published a report about the flow of foreign arms which are sustaining the fighting. Human Rights Watch have traced the weapons to China, Russia, Iran, Serbia and the United Arab Emirates, and argue that weapons such as armed drones, rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles have been used in attacks against civilians. Human Rights Watch is calling for an arms embargo for the entirety of Sudan, and a sanction regime to punish those violating the existing arms embargo on Darfur.
The High Court has quashed the grant of planning permission for a new coal mine at Whitehaven, Cumbria. The Secretary of State had previously admitted an error of law as the downstream emissions caused by the inevitable burning of the extracted coal were not factored into the Environmental Impact Assessment, thus the appeal was litigated by the mine owner West Cumbria Mining. The High Court did not accept the argument that coal mined in Cumbria would substitute coal extracted elsewhere to meet market demand, or the argument that the mine would have a “net zero” impact because West Cumbria Mining pledged to purchase carbon credits.
A contractual dispute between Tesco, the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, and a small group of Tesco’s employees has shone a new light on controversial “fire and rehire” practices. In 2007, Tesco closed down some of its distribution centres and opened new ones in new locations. To persuade staff to relocate they offered enhanced pay referred to as “retained pay”. Employees were told that the retained pay was permanent. In January 2021, Tesco decided to “phase out” the retained pay in exchange for a lump sum, and told employees that if they did not did not accept this change their contracts of employment would be terminated and they would be rehired on new contracts with the retained pay removed. The Supreme Court held that there was an implied term, required for business efficacy, that Tesco could not terminate the employees’ contracts to rehire them without the retained pay. The mutual intention of the parties was that the retained pay would serve as an inducement for experienced workers to relocate and this would be undermined if Tesco had the right to unilaterally remove the retained pay at any time for its business purposes.
Following May’s High Court judgment finding former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s protest regulations unlawful, human rights organisation Liberty claimed last week that the Home Office has decided to continue its appeal. The case, spearheaded by Liberty, sought to challenge the lowering of the threshold for “serious disruption” during protest from “significant” and “prolonged” to “more than minor” by statutory instrument – which opponents claim is an abuse of secondary legislation. Despite the new Labour government initially pausing the former Tory government’s plans to appeal, Liberty have stated that the Home Office have recommenced the appeal after talks to resolve the dispute failed. The director at Liberty, Akiko Hart, has said she believes the legislation to be “undemocratic, unconstitutional and unacceptable” and that the decision to appeal shows “disregard for the rule of law”. Liberty have stated that the appeal will be heard later this year, with a date yet to be confirmed. A spokesperson for the Home Office has said that “the right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, and all public order legislation must balance this right. However, we disagree with the court’s ruling in this case and have appealed their decision.”
Scotland’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has claimed that the country’s “broken” prison system results in inmates being “set up to fail”. Having stepped down from her role at the end of August, Wendy Sinclair-Giebens expressed concerns about the state of Scottish prisons: “The prison service is underfunded and under-resourced for what the public and judiciary expect of it, yet it’s a very big organisation having to deal with the most marginalised, violent and mentally ill in society”. She revealed there is a pool of inmates unable to move further towards parole due to the “huge” waiting lists for the mandatory behavioural programs. The news follows a 2023 ruling by an Irish judge barring the extradition of a man to Scotland on the basis of a “real and substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment”, largely a result of the overcrowding of Scottish prisons. The ruling was, however, later overturned on appeal following express assurances from the Crown Office in Edinburgh that the prison would implement a tailored care plan for the respondent. Last week also saw the release of 477 Scottish prisoners as part of an emergency scheme to ease prison overcrowding as Scotland’s justice secretary revealed the prison population has risen by 13% in the last year.
The annual report of the Committee on Fuel Poverty published last week has revealed that fuel poverty is “flatlining rather than falling”. Despite a reduction in fuel poverty of 40% between 2010 and 2019, the last five years has not seen fuel poverty fall “to any meaningful extent”. The government has identified the groups at highest risk of being unable to afford energy and “living in a cold home” as those living in the private rented sector, ethnic minority households, and households using pre-payment meters – the government has emphasised the importance of aligning fuel poverty mitigation measures with wider equality goals. The report follows the controversial announcement by the new Labour government that universal winter fuel payments to pensioners will be scrapped. The energy minister, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has been conducting meetings to consider support measures for households experiencing fuel poverty. The annual report emphasises that it “is not defeatist. The Committee believes fuel poverty can be beaten. But for too many low-income households, the unaffordability of bills, especially in the coldest months, is all too real. We foresee that targeted financial support, possibly including the use of social tariffs, for vulnerable and low-income households may be needed for some years to come.”
In International News
A new “morality” law introduced by the Taliban last week has been met with condemnation by the UN and various human rights organisations. Titled “The Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law”, the law seeks to prevent leading men into “vice” by requiring women to be completely veiled in public. Women are also prevented from singing or reading aloud where they could be heard by a non-family member, as well as looking directly at men to whom they are not related. The laws state that “whenever an adult woman leaves her home out of necessity, she is obliged to conceal her voice, face, and body”. The Chief Spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that the law “effectively attempts to render [women] into faceless, voiceless shadows” and called for its immediate repeal. The head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, Roza Otunbayeva, said that the law reveals a “distressing vision” of the country’s future by extending “the already intolerable restrictions on the rights of Afghan women and girls”. The law comes in defiance of Security Council Resolution 2681 (2023) which called on the Taliban to “swiftly reverse its policies and practices restricting women and girls’ enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms”. It has been reported that Afghan women are posting videos online of themselves singing in protest against the new restrictions.
A UN report published on Friday has further exposed the ongoing human rights violations in Libya. The accompanying press release slams the “lack of accountability and years of impunity” by those committing the violations as further fuelling instability in the country. The report investigates unlawful killings, torture, kidnappings, and sexual violence committed by Al-Kaniyat – a local militia who have conducted what has been termed by the UK Government a “reign of terror” in the region of Tarhuna. The report reveals “serious violations of international humanitarian law”, calling for accountability, the delivery of justice, and effective reparations for victims. The report argues that “leaving root causes and drivers of conflict unaddressed […] will serve to fuel toxic cycles of violence and revenge between communities.” The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed a similar sentiment, stating that “the impunity must end – there must be accountability in accordance with international due process and fair trial standards.”
The Swiss Federal Council voted last Wednesday to affirm Switzerland’s rejection of the groundbreaking KlimaSeniorinnen ECHR judgment from last April, which found that Switzerland was breaching human rights through climate change inaction. Despite previous calls by the dominant party – the Swiss People’s Party – for Switzerland to leave the Council of Europe, the Swiss Federal Council instead reaffirmed in a press release that “the ECHR and membership of the Council of Europe, whose fundamental values of the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law include, remain of great importance to Switzerland”. However, it was added that “the case law must not lead to an extension of the scope of the ECHR”. The move has been criticised by the Center for International Environmental Law as an “embarrassment” for Switzerland, who it claims have missed an opportunity to “strengthen its climate policy in accordance with undisputed science”.
The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, has published a report which found that black children are four times more likely to be strip searched compared to national population figures. The report analysed a dataset of all the strip searches conducted by all 44 police forces in England and Wales from January 2018 to June 2023. The report found that in almost half (45%) of the strip searches an appropriate adult was not confirmed to be present and the youngest child searched was eight years old. The majority (88%) of searches were conducted on suspicion of drugs and in 47% of cases the search resulted in “no further action”. The Commissioner argues that this calls into question their necessity and that strip searches should only be carried out on children where there is a clear and immediate risk of harm to themselves or others.
The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has announced new measures to significantly increase the removal of failed asylum seekers. These measures include recruiting 100 specialist intelligence officers to the National Crime Agency to disrupt human smuggling gangs, new measures to target employers who hire illegal workers, and increasing capacity at the Campsfield and Haslar Immigration Removal Centres.
In international news
The Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) has passed legislation to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) making Ukraine a state party. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has stated that the move shows Ukraine’s “unwavering commitment to strengthening international justice” and to work effectively with the ICC to “ensure comprehensive accountability for all Russian atrocities committed in the course of Russian aggression”. The ratification of the Rome Statute is also a requirement for Ukraine to join the European Union, as set out in the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The ICC has so far issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin, Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, former Minister of Defence Sergei Shoigu, and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of Defence Valery Gerasimov.
The UK government has lost an appeal against the decision that it cannot restrict the movement of asylum seekers who inadvertently arrived at the Diego Garcia military base. In October 2021, 47 Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers, including a number of children, were rescued at sea by the Royal Navy and brought to the military base which is classified as a British overseas territory. Since then they have been restricted to a small area of the island due to the “operational, security, health and safety risks” if they were granted freedom of movement. The court rejected the government’s grounds of appeal, inter alia, that the judge acted unreasonably in failing to place adequate weight on the authorities security concerns. This long-standing litigation has been followed and reported by Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon), and his commentary is available here.
The Federal Court of Australia has determined that Australian case law has consistently held that sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”. Ms Roxanne Tickle, a trans woman, sued Giggle for Girls, a social media app for communication between women, alleging unlawful gender discrimination when she was barred from having an account on the app. The court held that the claim of indirect gender discrimination succeeds, as to gain access to the app users had to send a selfie and the reviewer determined that Ms Tickle did not have the appearance of a cisgender woman.
Riots continued throughout the UK last week, sparked by the attack and murder of 3 children in Southport on July 29th. The riots have been linked to a widely circulated online rumour falsely identifying the perpetrator as a Muslim asylum seeker. UK Chief Executive for Amnesty International, Sacha Deshmukh, has stated the riots to be caused at root by “racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia”. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called the rioting an “assault on the rule of law and the execution of justice” and made clear that those involved will not “be allowed to hide behind the legitimate right to protest”. The Crown Prosecution Service revealed on Friday via a post on X (formerly Twitter) that 159 individuals have been charged in connection with the “violent disorder” across the country, with a total of 741 arrests having been made. The news follows Justice Minister Heidi Alexander’s announcement that the process of opening 500 prison places for those involved in the riots is underway.
On Friday, the UK Government announced fresh sanctions against Belarus in response to ongoing human rights violations in the country. The sanctions have been announced on the four-year anniversary of the “deeply flawed” 2020 presidential elections in Belarus; elections which Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated have resulted in “over 40,000 citizens arrested on trumped up political charges, civil society and independent media trampled and a regime with no regard for democracy or human rights”. The Viasna Human Rights Center, a Belarusian NGO, claims that as of August 11, Belarus holds 1385 political prisoners including journalists and human rights activists. The new sanctions raise the total number against Belarus to over 200 individuals and entities. The announcement also revealed a funding package of £2.5 million to support human rights and civil liberties in Belarus.
In Other News
Unrest continues in Venezuela following the contested re-election of President Nicolas Maduro on July 28th. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has published a statement arguing that there is “overwhelming evidence” that the opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, was the true victor. The statement cites the fact that the opposition have published over 80 percent of the tally sheets from polling stations across Venezuela showing Urrutia to have won by an “insurmountable margin”, further corroborated by exit polls. The announcement of Maduro’s re-election sparked protests across the country which have continued into this week. In a press conference on Tuesday, Maduro announced that over 2229 individuals had been arrested in connection with the protests, calling those involved “terrorists”. In a press conference last week, a spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk expressed concern over the “numerous cases of arbitrary detention”, including that of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders, children, and journalists. Amnesty International sent an open letter on Friday to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court calling for his “resolute and immediate action” against the crimes being committed under international law by Venezuelan authorities. Amnesty argue in the letter that the ongoing “tragedy is a consequence of the impunity for serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity that Maduro’s government has been committing for years.”
Reports have surfaced that in only two days last week, Iranian authorities executed a minimum of 29 individuals. The UN Office of the High Commissioner have verified that a further 38 people were executed in Iran over the course of July, raising the total for 2024 thus far to 345. The Office raised concerns in particular about the “lack of due process and fair trial standards”, with several executions occurring with “neither the prisoner’s family nor legal counsel being informed”. NGO Iran Human Rights has reported that 26 men were executed in a group hanging outside Ghezelhesar Prison – an execution the scale of which has been unparalleled since 2009. Amnesty have revealed that at least one of the prisoners executed in the spree was imprisoned in connection with the Woman Life Freedom protests that erupted following the murder of Mahsa Amini in 2022.
The Bulgarian Parliament passed an anti-LGBT amendment last Wednesday to the country’s education laws, banning the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one.” The amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority with 159 votes in favour and only 22 against. LGBT rights group Forbidden Colours have stated they believe the move represents Bulgaria “adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook”, a development they call “deeply troubling”. The organisation have also raised questions about the swiftness with which the amendment occurred, both readings occurring on a single day – raising “serious concerns about the legislative process and the intent behind such haste”. A spokesperson for the EU Commission told POLITICO last Thursday that while the EU is aware of the amendment, they were unable to comment. The spokesperson however reiterated that the Commission “remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling discrimination, inequalities and challenges faced by LGBTIQ individuals.”
In the Courts
Last Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court rejected Shamima Begum’s permission to further appeal the removal of her British citizenship. Ms Begum appealed on four grounds: trafficking, invoking Article 4 ECHR; deprivation of the right to make representations; a failure to ensure good community relations, required per s.149 of the Equality Act; and de facto statelessness. Permission to appeal was refused on all four grounds, concluding that “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”. In response to the ruling, Maya Foa, director of human rights NGO Reprieve, has stated that “exiling British nationals like Ms Begum is about politics, not the law”. The decision signifies the exhaustion of Ms Begum’s legal remedies in the UK. However, Ms Begum’s lawyers told the BBC that they intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The Dublin High Court found last week that the Irish Government’s treatment of asylum seekers breaches the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell stated in judgment that in failing to support the accommodation needs of applicants for asylum, “the State has breached the rights of those persons as provided for in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” – the right to human dignity. It was held that central to respecting the human rights of asylum seekers is the maintenance of “an adequate standard of living which guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health where they do not have the means to provide for themselves”.The judgment has been welcomed by the UN Refugee Agency, who have now called on the Irish Government to take “immediate action”. The Court did, however, decline to grant the mandatory orders sought by the applicants, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, on the basis that it was not satisfied that there was evidence the Government would ignore its obligations.
US federal judge Mark Walker ruled last Thursday in Claire v Florida DMS that Florida’s ban on transgender healthcare access for state employees violates their civil rights. Florida has had a categorical ban on coverage of healthcare for “gender reassignment or modification services or supplies” of state employees for decades, which has now been found to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a form of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex since it denies transgender employees coverage for medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria. Quoting a judgment from 2020, Judge Walker reiterated that “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex” as “the first cannot happen without the second”. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the judgment in a press release, with Staff Attorney Samantha Past stating that “discrimination has no place” in Florida. The ACLU “are hopeful that this decision will encourage a commitment from the state to treating members of the transgender community with the respect they deserve”.
The King’s Speech on Wednesday opened the first session of the new parliament, announcing 40 bills – the highest number announced in a King’s Speech since 2005. The bills announced included several relating to human rights, such as a Victims Bill, Mental Health Bill, and two draft bills – one on Race and Disability, predominantly concerning the right to equal pay, and another on Conversion Practices, seeking to ban conversion therapy. Several bills make provisions to combat violence against women and girls. A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission responded to the announcements, welcoming the ‘positive developments for equality and human rights’, emphasising that the watchdog ‘stands ready to provide government and Parliament with advice as the detail of all the proposed legislation is developed’. In contrast, the organisation Human Rights Watch have suggested that the new Government’s vision ‘falls short’ in key areas, calling for ‘bolder action’ to secure better living standards for British citizens.
Last Tuesday, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act came into force, making Scotland the first UK country to incorporate the children’s rights charter into national law. While the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that certain provisions of the original bill passed by the Scottish Parliament exceeded its legislative competence, subsequent amendments to the bill enabled a revised version to pass last December. Now that the Act is in force, all Scottish public authorities are under a direct legal duty to consider and promote children’s rights in policy decisions. The Act also improves children’s ability to enforce their rights in the courts. An announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice reads: “The Act is a landmark piece of legislation that incorporates the UNCRC into Scots law, empowers our children and young people to claim their rights and will help to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up”.
Following the new Government’s statement that the Rwanda Plan is ‘dead and buried’, £84 million of funding has been announced to ‘address the reasons for illegal migration’. The funding package will support projects in Africa and the Middle East in an attempt to ‘tackle illegal migration at source’. The announcement acknowledges the roots of illegal migration in conflict, climate change, and more, emphasising that the funding will be utilised to build resilience against such events. Initiatives are targeted towards skill-building, education, and employment. The funding will also support refugees hosted in countries within their home region with the aim of allowing their return home when conditions improve, as well as supporting reintegration of refugees in their home nations. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “Our package of up to £84 million will improve education, boost employment and build resilience to conflict and climate change across the Middle East and North Africa – to help bring down migration figures whilst improving lives for the world’s most vulnerable people.”
In Other News
As the Paris Olympics approach, the conversation regarding France’s hijab ban has resurfaced. Though originally announced in September 2023, the ban, prohibiting France’s athletes from sporting any form of religious headwear, has received fresh criticism in the form of a report published last week by Amnesty International. While Amélie Oudéa-Castéra – France’s Minister for Sport – stated that the ban has been imposed in line with the country’s principle of secularism, Amnesty have claimed the ban makes a ‘mockery’ of claims by the International Olympic Committee that Paris 2024 is the ‘first gender-equal Olympics’. The human rights organisation noted that the official Olympic Charter states that “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement”, a sentiment they claim is in manifest contradiction with the hijab ban. “Amnesty International believes that when the world will be watching its athletes compete for medals and exercising their right to practice sport without discrimination, it should also cast a critical eye on the Olympics host country, which does not apply Olympic values to everyone”.
In the Courts
On Friday, the International Court of Justice published its Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court made several seminal conclusions, finding that:
Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories is unlawful;
That Israel is under an obligation to therefore end its unlawful presence as soon as is possible;
That Israel is obliged cease all settlement activities and evacuate all settlers;
That Israel is obliged to make reparations for any damage eventuating from its unlawful presence;
And that all other States, alongside international organisations, are obliged not to assist the ongoing presence of Israel in the Occupied Territories, nor recognise it as legal.
The Court recalled its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which found that Israeli settlements were established and maintained in breach of Israel’s international legal obligations. The Court expressed grave concerns that in the years since, the Israeli settlement policy has continued to expand. The Court noted that a variety of Israeli legislation and administrative measures relating to its occupation treated Palestinians differently without justification or legitimate aim. This finding led the Court to conclude that the Israeli regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories constituted ‘systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin’ in violation of a variety of international conventions. Vital to the Court’s determination was the finding of the ‘prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination’, a right the Court viewed as ‘fundamental’. However, Judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu issued a joint opinion stating that they could see ‘no legal connection whatsoever’ between the Palestinian right to self-determination over the territories and the extension of the illegality of Israel’s occupation. Judge Sebutinde’s dissenting opinion was the subject of discussion by legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, who has expressed the view that litigation ‘will not bring peace to the Middle East’.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday that the failure of Latvian authorities to bring charges for a homophobic hate crime constituted a breach of ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Given that the assailant had admitted to police the use of homophobic slurs and personal homophobic beliefs that ‘clearly’ motivated the attack, the Court found that the proceedings brought against him, culminating only in a ‘manifestly lenient fine’, breached Mr Hanov’s human rights. The Court expressed the view that the actions of the Latvian authorities ‘fostered a sense of impunity for hate-motivated offences. […] Failure to address such incidents can normalise hostility towards LGBTI individuals, perpetuate a culture of intolerance and discrimination and encourage further acts of a similar nature’.
Since coming into power in the recent general election, PM Keir Starmer has announced that the Rwanda asylum scheme is “dead and buried”. The announcement was made as three claimants, known only as SM, SY and YXY, were challenging their imminent removal to Rwanda on a flight scheduled for 24 July. On 09 July, the High Court held a case management hearing in which barristers acting for the government confirmed that no removal flights to Rwanda were planned and the three individuals’ asylum claims would be processed in the UK. However, the barristers did not confirm the government’s wider position on the Rwanda policy, and the impact on asylum seekers whose claims were classified as inadmissible for processing in the UK under the Rwanda policy. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has sent a list of recommendations to the new government. These include repealing the Illegal Migration Act 2023, resisting the “externalisation” of asylum processing to third countries, and streamlining the asylum process to tackle the backlog of asylum claims.
Despite media speculation and the urging of leading lawyers, the new government has not announced whether or not it will continue the UK government’s intervention in the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s decision regarding arrest warrants against Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant. The UK government seeks to argue that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israeli individuals because the Oslo Accords state that Palestine does not have criminal jurisdiction over Israeli individuals and so cannot delegate criminal jurisdiction over Israeli individuals to the ICC. The UK government does not recognise the State of Palestine. The ICC has given the UK government until 26 July to provide their full submissions.
In international news
Amnesty International has published a report analysing what it argues is a decline in protest rights in 21 European countries. The report argues that many European countries have been cracking down on protest rights through “the passing of repressive laws, establishment of onerous procedural obligations, imposition of arbitrary or discriminatory restrictions, racist policing and the use of unnecessary or excessive force against peaceful protestors, arbitrary interferences including the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of protesters, as well as increasing use of invasive surveillance technology”. Amnesty International comments that those most impacted by these measures are groups already facing discrimination in society due to, among other things, race, religion or immigration status.
In the courts
The High Court has allowed University of Birmingham and University of Nottingham to evict Palestine solidarity protesters who had set up camps on university campuses. The court held that the protesters have no real prospect of establishing discrimination on the grounds of their beliefs, a breach of the public sector equality duty, a breach of section 43 Education (No.2) Act 1986 (which ensures freedom of speech in universities), or European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights. The court held that there were many other ways in which the students could have chosen to protest and so the severity of the impact on their rights by removing the encampment “does not (by a significant margin) come anywhere close to outweighing the importance of the objective of the University being able to regain possession of its own land”. The court therefore gave the universities a summary possession order, which allows them to evict the protest camps without a full trial.
In W.W. v Poland, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the refusal to allow a transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison amounted to a violation of her Article 8 right to a private life. Ms W.W. is a trans woman who was undergoing a gender reassignment procedure since 2019 while detained in prison. When she was transferred to a different prison in 2020, the head of the prison’s medical unit refused to allow her to continue hormone therapy without additional medical tests and failed to organise prompt appointments with specialist doctors. The ECtHR held that the freedom to define one’s gender identity is “one of the most basic essentials of self-determination” and the prison official’s requirement that Ms W.W. should undergo further consultations, after she had already started a beneficial course of treatment, was disproportionate in the circumstances. In the UK, the advocacy group TransActual is currently challenging the emergency ban on the use of puberty blockers as medication for trans children, arguing that the ban was based on the Secretary of State’s personal view rather than expert or medical evidence.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council & Ors is already being felt. In ongoing litigation regarding the approval of a coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government conceded the legal challenges. The Secretary of State admitted that an error was made as the downstream emissions caused by the inevitable burning of the extracted coal were not factored into the Environmental Impact Assessment. However, litigation may continue as the other defendant in the case, West Cumbria Mining, does not agree with the Secretary of State’s position.
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