‘The UK government’s controversial Rwanda legislation that deems the African country as a safe place to deport people to is fundamentally incompatible with Britain’s human rights obligations and places it in breach of international law, according to a damning parliamentary report.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Police will be given powers to arrest protesters who wear face coverings to threaten others and avoid prosecution, and pyrotechnics will be banned at protests.’
Home Office, 8th February 2024
Source: www.gov.uk
‘The UK government’s proposals to send asylum seekers arriving to the UK onto Rwanda continue to spark intense opposition.’
EIN Blog, 6th February 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPPs) were abolished in 2012. However, this abolition did not apply retrospectively to prisoners already serving IPPs. Recent prison population data on IPPs has shown over 1,200 prisoners have never been released. This briefing examines concerns raised by campaign groups, professional bodies and international partners about the impact of IPPs on prisoners’ release prospects and mental health.’
House of Lords Library, 6th February 2024
Source: lordslibrary.parliament.uk
‘Baroness Hale revealed her “true colours” by voting against the Rwanda Bill, according to former leader of the Commons Jacob-Rees-Mogg, who yesterday called for the “politicised” Supreme Court to be emasculated.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th February 2024
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Domestic Homicide Reviews will be renamed to Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews following calls to better recognise deaths from domestic abuse related suicide.’
Home Office, 5th February 2024
Source: www.gov.uk
‘A proposed amendment to English law could stop innocent people being imprisoned under the controversial joint enterprise doctrine.’
The Guardian, 1st February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 29 January 2024, having cleared the House of Commons unamended. There are a great many problems with the Rwanda Bill, any of which might weigh with the Lords, but this blog post focuses on just one: the likelihood that, if enacted, the Bill may well trigger a constitutional crisis between the courts and Parliament. It would be a crisis that is likely to endure beyond the life of the policy embodied in the Bill. I argue here that one of the roles of the House of Lords is to act as a constitutional safeguard, a steam-valve, and, in exercise of this function under the rare circumstances that attend this Bill, it would be legitimate for the Lords to not only make and insist upon far-reaching changes to the Bill, but even to refuse to pass it altogether. This post is not concerned with the realpolitik of whether peers would in fact vote the Bill down – though I come to the point in the conclusion. It rather seeks to refute the constitutional argument that it would be illegitimate to block or make potent amendments to it.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘UK ministers will aim to stop firms from skirting around an upcoming ban on disposable vapes by eliminating ruses such as attaching charging points to them, the health secretary has said.’
The Guardian, 29th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Fake reviews and unavoidable hidden online charges – which cost consumers £2.2bn a year – are to be banned under new laws to force businesses to be more clear with shoppers.’
The Guardian, 24th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK government is once again navigating legal and political hurdles over its plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The latest debate is over the emergency bill that legally declares Rwanda a safe place to send refugees (despite the supreme court ruling the opposite).’
EIN Blog, 23rd January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Children will be better protected from sexual abuse following change to the law making it easier to prosecute criminals who have had sex in front of children for gratification.’
Ministry of Justice, 18th January 2024
Source: www.gov.uk
‘Some commentators have claimed that the decision to expedite the process of formally exonerating the sub-postmasters potentially runs afoul of certain core constitutional principles, in particular the separation of powers. It has also been claimed that the “crown does not have a prerogative of justice but only a prerogative of mercy”. This blog considers and challenges those claims.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 16th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The government is expected to back making stealing cats and dogs a specific criminal offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.’
BBC News, 19th January 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A leading lawyer who sits in the Lords has warned that Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill is “a step toward totalitarianism”.’
The Independent, 18th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The courts “could cope” with a large volume of criminal appeals in the wake of the Post Office scandal, the Lady Chief Justice told MPs yesterday.’
Legal Futures, 17th January 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Members of Parliament in the UK will on 16 and 17 January 2024 debate the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which “gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country” for asylum-seekers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was manifestly not safe as asylum seekers sent to the country would face a real risk of ill-treatment due to insufficient guarantees against refoulement. The Bill thus aims to use law to determine a factual situation for as long as the law is in force. This blog discusses the risks inherent in creating such a “legal fiction” and how the Bill could be revised to mitigate this risk, before assessing the chances of it becoming law in the currently turbulent political context.’
EIN Blog, 16th January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The new Rwanda deal proposed by Rishi Sunak’s government is still “not compatible” with international refugee law, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) said. The UNHCR has published its legal assessment of the bill designed to allow Britain to send asylum seekers who arrive illegally in the UK to Rwanda.’
The Independent, 16th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Last year’s Supreme Court decision in R (AAA) v Home Secretary – which found the British government’s Rwanda policy to be unlawful – has reignited broader debates about the position of a government which commands a majority in Parliament vis a vis the judiciary, the separation of powers, the extent to which legislating against judicial decisions is constitutionally proper or compatible with the rule of law, and the appropriateness of disapplying sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). This post does not restate or reengage with such topics; substantive attention has already been given by Tom Hickman KC, Professor Mark Elliott, Adam Tucker, Professor Sarah Singer, and Richard Ekins KC et al. Neither does it take a position on the feasibility or desirability of any specific government policy, the continued operation of HRA 1998, or membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Instead, this post will argue that the backlash to and disapproval of the British government’s response to R (AAA) – the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which, amongst other measures, allows Parliament to diverge from the Supreme Court’s judgment – neatly evidences the intended effect of New Labour and Lord Derry Irvine’s HRA 1998 system and judicial reforms.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th January 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024