‘Did the pre Localism Act 2011 succession rules for a secure tenancy amount to a breach of article 8 and 14 (private life and non-discrimination), and if so, should a declaration of incompatibility be made if the Housing Act 1985 could not be read compatibly? This was the issue in this appeal.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This report sets out the government’s position on the implementation of human rights judgments from the European Court of Human Rights and our domestic courts.’
official-documents.gov.uk, 18th November 2016
Source: www.official-documents.gov.uk
‘The recent Supreme Court Case of R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2016] UKSC 56, appears at first glance to be a straightforward human rights claim. Lady Hale, giving the agreed judgment of the court, concluded that Johnson’s Convention rights had been breached. Because of the specific nature of the challenge brought by Johnson, the breach of his Convention rights could be remedied by quashing a decision of the Home Secretary. However, Lady Hale then went on to discuss whether a declaration of incompatibility should still be made, concluding that paragraph 70 of Schedule 9 of the Immigration Act 2014 was incompatible with Convention rights, and therefore ‘[t]he court will make a declaration to that effect, although it is not necessary to do so in order to dispose of this case.’ This calls into the question the nature and role of human rights adjudication: should courts merely provide remedies for those whose rights have been infringed, or should they also prompt action to remedy potential infringements of rights, or both?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th October 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Andrew Powell, barrister, 4 Paper Buildings, reviews recent important judgments concerning surrogacy law.’
Family Law Week, 29th June 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘In this talk we introduce you to some of the concepts that you need to be familiar with when dealing with human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) as incorporated into our domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”).’
Falcon Chambers, May 2016
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Catriona Stirling considers the case of Z (a child) (No.2) [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam), in which Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, has made a declaration under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) that s. 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) is incompatible with Article 8 together with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
Cloisters, 26th May 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Z (A Child) (No 2) [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam) 20 May 2016. The Court of Protection has granted an order for a declaration of incompatibility with Convention rights of a section in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act on grounds of discrimination.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th May 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Surrogacy laws which prevent single people from claiming parental rights are set to change following a ruling by the Family Division of the High Court.’
BBC News, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘On Tuesday the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000 and, while upholding the lawfulness of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st January 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A key clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson, has declared as part of a court of appeal judgment.’
The Guardian, 19th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Two men who served long sentences before their convictions were overturned have lost High Court actions in their fight for compensation.’
BBC News, 8th June 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Two MPs have been given the green light to legally challenge the government over the introduction of legislation which gives police and security services access to people’s phone and internet records.’
The Guardian, 8th December 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Paragraph 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was not incompatible with article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 12th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The European court of human rights (ECHR) is to investigate British laws that allow GCHQ and police to secretly snoop on journalists. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has gone straight to Strasbourg in a bid to get a finding that domestic law is incompatible with provisions in European law which give journalists the right to keep sources confidential from police and others.’
The Guardian, 15th September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The statutory blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, where a declaration of incompatibility had already been made in other proceedings and the matter was under active consideration by Parliament, a further declaration of incompatibility, being a discretionary remedy, was not appropriate.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Counsel for the defendant in this recent case, heard at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, provided a skeleton argument on the morning of the hearing, ignoring the set aside (it being conceded there was no merit in this) but rather arguing that the Court’s lack of discretion to delay execution of a possession order by over six weeks was incompatible with Article 8. It followed that he was seeking a transfer to the High Court for declaration purposes (CPR 30.3(2)(g)).”
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Supreme Court, 24th April 2013
“When can an agricultural landlord turf out his tenant farmer? The answer to this question has ebbed and flowed since the Second World War, but one element of the latest attempt by the Scottish Parliament to redress the balance in favour of tenants has just been declared incompatible with Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) as offending landlords’ rights to property. The Supreme Court has so ruled, upholding the Second Division of the Court of Session’s ruling in March 2012.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Swift v. Secretary of State for Justice, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2013. Ms Swift lost her live-in partner in an accident at work caused by negligence. She was pregnant with her partner’s child, but had only been living with him for 6 months. Had she been with him for 2 years, she could have claimed damages for his death under section 1(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act – set out at [1] of the CA judgment. She would then have been a ‘dependant’ as defined under the FAA. So she argued that her rights under Articles 8 (family) and 14 (discrimination) of the ECHR were not properly respected by the law governing damages for the death of a relative – there was no justification for this stark cut-off – 1 year 11 months no claim, 2 years a claim. The judge refused to grant a declaration of incompatibility between the ECHR and the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Court of Appeal has just upheld his decision.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A blind stroke victim has made a claim for compensation after he was shot in the back with a 50,000-volt Taser stun gun by a police officer who mistook his white stick for a samurai sword.”
The Guardian, 10th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024