‘She claimed it was discrimination and a breach of her human right to respect for her private and family life not to take the description ‘father’ off the children’s birth certificates.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st April 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Birdseye and another v Roythorne & Co and others [2015] EWHC 1003 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 169
‘It remained the case that a person had to establish as a prima facie case that he was a beneficiary before there could be any question of the court requiring a trustee or executor to disclose documents which would be protected by privilege if the applicant were not a beneficiary.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘HM Courts & Tribunals Service explain how the forthcoming changes will affect the divorce process in England and Wales.’
Family Law Week, 15th April 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Supreme Court, 26th March 2015
‘Department of Health v. Information Commissioner et al [2015] UKUT 159, 30 March 2015, Charles J read judgment Simon Lewis requested that the Department of Health supply him with copies of the ministerial diary of Andrew Lansley from May 2010 until April 2011, via a Freedom of Information request. Mr Lewis’s interest in all this is not revealed in the judgment, but I dare say included seeing whether the Minister was being lobbied by private companies eager to muscle in on the NHS in this critical period. But such is the nature of FOIA litigation that it does not really look at the motive of the requester – and this case does not tell us what the diary showed. Indeed by the time of this appeal, Lewis was untraceable, and the burden of the argument in favour of disclosure was taken up by the Information Commissioner.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th April 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In a useful policy document explaining internal processes within the UK Visas and Immigration department of the Home Office, it is confirmed that applicants for EU free movement documents such as residence certificates, residence cards and family permits do NOT have to use the forms provided by the Home Office.’
Free Movement, 9th April 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Serious questions about the fitness of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to investigate far-reaching allegations of police corruption have been raised by a former member of the Macpherson Inquiry. The judge’s investigation is said to have been misled by Scotland Yard about the extent of corrupt police involvement in the 1993 investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.’
The Independent, 12th April 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In the first of a new series of quarterly round ups, Kathryn Taylor reviews some of the key decisions of the family court since December 2014, with a particular emphasis on Local Authority failings.’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th March 2015
Source: www.no5.com
Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015 published
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
‘On Thursday 26th March the Supreme Court concluded, to the delight of The Guardian and the dismay of the Prime Minister, that communications between Prince Charles and government Ministers – the so-called ‘black spider memos’ – should be released. This has been a long saga, involving issues of freedom of information, discussion of constitutional conventions surrounding the behaviour of a Monarch in training, which now also includes the principle of legality and the nature of the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Such a cornucopia of delights for constitutional lawyers guarantees that the case has earned its place in the ‘Constitutional law Case list Hall of Fame’, with the promise of further delight as the memos, once released and savoured, cast an insight into the relationship between the Crown and the Government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 31st March 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On Friday, 27th March, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which will be as much of interest to public lawyers as information rights practitioners alike. Evans, a journalist for the Guardian newspaper utilised the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to seek the disclosure of letters sent by Prince Charles to seven government departments between September 2004 and March 2005. The departments refused to disclose the letters (so-called “black spider” memos on account of the Prince’s handwriting) on the basis that they were exempt from doing so. In their view the letters represented private correspondence which effectively allowed the Prince to prepare for “kingship.” Evans subsequently complained to the Information Commissioner who upheld the refusal before appealing to the Information Tribunal. The Tribunal held that many of the letters should be disclosed as they constituted “advocacy correspondence.”’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 31st March 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Samuel Littlejohns, pupil at 1 Hare Court, examines whether the very fact that a party consulted a lawyer at a given time is privileged information, and the practical consequences of this for practitioners.’
Family Law Week, 27th March 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A law student cleared of plotting a terror attack is to be sentenced for possessing a bomb-making manual.’
BBC News, 1st April 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The first of the eight trials involving journalists alleged to have paid money to public officials for private documents and due to take place between now and September, has been adjourned at the Old Bailey.’
The Independent, 31st March 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘And so, the long legal saga of the Black Spider Letters finally comes to a close.
I last blogged about this case back in October 2012. At that time, the Attorney General had ignited controversy by invoking a little-known power under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21 has received vast amounts of media coverage – more in a single day than everything else about FOI has received in ten years, I reckon. No need to explain what the case was about – the upshot is that Rob Evans gets Prince Charles’ ‘black spider’ letters. Here’s why.’
Panopticon, 26th March 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The UK supreme court has cleared the way for the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles to British government ministers, declaring that an attempt by the state to keep them concealed was unlawful.’
The Guardian, 26th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The supreme court will rule on Thursday on whether highly sensitive secret correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers should at last be released in the public interest.’
The Guardian, 25th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A factory worker who stole restricted documents about British nuclear submarines and tried to sell them to an eastern European government has been jailed for four and a half years.’
The Guardian, 25th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The High Court has found part of the Tier 1 Entrepreneur rules to be irrational in the case of R (on the application of Sabir & Ors) & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 264 (Admin). Despite succeeding on part of the challenge, though, the case ultimately failed because there were other parts of the rules that the claimant has also been refused under and which the claimant failed to convince the judge were unlawful.’
Free Movement, 23rd March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024