‘There are mixed reactions in the press to a ruling by European judges over what has been dubbed the “right to be forgotten” on the internet.’
BBC News, 14th May 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
A (Respondent) v British Broadcasting Corporation (Appellant) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
‘This appeal related to whether the Scottish Courts took the correct approach to prohibit the publication of a name or other matter in connection with court proceedings under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and whether the court’s discretion was properly exercised in this case. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal by the BBC.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th May 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On 26 March 2014 the Supreme Court gave a lengthy judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, running to 248 paragraphs. The Supreme Court decision is full of surprises. The Court decided to depart from the arguments of the parties- the majority insisted that common law rights rather than the Human Rights Act were the key to the case; and then embarked on an extended and wide ranging obiter discussion of public law issues, revealing further disagreements between the Justices.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th April 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘How can a society balance both the freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press, with the individual’s right to reputation? Defamation law seeks to address precisely this delicate equation. Especially in the age of the internet, where it is possible to publish immediately and anonymously, these concerns have become even more pressing and complex. The Defamation Act 2013 has introduced some of the most important changes to this area in recent times, including the defence for honest opinion, new internet-specific reforms protecting internet publishers, and attempts to curb an industry of “libel tourism” in the U.K.’
OUP Blog, 14th April 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The former Premier League footballer Colin Kazim-Richards was found guilty in a landmark case on Wednesday of making an “utterly disgusting” homophobic gesture at Brighton and Hove Albion fans during a football match last year.’
The Guardian, 9th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘If your memory is sufficiently jogged, you may recall the recent case of a female defendant who refused to remove her full-face veil in court. It prompted a predictable outbreak of public indignation and liberal soul-searching. The question boiled down to this: could, or should, an English court accommodate a woman who hid her face, citing religious precepts, in a country where the face and facial expression are regarded as key to identity?’
The Independent, 7th April 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘When a religious believer wears a religious symbol to work can their employer object? The question brings corporate dress codes and expressions of religious belief into sharp conflict. The employee can marshal discrimination and human rights law on the one side, whereas the employer may argue that conspicuous religion makes for bad business.’
OUP Blog, 26th March 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The Law Commission is recommending that a new online service be established to help journalists and publishers reporting criminal trials discover whether reporting restrictions are in force and, if so, why. The service would be open to all publishers, from large media organisations to individual bloggers.’
Law Commission, 26th March 2014
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
‘Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch). The Chancery Court has ruled that Convention rights may be engaged in disputes between private landowners and trespassers, thereby making it incumbent on the court under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to balance the trespassers’ rights under Article 8 against the landowner’s rights under Article 1 Protocol 1.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In one sense, the possession claim in Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch) follows a fairly predictable course. The Defendants were a group of activists who had set up camp on Barton Moss Lane, Manchester, in protest at the drilling program being undertaken by a company, Igas Energy plc. The Claimants had granted Igas a licence to drill on the land nearby and the protest was intended to deter the controversial fracking process which the activists feared would ensue.’
NearlyLegal, 16th March 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In the second part of her article reviewing reporting restriction orders and the new transparency Mary Lazarus, barrister of 42 Bedford Row, considers those cases involving aggrieved parties and cases with international implications.’
Family Law Week, 4th March 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘It was lawful that a journalist’s assistant who was thought to harbour state secrets in electronic form against the wishes of Britain and a foreign power should be stopped and held at an airport on the basis that investigating him amounted to determining whether he was a terrorist under section 40(1)(b) of and paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The daughter of musicians Ray Davies and Chrissie Hynde has been found guilty after supergluing herself to a fellow anti-fracking protester outside the main gate of an exploratory oil drilling site.’
The Guardian, 24th February 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Divisional Court’s decision in the David Miranda case has provoked much controversy and debate about freedom of the press and national security issues. About halfway through his judgment, Laws LJ makes a number of comments about the justifications for freedom of expression and media freedom. While these may not be the most pressing or immediately important issues raised by this particular case, it is worth noting what Laws LJ says at paras [41-46] as he seems to move away from what has been something of an orthodoxy in the British and European jurisprudence – the importance placed on the democratic justification for expression.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd February 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The High Court has rejected all the arguments supporting David Miranda’s application for judicial review of his detention at Heathrow Airport in August last year. In a highly readable and pungent judgment, Laws LJ has some robust things to say about the vaunting of journalistic interests over public security in the guise of Article 10, and the “mission creep” of requirements demanded by the courts for state action to be considered “proportionate”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘David Miranda has lost his legal challenge over his detention at Heathrow Airport under anti-terrorism powers.’
BBC News, 19th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Can the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) be used to prevent a respected NGO from reporting allegations of corruption by a multi-billion dollar international mining conglomerate? That is the stark question posed by Steinmetz and others v Global Witness Limited, a recently issued High Court DPA Claim.’
Panopticon, 10th February 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The comedian who is said to have invented the quenelle gesture, which is seen by many as anti-semitic, has been banned from entering the country as Nicolas Anelka could be given a five match ban.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024