‘A court ruling has given hope to thousands of migrants, including health and care workers, that they will no longer have to pay visa and NHS surcharge fees if they cannot afford them.’
The Guardian, 21st May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Government lawyers have rejected a claim brought by eight Commonwealth army veterans, dismissing their allegations that, on discharge, officials failed to assist them with complex, unaffordable immigration rules, leaving them classified as illegal immigrants.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Terrorism suspects who have not been convicted of any offence face expanded and potentially never-ending measures to control their lives under proposed counter-terrorism laws unveiled by the UK government.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Up to 1,500 primary schools in England are expected to remain closed on 1 June after a rebellion by at least 18 councils forced the government to say it had no plans to sanction them.’
The Guardian, 19th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) is a condition imposed on an individual’s immigration status in the UK, which prevents them from accessing certain benefits and forms of support. This continues to cause concern and particularly more so now for those whose income has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. This article will form part of a series of 3 articles on public funds and the recent developments in light of the Coronavirus outbreak.’
Richmond Chambers, 15th May 2020
Source: immigrationbarrister.co.uk
‘A millionaire businessman is launching legal action against the government after it refused to disclose minutes of the Sage meetings that informed its decision to impose the coronavirus lockdown.’
The Guardian, 16th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Teachers can legally refuse to return when schools reopen unless they get the same protections against coronavirus as other frontline staff, one of the UK’s leading teaching unions has warned.’
The Guardian, 14th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The government acted unlawfully when it refused to compensate two low-income households left up to £180 a month out of pocket when their legacy benefits were wrongly stopped and they had no choice but to move on to universal credit, the appeal court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 12th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Lawyers for an eight-year-old British boy have won a ruling that a Home Office policy denying families like his access to the welfare safety net is unlawful.’
The Guardian, 7th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, Lord Wilson calls the European Court on Rights out on its claim that in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867, it was doing no more than “clarifying” its judgment in N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39 as to the circumstances in which removal or deportation will breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Close readers of the judgment in Paposhvili will be well aware of the numerous points at which the court uses, it is hard to doubt, intentionally, the very same language as is used in N to come to different conclusions.’
No. 5 Chambers, 29th April 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘The long anticipated judgment in Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department was handed down by the Supreme Court on the 25th March. The Court held that it was not the common law but rather a failure by the Home Secretary to consider his duties under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) that rendered the decision of the then Home Secretary- Sajid Javid- to hand over evidence to US authorities unlawful. While others have commented on the DPA aspect of this case (see here, here, and here), this post touches on the common law strand. However, rather than interrogating the Court’s decision, here I discuss the under-examined issue of rationality, arguing that the factual matrix of the case warranted a greater examination of the Home Secretary’s decision.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 6th May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 29 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of AM(Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC. This completes the domestic line of authority grappling with the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium, which reformulated the applicable test where appellants allege that their proposed removal to a third country would be in breach of Article 3 ECHR as exposing them to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of the unavailability of medical treatment there.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd May 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘A High Court judge has sent ministers a copy of a ruling in which he expressed concern at a “nationwide problem” of the very limited capacity in the children’s social care system for young people with complex needs who need secure care.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The family of a mentally ill man who starved to death after his benefits were cut have applied for a judicial review of government policy.’
BBC News, 1st May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The government is facing a challenge to the legality of the coronavirus lockdown by a wealthy businessman who fears it will kill more people than it saves.’
The Guardian, 1st May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This appeal related to the UK’s ability to deport a Zimbabwean citizen who, whilst being lawfully resident in the UK, had committed serious crimes. He sought to challenge the decision to deport him on the basis of ECHR, article 3. Being HIV positive, he argued that if deported he would be unable to access the medication he receives in the UK and which prevents his relapse into AIDS.’
UKSC Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Lawyers and campaigners have expressed concern about a large backlog of unresolved Windrush cases, revealed in fresh Home Office figures, two years after Amber Rudd resigned as home secretary amid the emerging scandal.’
The Guardian, 30th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On Thursday (23 April), the couple launched a legal challenge against the government’s guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE), which they argue exposes them to coronavirus infections.’
Each Other, 28th April 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘As we watch the Covid-19 pandemic unfold our attention is naturally on the steps that HM Government (“HMG”) is taking to mitigate the immediate crisis. The time is approaching, however, when it will be necessary to evaluate HMG’s preparation for, and response to, the pandemic. Calls are being made by the TUC and doctors’ groups for a public inquiry into one aspect of its response, namely failures to procure adequate personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for NHS staff, at least 100 of whom are believed to have died having contracted the virus while treating patients. HMG is accused of failing to respond to a national exercise in 2016 testing the UK’s resilience to a similar flu pandemic which highlighted an increased need for ventilators. Other criticisms go further. This blog argues that the state owes a duty under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate some deaths caused by Covid-19. This duty will require not only inquests into individual deaths but also a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to address those systemic issues not suitable for determination by an inquest. The post builds on and responds to posts by Conall Mallory, James Rowbottom and Elizabeth Stubbins Banes. It also foreshadows the need for reform in this area.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The government will attempt to push back a legally binding deadline for the completion of an independent review of Prevent, the programme that aims to stop people becoming terrorists, the Guardian understands.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025