‘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
‘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
‘The risk businesses face from litigation is changing as artificial intelligence (AI) tools become more popular. Businesses need to recognise this and consider the different kinds of risks associated with AI technology and how they might give rise to liability.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th February 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘A teenager trapped in Gaza and separated from his parents has brought an urgent legal challenge against the UK Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) after the government refused entry clearance for him to join his family in the UK.’
The Guardian, 6th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The risk businesses face from litigation is changing as artificial intelligence (AI) tools become more popular. Businesses need to recognise this and consider the different kinds of risks associated with AI technology and how they might give rise to liability.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th February 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Divisional Court (Lady Justice Laing and Mrs Justice Heather Williams) confirmed in R (Castellucii) v The Gender Recognition Panel and the Minister for Women and Equalities [2024] EWHC 54 (Admin) that the Gender Recognition Panel has no power under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to issue a Gender Recognition Certificate that records an applicant’s gender as “non-binary”. It also held that this did not breach any of the Claimant’s rights under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th February 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The recently announced plan to increase the minimum income requirement (MIR) to £38,700 led to widespread criticism, with the government appearing to exclude all but the affluent from establishing family life in the UK. This has led to a partial policy shift, with it now announced that the threshold to sponsor a spouse will not rise to this amount until 2025, with an interim rise to £29,000 taking place in the Spring. Nonetheless, even this lower amount will be unaffordable to many families, raising questions about the compatibility of the rise with Convention rights. In R (MM) Lebanon v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 the Supreme Court found that the initial MIR, set at £18,600, was lawful. In this post, I will highlight two key problems with the judgment, along with the failure of the MIR to restrict the social security entitlement of many affected families: the MIR’s primary justification.’
EIN Blog, 31st January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘The recently announced plan to increase the minimum income requirement (MIR) to £38,700 led to widespread criticism, with the government appearing to exclude all but the affluent from establishing family life in the UK. This has led to a partial policy shift, with it now announced that the threshold to sponsor a spouse will not rise to this amount until 2025, with an interim rise to £29,000 taking place in the Spring. Nonetheless, even this lower amount will be unaffordable to many families, raising questions about the compatibility of the rise with Convention rights. In R (MM) Lebanon v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 the Supreme Court found that the initial MIR, set at £18,600, was lawful. In this post, I will highlight two key problems with the judgment, along with the failure of the MIR to restrict the social security entitlement of many affected families: the MIR’s primary justification.’
EIN Blog, 31st January 2024
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘As the dust settles on another year, it is (just about still) time to look back over the year gone to review some of the most dramatic, legally interesting or impactful cases of the year gone by. As ever, this is only a selection of the top cases of the year, but as a whole they reveal yet another year in which the courts have been drawn into the centre of the most important social and political debates of the society in which they find themselves.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th January 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.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
‘Graham Phillips, the Claimant, is a British national and video blogger who posts content from the Donbass dressed in Russian military fatigues. He says he is a journalist who provides a “counterbalance” to widespread western misunderstanding of the true situation in Ukraine but the Administrative Court disagrees. On 12 January 2024, it handed down judgment in R (Phillips) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin), in which it upheld the Government’s view that the Claimant is a propagandist for Russia who is lawfully subject to a sanctions regime which allows the state to freeze his assets.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th January 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘When Ismael found himself sleeping rough at York station in the late October cold he struggled to understand how an opportunity to pick berries 7,000 miles from his home had so quickly ended there.’
The Guardian, 26th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In a December 2023 decision, the UK Supreme Court sought to clarify how courts should use their remedial discretion to make mandatory orders against local authorities. In doing so, the Court arguably made the right to be provided with housing (in the form of suitable accommodation) a justiciable right for certain categories of homeless persons.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 23rd January 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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
‘Ministers have been accused of watering down guidance around new buffer zones outside abortion clinics in England and Wales, after it emerged campaigners could still be allowed to conduct silent prayers and approach women attending clinics to discuss the issue.’
The Guardian, 17th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘One of England’s highest performing state schools, famed for its top results, strict discipline code and charismatic headteacher, has been challenged in the high court for its policy of banning prayer rituals on school premises.’
The Guardian, 16th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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
‘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
‘The government has admitted that Rwanda still has “issues with its human rights record” despite claims by Rishi Sunak that it is a safe country.’
The Guardian, 11th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On 21 November 2023, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Deliveroo case, dismissing the appeal of the IWGB trade union. The Court confirmed that the union is not entitled to apply for statutory recognition under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”) because its members, Deliveroo’s delivery riders (“the Riders”), are not workers within the autonomous concept under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).’
Cloisters, 27th November 2024
Source: www.cloisters.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025