What You Should Know About The UK’s 14-Day Quarantine Rule – Each Other

‘As many Britons bask in a summer heatwave, Kylie Neuhaus will remain housebound for the next week or else she could face a fine of up to £1,000.’

Full Story

Each Other, 24th June 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

Machine Learning in Healthcare: Regulating Transparency – UK Human Rights Blog

‘PHG, linked with Cambridge University, provides independent advice and evaluations of biomedical and digital innovations in healthcare. PHG has recently published a series of reports exploring the interpretability of machine learning in this context. The one I will focus on in this post is the report considering the requirements of the GDPR for machine learning in healthcare and medical research by way of transparency, interpretability, or explanation. Links to the other reports are given at the end of this post.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Racism and the Rule of Law – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted June 19th, 2020 in equality, human rights, news, police, race discrimination, racism, rule of law by sally

‘The Black Lives Matter movement illuminates an incontrovertible chasm in the application of the rule of law in liberal democracy. The basic premise of the rule of law, which in Joseph Raz’s conception is that it should be capable of guiding behaviour, includes the necessary restriction on crime-preventing agencies from perverting the law. A society in which those tasked with upholding and applying the law – under the powers of stop-and-search and arrest – are instead themselves regular perpetrators of racist discrimination and violence, is one in which the rule of law is at best a randomised hope that is more or less likely to be realised depending on the race of the citizen in question.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, June 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Temporary Exclusion Orders and the Right to a Fair Hearing in the UK – Oxford Human Rights Hub

Posted June 17th, 2020 in closed material, disclosure, human rights, judicial review, news, terrorism by sally

‘In QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020], the UK High Court reached a landmark preliminary decision that ECHR Article 6 applies to the judicial review of obligations imposed under a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO). The Court further held that the claimant is entitled to the level of disclosure outlined in SSHD v AF (No 3) [2009]. This judgement sets a welcome precedent for applying Article 6 to closed material proceedings under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It is also consistent with the procedural protections applied to the former regime for control orders, now succeeded by TPIM notices. The reasons given for applying the AF (No 3) standard of disclosure, however, demonstrate the persistence of a limited and discretionary approach to disclosure obligations in national security litigation.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 4th June 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Re C – appeal about a hybrid hearing – Transparency Project

‘The issue was that the case required a resumption of a finding of fact hearing and that the leading barrister for the children’s mother was “shielding” so could not attend court in person with her client. The mother appealed a decision in the High Court by Mr Justice Williams that the hearing go ahead in June as a “hybrid” hearing i.e. with some parties and lawyers in the court room and others online.’

Full Story

Transparency Project, 12th June 2020

Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk

Jason Varuhas: Evidence, Facts and the Changing Nature of Judicial Review – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted June 16th, 2020 in disclosure, evidence, human rights, judicial review, news by sally

‘ It is received wisdom, oft-repeated in judgments and textbooks alike, that the judicial review procedure is not an apt forum for the testing of evidence and resolution of disputed questions of fact. For example, it is commonly stated that disclosure and oral evidence will only be ordered rarely, while one would be lucky to find ‘expert evidence’ mentioned in an administrative law text. In contrast disclosure, oral evidence and expert evidence are par for the course in ‘ordinary’ civil proceedings.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th June 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

When does a crime cause “serious harm”? Court of Appeal considers the application of Article 8 to foreign national offenders – UK Human Rights Blog

‘This judgment concerns the definition of “an offence that has caused serious harm” for the purpose of an appeal against deportation on private and family life grounds under Article 8. In this set of cases, the Court of Appeal took a broad view as to the meaning of this provision, but also held that there must be evidence that the offender has actually caused serious harm.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th June 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Protesting During a Pandemic: What Are Your Rights? – 3PB

‘The general rule is that everyone has the right to associate with others and to gather together for a common purpose. Article 11 of the ECHR safeguards our right to peaceful assembly and is one of the foundations of a democratic society. This means that the State cannot interfere with your right to join a peaceful assembly and protest, even if the protest is against the State itself, or simply because the protest might cause inconvenience or lead to heated debate and tension. Article 11 does not safeguard intentionally violent protests; the State can interfere where a protest turns violent.’

Full Story

3PB, 4th June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Detention, Damages and Draft Remedial Orders: a look at the Strasbourg case law behind the proposal to amend the Human Rights Act – UK Human Rights Act

Posted June 12th, 2020 in chambers articles, damages, detention, human rights, news, ultra vires by sally

‘When a provision of legislation is held to be incompatible with a Convention right, a Minister of the Crown “may by order make such amendments to the primary legislation as he considers necessary”. This power to take remedial action, contained within section 10 of the Human Rights Act (HRA), applies when a domestic court finds an incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and also when the Minister considers a provision of legislation incompatible with the Convention “having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights” (ECtHR). A recent draft remedial order laid before Parliament aims to remedy an incompatibility of the latter kind, following the ECtHR’s judgment in Hammerton v United Kingdom no. 6287/10 ECHR 2016. The draft remedial order is of particular interest because it purports to amend the Human Rights Act itself.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Act, 11th June 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Universities Investigate Adverts On Channel 4 Show That ‘Dehumanised’ Traveller Community – Each Other

‘Three universities are investigating how their adverts appeared on a Channel 4 documentary accused of “dehumanising” the Traveller community.’

Full Story

Each Other, 11th June 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

COVID-19 and the Right to Protest – St John’s Buildings

‘Criminal barrister Rebecca Penfold has co-authored an article with Aparna Rao of 5 Paper Buildings about Covid-19 and the right to protest. It asks what rights do individual citizens have to protest, whilst subject to lockdown restrictions in England?’

Full Story

St John's Buildings, 3rd June 2020

Source: stjohnsbuildings.com

A Local Authority v AG [2020] WLR(D) 201, [2020] EWFC 18 and A Local Authority v AG (No 2) [2020] EWHC 1346 (Fam) – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted June 11th, 2020 in chambers articles, children, diplomats, human rights, immunity, news by sally

‘Jo Delahunty QC has recently acted for the children in an ongoing case involving diplomatic immunity and child protection matters. In this article one of our current pupils, Hannah Whitehouse, summarises the judgments of Mr Justice Mostyn in A Local Authority v AG [2020] WLR(D) 201, [2020] EWFC 18 and A Local Authority v AG (No 2) [2020] EWHC 1346 (Fam) which grapple with the interplay between Part IV of the Children Act 1989 and the seemingly conflicting duties imposed by the Vienna Convention 1961 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 in decisions which are likely to be significant and have wide-reaching implications.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 3rd June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Calls For Reform After Nurse With PTSD Endures Stop And Search ‘Torture’ – Each Other

‘“The last 14 months were like torture,” said nurse Neomi Bennett on her fight to clear her name after being convicted of obstructing a police officer during a stop and search last year.’

Full Story

Each Other, 10th June 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

Absence of shielding QC “does not make in-person hearing unfair” – Legal Futures

‘A QC’s inability to attend court in person because she is shielding, unlike the other counsel in a case, will not make the hearing unfair, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 10th June 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Whitehall held secret review into 15 possible cases of torture or rendition – The Guardian

‘Fifteen potential cases of torture or rendition involving British intelligence at the height of the “war on terror” were examined last year in a secret Whitehall review, whose existence was revealed in court proceedings on Tuesday.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 9th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

The end of remote voting in Parliament: a backwards move? – Cloisters

‘On 21 April, the House of Commons passed a motion approving the introduction of “hybrid proceedings” to minimise the need for physical attendance in Parliament during the coronavirus lockdown. Since then, electronic voting has been facilitated to allow MPs to participate remotely in parliamentary votes (“divisions”). MPs cast their first remote vote on 12 May. However, the provision for remote voting has now lapsed. On 2 June, MPs are being asked to approve a motion which would make it mandatory for them to attend Parliament in order to participate in divisions. The proposal has caused consternation for MPs who are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus, or who live with vulnerable family members, as well as adverse comment from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.cloisters.com

Anti-racism Protests: What Are Your Rights Amid The Pandemic? – Each Other

‘Anti-racism protests are taking place across the UK to demand justice following the death of George Floyd, the unarmed black man killed in US police custody.’

Full Story

Each Other, 5th June 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill: The Struggle to Balance Legislative Protection With Civil Liberties By Paul Canfield – Broadway House Chambers

‘As the Government unveils a new Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, this article briefly looks at the struggle to balance legislative protection with civil liberties in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in R v Adams (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) [2020] UKSC 19.’

Full Story

Broadway House Chambers, 29th May 2020

Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk

Watering down children’s rights – Doughty Street Chambers

‘This post, written by a member of the Doughty Street Chambers’ Children’s Rights Group, raises questions about the necessity and proportionality of the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. It suggests that the Regulations are likely to breach the UK’s international human rights commitments at a time when children need such protections more than ever.’

Full Story

Doughty Street Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

After Elgizouli: what does the judgment mean for mutual legal assistance? – 6KBW College Hill

Posted June 4th, 2020 in death penalty, EC law, human rights, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 10, a seven-Justice Supreme Court held that the provision of material by way of mutual legal assistance to the US for the prosecution of Shafee El Sheikh and Alexanda Kotey, without obtaining an assurance that the evidence would not be used in a death penalty trial, was unlawful. The consequences of this judgment, both generally and specifically for Mr El Sheikh and Mr Kotey, are unknown. Where does it leave the provision to the US of further material in relation to these two individuals? In what circumstances could the UK government truly claim to be satisfied that the transfer would be lawful? Only a careful reading of this judgment can assist, and even then such assistance may be limited.’

Full Story

6KBW College Hill, 1st June 2020

Source: blog.6kbw.com