‘Amnesty International has published a stark rebuke of the UK government’s stance on human rights, saying that it is “speeding towards the cliff edge” in its policies on housing and immigration, and criticising its seeming determination to end the legal right for the public to challenge government decisions in court.’
The Guardian, 7th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In Lancashire Festival of Hope with Franklin Graham Limited v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor [2021] Manchester Cty Ct F00MA124, the Court was asked, in effect, to rule on whether or not a charitable limited company could be regarded as having “human rights” for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation and the ECHR.’
Law & Religion UK, 6th April 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘The Home Office’s refusal to disclose the number of women who, like Shamima Begum, have been deprived of their British citizenship after travelling to join Islamic State is under investigation by the information commissioner.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the “HRA”) is currently being reviewed by the Government’s Independent Human Rights Act Review (the “Review”). One of the Review’s key themes is “the impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature”. In respect of this theme, the Terms of Reference ask how s.3 has operated and whether it should be amended or repealed.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In 1975, at the height of Cold War tensions, leaders of the United States, Canada and all European countries sat down together in Helsinki, Finland. Their main aim was discuss how to improve relations between different factions of the world when a global armed conflict felt dangerously close.’
Each Other, 23rd March 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘A blind woman who was sent a shielding letter she could not read has won “promising” commitments from the government after a legal challenge.’
BBC News, 19th March 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An employer’s compulsory retirement scheme requires the dismissal of an employee for no other reason than the employee has attained a specified retirement age. The retirement age may be fixed in the terms of the contract of employment, a staff handbook, a collective agreement, or other regulations that determine the rules governing a particular retirement age. Although compulsory retirement used to be lawful, since 2011 the position in the United Kingdom (UK) is that an employee dismissed in accordance with an employer’s policy of a compulsory retirement age can bring a claim either for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or (for workers as well as employees) for age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Following Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, an employer can justify the age discrimination of a compulsory retirement age as a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim, such as preserving the promotion prospects of younger staff or the avoidance of intrusive surveillance of the job performance of older staff.’
UK Labour Law Blog, 17th March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘Organisers of a vigil in response to the disappearance of Sarah Everard are going to the High Court after police said gatherings would be “unlawful”.’
BBC News, 12th March 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Halcrow & Ors v Crown Prosecution Service [2021] EWHC 483 (Admin), Maryam Halcrow, Angel Grace and Lisa Mead were Pagans of various traditions. All three had been convicted by Swindon Magistrates’ Court of entering the stone circle at Stonehenge on 4 February 2018 and 6 May 2018 without reasonable excuse, contrary to regulation 3(h) of the Stonehenge Regulations 1997 and s.19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, and had been sentenced to a conditional discharge. Their appeal to the Crown Court was dismissed [1 & 2].’
Law & Religion UK, 11th March 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘In Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) & Others v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221 the Court of Appeal examined the principles to be applied when a party seeks an adjournment because a witness is unable to attend the trial due to ill-health.’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th March 2021
Source: www.no5.com
‘Are Uber drivers ‘limb (b) workers’ and so entitled to fundamental statutory rights such as the minimum wage and working time protections? In a decision of fundamental significance, six Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that the drivers were ‘limb (b) workers. In reaching this conclusion, the UKSC endorsed the ‘purposive’ approach that had been set down in the earlier case of Autoclenz v Belcher by Lord Clarke.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission for Shamima Begum to return to the UK. The Supreme Court judgment in the high-profile case of the British woman who left the UK as a 15-year-old girl to travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State, however, resulted in the Court effectively washing its hands of the case staying it until a full hearing can occur in future—a remote possibility. In the judgment, Lord Reed held the Court of Appeal was in error by substituting its own view of the balance to be struck between national security and the applicant’s rights. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment due respect. In this brief post, I wish to focus on a principal aspect of the Supreme Court’s judgment: the concept of deference.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Ms Shamima Begum was born and raised in the UK. She was a British citizen at birth and at age 15 she travelled to Syria with two friends and soon afterwards she married an ISIS fighter and is currently detained in poor conditions in the Al-Roj camp run by the Syrian Democratic Forces. She now wishes to return home to the UK to have a fair and effective appeal. She was deprived of her British citizenship on 19 February 2019 because the SSHD believed that her return would present a risk to national security. She applied for leave to enter (LTE) the UK so that she could pursue an appeal against the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the only way Ms Begum, can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the UK to pursue her appeal. King, Flaux and Singh LJJ found that fairness and justice must – on the facts of her case – outweigh any national security concerns. But in a twist of fate, the Supreme Court unanimously held in favour of the SSHD and found that the right to a fair hearing does not trump everything else, such as the public’s safety. The court took the view that if a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. Therefore, her deprivation appeal should be stayed until she can play an effective part in it without compromising the public’s safety.’
EIN Blog, 7th March 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘In A and B (Minors: placement, faith) [2021] EWHC 455 (Admin), two brothers of a family of Charedi Jews in north Manchester, acting through their uncle and litigation friend M, challenged Manchester City Council’s decision to offer them respite placement in Birtenshaw, a secular residential home in Greater Manchester, instead of in Bayis Sheli, an exclusively Orthodox Jewish residential home in London. A was 15, turning 16 in June 2021; B was 11 years, turning 12 in September 2021 [11]: they both had medical and behavioural conditions that required a very high level of supervision [12, 13 & 14].’
Law & Religion UK , 4th March 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘A woman is taking legal action against an NHS trust over the “diabolical” and discriminatory treatment of her profoundly deaf husband, who died of cancer in May last year.’
The Guardian, 7th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘These rights have been central to many key justice fights in the past 20 years, and we can’t allow politicians to take them away.’
The Guardian, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This is a short blog to introduce the people and issues, and explain the lead up, ahead of the live-streamed appeal in M (A Child) tomorrow. It aims to give non lawyers a bit of orientation and some links when tuning in to the court of appeal proceedings.’
Transparency Project, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025