‘When most couples start planning a wedding, they excitedly think about the day itself – what they will wear, who they will invite and of course, where they want to get married.’
Law Society's Gazette, 24th September 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Overseas Operation (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in March 2020 and is due its second reading on 23 September 2020. In short, the Bill aims to limit prosecution and civil proceedings against military personnel, as well as to enable the UK government to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) during combat operations. The Bill emerges in response to what numerous Defence Secretaries have referred to as the “judicialisation of war”, a term which has been used to resist the application of the ECHR to overseas military combat operations. Despite the Bill being described as a way to protect soldiers from the “industry” of “vexatious claims” and preserve the ability of combat forces to fight wars effectively, there is every suggestion that this is really about precluding, or at least severely limiting, the accountability of the British state in its overseas military deployments.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd September 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A bill allowing confidential informants working for MI5 and the police to break the law will be introduced on Thursday amid a row about whether committing crimes such as murder and torture should be explicitly banned.’
The Guardian, 24th September 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Black Lives Matter. This was the refrain heard throughout this summer’s protests seeking to condemn and draw attention to disproportionate black deaths in both American and British state custody.’
Each Other, 21st September 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘The government’s approach to the coronavirus is creating risks for the rule of law, politicians have warned in a report looking at the human rights implications of Covid-19.’
Law Society's Gazette, 21st September 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In Soltany and Others v SSHD [2020] EWHC 2291 (Admin), the High Court dismissed a challenge to the conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), which at the material times in 2017 and 2018, was run by G4S.’
EIN Blog, 10th September 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘In R(Bridges) v South Wales Police, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the lawfulness of the use of live automated facial recognition technology (‘AFR’) by the South Wales Police Force. CCTV cameras capture images of the public, which are then compared with digital images of persons on a watchlist.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Hussein and Another (Status of passports: foreign law) [2020] UKUT 250 (IAC): CMG Ockelton VP has explained that (i) a person who holds a genuine passport, apparently issued to him, and not falsified or altered, has to be regarded as a national of the State that issued the passport, (ii) the burden of proving the contrary lies on the claimant in an asylum case, and (iii) foreign law (including nationality law) is a matter of evidence, to be proved by expert evidence directed specifically to the point in issue. The appellant Mr Hussein, who had permission to appeal, and the applicant Mr Abdulrasool, who was seeking permission to appeal, were father and son who made asylum claims, which were refused. The applicant, who was born in 2000, additionally claimed that he was so dependent on his parents that it would be disproportionate to remove him from the UK. Mr Hussein’s wife and two minor children were included in the appellant’s claim as his dependents. Both men gave their oral evidence in a hearing before FTTJ McAll in January 2020 as did Mr Hussein’s brother. The SSHD was not present and FTTJ McAll considered Mr Hussein’s claimed history in detail. He decided that he was untruthful and concluded that he had fabricated important parts of his account supporting his asylum claim. He decided that Mr Hussein was a national of Tanzania and could be returned there. He disbelieved the asylum claim and concluded that there was no good article 8 reason why he should not leave the UK and return to his country of nationality. Both appeals were dismissed.’
EIN Blog, 7th September 2020
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘In this post, Joanna Clark and Emma Ainsley of CMS discuss the judgment handed down by the UK Supreme Court on 15 July 2020 in a referral from the High Court of Justiciary, the Scottish criminal appeal court, in the matter of Sutherland v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2020] UKSC 32 concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained by so-called “paedophile hunter” groups in criminal trials.’
UKSC Blog, 1st September 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A mother who fears her 19-month-old child will forget their father if prison visits do not resume soon has begun preliminary legal action against the Ministry of Justice.’
The Guardian, 31st August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In his article “A Force to be Reckoned with” for the New Law Journal, John Bowers QC reflects on 20 years since the ground breaking case that lifted the ban on gay men and women serving in the military. John acted for one of the applicants in this case, alongside David Pannick QC, Laura Cox, the late Peter Duffy and others.’
Littleton Chambers, 20th August 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘”How do we increase the number of non-white, disabled, female, or otherwise underrepresented, people working in journalism?” That is the way discussions around media diversity are framed all too often. People might also talk about “changing the gatekeepers” of key media organisations. Both of these things are important, but it is not why I campaign for increased media diversity and better representation.’
Each Other, 24th August 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘A recent decision of the High Court concerning the Manchester Arena Inquiry highlights an interesting question about public inquiries, the role of survivors and the protections offered by the European Convention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Home Office has agreed that any TOEIC appellants who succeed in their appeals on Article 8 grounds, should be granted 2.5 years leave to remain.’
Garden Court Chambers, 4th August 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Campaigners are calling for South Wales police and other forces to stop using facial recognition technology after the court of appeal ruled that its use breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The poisoning of the former Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March 2018 was a truly shocking event. It was another throwback to the Cold War with the nerve agent, Novichok, playing the deadly role assumed by radioactive polonium in the 2006 assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London.’
2 Hare Court, 6th August 2020
Source: www.2harecourt.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025