‘On 15 June 2020 the High Court handed down its expedited judgment in R (Adiatu & IWGB) v HM Treasury [2020] EWHC 1554 (Admin).’
Old Square Chambers, 22nd June 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Automated facial recognition technology that searches for people in public places breaches privacy rights and will “radically” alter the way Britain is policed, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 23rd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Each Other, 24th June 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 4th June 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘ 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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
3PB, 4th June 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Act, 11th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Three universities are investigating how their adverts appeared on a Channel 4 documentary accused of “dehumanising” the Traveller community.’
Each Other, 11th June 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘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?’
St John's Buildings, 3rd June 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘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.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘“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.’
Each Other, 10th June 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘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.’
The Guardian, 9th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Cloisters, 2nd June 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘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.’
Each Other, 5th June 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘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.’
Broadway House Chambers, 29th May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025