‘The Divisional Court has handed down judgment in an important case concerning whether the regime for the imposition of notification requirements on sexual offenders is compatible with rights under Article 8 ECHR.’
Blackstone Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The family of a child with Down’s Syndrome has been awarded compensation after a primary school sent a letter to parents detailing her violent behaviour and disability.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th May 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Coronavirus presents a serious threat to society, legitimising the collection of public health data under Article 9:2 (g) of GDPR regulations, which allows the processing of such data if “necessary for reasons of substantial public interest”. Some of this collection will take the form of contact tracing apps, which have been used in containing the spread of coronavirus in countries such as Singapore.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st May 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On 29 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of AM(Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC. This completes the domestic line of authority grappling with the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paposhvili v Belgium, which reformulated the applicable test where appellants allege that their proposed removal to a third country would be in breach of Article 3 ECHR as exposing them to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of the unavailability of medical treatment there.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd May 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘ Today the Joint Committee on Human Rights will take evidence from the Information Commissioner, academics and the CEO of NHSX on the risks to the right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) if a contact tracing app is introduced to track and slow the spread of the coronavirus. This is helpful scrutiny of the government’s plans. Yet if the government goes ahead with its proposed contact-tracing application it is essential that the processing of large amounts of personal data by the state, even if done in the public interest, needs a clear legal basis in the form of specific legislation.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 4th May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The family of a mentally ill man who starved to death after his benefits were cut have applied for a judicial review of government policy.’
BBC News, 1st May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The government is facing a challenge to the legality of the coronavirus lockdown by a wealthy businessman who fears it will kill more people than it saves.’
The Guardian, 1st May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This appeal related to the UK’s ability to deport a Zimbabwean citizen who, whilst being lawfully resident in the UK, had committed serious crimes. He sought to challenge the decision to deport him on the basis of ECHR, article 3. Being HIV positive, he argued that if deported he would be unable to access the medication he receives in the UK and which prevents his relapse into AIDS.’
UKSC Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The European Court of Human Rights court held in Gaughran v United Kingdom [2020] ECHR 144 that the police’s indefinite retention of DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of person convicted of a minor offence without a possibility of review constituted an infringement of Article 8 ECHR (respect for private life). This is the latest in a number of cases where the ECtHR has disagreed with a decision of the Supreme Court and represents a further development of the meaning of “private life”.’
UK Police Law Blog, 30th April 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Prison officers are allegedly punching compliant inmates who they suspect might misbehave in the future in a practice known as “preventive strikes”, a European human rights watchdog has said in a damning report on the state of jails in England.’
The Guardian, 30th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Coronavirus Act 2020, which was passed in less than three days by Parliament, does not contain the restrictions governing the lockdown in England. These are contained in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (the Regulations) passed under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. Devolved governments have pursued similar strategies in this respect. As Professor Jeff King has argued on this blog, s.45 of the 1984 Act can be ‘construed literally to confer powers to impose the lockdown’ because it allows for restrictions on ‘persons, things or premises in the event’ of a threat to public health. Like all secondary legislation, following s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 this needs to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, as this post sets out, some difficult rights trade-offs and restrictions may come from lifting lockdown restrictions requiring us to revaluate what we consider as normal in terms of balancing rights and liberties.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘As has been widely reported, the ‘lockdown’ imposed by the UK Government to tackle the continuing pandemic is governed in the main by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350) (the Original Regulations).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st May 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Unlike some of the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition on torture or inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 is absolute. There is no question of striking a balance between Article 3 and other considerations: the state simply may not act in a way which would breach this prohibition.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘UK Home Office efforts to deport an HIV-positive Zimbabwean man because of his lengthy criminal record have been blocked after the supreme court ruled removing him would breach his human rights.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘As we watch the Covid-19 pandemic unfold our attention is naturally on the steps that HM Government (“HMG”) is taking to mitigate the immediate crisis. The time is approaching, however, when it will be necessary to evaluate HMG’s preparation for, and response to, the pandemic. Calls are being made by the TUC and doctors’ groups for a public inquiry into one aspect of its response, namely failures to procure adequate personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for NHS staff, at least 100 of whom are believed to have died having contracted the virus while treating patients. HMG is accused of failing to respond to a national exercise in 2016 testing the UK’s resilience to a similar flu pandemic which highlighted an increased need for ventilators. Other criticisms go further. This blog argues that the state owes a duty under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate some deaths caused by Covid-19. This duty will require not only inquests into individual deaths but also a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to address those systemic issues not suitable for determination by an inquest. The post builds on and responds to posts by Conall Mallory, James Rowbottom and Elizabeth Stubbins Banes. It also foreshadows the need for reform in this area.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The government will attempt to push back a legally binding deadline for the completion of an independent review of Prevent, the programme that aims to stop people becoming terrorists, the Guardian understands.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal have their way with the judicial review of the ‘Right to Rent’ scheme. This was the Secretary of State’s appeal of the remarkable first instance judgment which had found the scheme to be incompatible with Art 14 with Art 8. (For transparency, I acted for the Residential Landlords Association on their intervention in both the High Court and Court of Appeal.)’
Nearly Legal, 27th April 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘If there have been systemic flaws over PPE, ministers could be in breach of the European convention on human rights.’
The Guardian, 25th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Whilst the current pandemic has affected us all, those in detention are impacted in particularly harmful ways. Visits to immigration removal centres have been suspended, and those with COVID-19 symptoms are effectively placed in solitary confinement. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights has called for immigration detainees to be released, as many States have had to suspend removals and it is unclear when these might be resumed. The primary goal of immigration detention is to effect removal, and so continued detention as such may seem arbitrary.’
One Pump Court, 21st April 2020
Source: onepumpcourt.co.uk
‘On 20 April 2020, the Hospitality Union wrote a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for a “National Time Out” under which there would be a nine-month national payment pause granted to business tenants. This would be “a crucial period of payment postponement when commercial rents, and the debt and interest payments secured on those premises, are pushed to the back end of leases and term loans.”’
Falcon Chambers, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025