‘The Neo Bankside development is a striking modern development designed by Richard Rogers and Partners (now Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners). It is on the south side of the River Thames and is adjacent to the Tate Modern, Britain’s National gallery of international modern art, which is based in the former Bankside Power Station.’
Falcon Chambers, February 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The death of TV presenter Caroline Flack has sparked calls for a stricter law to safeguard the human rights of people in the public eye.’
Each Other, 17th February 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Over the years, Panopticon has discussed a number of cases about the powers of the police to record, retain, and disseminate information about individuals. The judgment of Mr. Justice Julian Knowles in R (ota Harry Miller) v (1) The College of Policing, and (2) The Chief Constable of Humberside [2020] EWHC 225 (Admin) is a significant contribution to the law in this area. In Panopticon terms the case is unusual, in that the issues are discussed by reference to the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), rather than by reference to Article 8 or data protection legislation.’
Panopticon Blog, 17th February 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘In two related judgments, Lieven J considered an application made by a Hospital Trust to withdraw treatment from a child receiving mechanical ventilation to keep him alive and an application for anonymity on behalf of his treating clinicians. The Trust succeeded in both. The decision has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This appeal was about the law on damages for false imprisonment. It required the Supreme Court to consider the meaning of imprisonment at common law and whether this should be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights.’
UKSC Blog, 12th February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘For Jewish women, obtaining a religious divorce (Get) can be life-changing. Women denied a Get are considered ‘chained’ to their husband, preventing them from re-marrying within the faith (whilst not affecting the husband’s ability to re-marry). The power to grant the Get is usually considered the unilateral right of the husband. Because a purely religious marriage is not recognised in England as a civil marriage, women have little recourse to the courts. So, what happens when a husband refuses to grant a religious divorce to his wife? For these women, their human rights to manifest their religion and to enter into marriages are denied, such that they cannot live fully as both religious individuals and bearers of human rights. However, a novel approach to this problem, a private prosecution for coercive control, could offer Jewish women an alternative avenue to protect their human rights.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 4th February 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The length of time suspects could be bailed without being charged with a crime could be trebled under government plans.’
Each Other, 7th February 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘When she was fifteen Shamina Begum slipped unimpeded out of the country to join ISIL. Only her image, walking with two school friends, was captured as she made her way through Gatwick Airport onto the aircraft. Her return to the UK, five years on is proving more difficult.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Making all pupils take part in religious education classes could see the Welsh Government taken to court for breaching human rights, a legal expert has warned.’
BBC News, 8th February 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Steven Woolf examines the Court of Appeal’s recent decision and guidance on Green Space borough-wide preventative injunctions.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th February 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Shamima Begum, the woman who left Britain as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria, has lost her appeal against the Home Office’s move to revoke her citizenship and prevent her from returning to London.’
The Guardian, 7th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Guidance from the Court of Appeal on how to decide whether or not to notify a putative father or a relative of the existence of the child or legal proceedings?’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 29th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This appeal arose as a result of an application made by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, Schedule 10 paragraph 34. Paragraph 34 provides that the Attorney General may refer to the Supreme Court any devolution issue which is not the subject of proceedings. A devolution issue includes a question whether a purported exercise of a function by a Northern Ireland Department is or would be invalid by reason the 1998 Act, s.24. S. 24(1)(a) provides that a Department of Northern Ireland has no power to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation, or to do any act, so far as the legislation or act is incompatible with any of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.’
UKSC Blog, 5th February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Rebecca Hill provides her Corporate Crime analysis for Lexis Nexis PSL: The Court of Appeal considered the safety of the conviction of Abdurahman who had assisted one of the 21/7 London bombers after the event. It reaffirmed that its purpose is to objectively appraise the safety of a conviction looking to all the circumstances, notwithstanding in this case a finding by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that Mr Abdurahman’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to a fair trial) had been breached.’
5 SAH, 3rd February 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘A terminally ill dad is calling for a government inquiry into the UK’s blanket ban on assisted dying after the Court of Appeal rejected his human rights challenge.’
Each Other, 30th January 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Following his headline-grabbing finding on 3rd January 2020 that “ethical veganism is a philosophical belief which qualifies as a protected belief within the meaning of section 10 of The Equality Act 2010”, Norwich Employment Tribunal Judge Postle has now provided his full determination.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th January 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Q v Secretary of State for Justice UKEAT/0120/19 was a recent case in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal looked at the application of the Article 8 in a conduct dismissal case.’
Pallant Chambers, 23rd January 2020
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘Two recent cases have required the High Court and Court of Appeal to consider in detail the use by local authorities of different powers contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“ASBCPA”) to limit or prevent protests that have contained a strong religious or moral element. To what extent are the courts prepared to sanction the use of these powers in relation to types of activities that perhaps would not immediately spring to mind when the words “anti-social behaviour” are heard? The answer, in two words, is “very prepared”, judging by the decisions in the cases of Dulgerhiu v London Borough of Ealing [2019] EWCA Civ 1490 and Birmingham City Council v Asfar [2019] EWHC 3217 (QB).’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th January 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘The Claimant’s belief in Forstater – that “sex is biologically immutable” — denied trans people their legal right to be recognised as the sex they had transitioned to even when they had obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate. This right has been recognised for over a decade by the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and by domestic law in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Claimant’s belief — in the words of Judge Tayler — also violated the dignity of trans people and created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” for them.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025