‘In a speech about Brexit last week, the Home Secretary shared what she called her “hard-headed analysis”: membership of an unreformed EU makes us safer, but – beware the non-sequitur – we must withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, which does not.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th May 2016
Source: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The British government’s claim that Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen has not breached international humanitarian law is “deeply disappointing” and contributes to an “anything goes” attitude from the opposing sides in the conflict, the international development select committee has said.’
The Guardian, 4th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Police tried to protect the identity of a Polish rapist because of racial tensions between locals and eastern European migrants in the area.’
Daily Telegraph, 29th April 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Sam Madge-Wyld looks at challenges to housing allocation schemes.’
LAG Housing Law, 26th April 2016
Source: www.laghousinglaw.com
‘With the in/out Europe vote to come (or having gone) what will the result mean for Human Rights? How is or has the debate been framed?’
Gresham College, 6th April 2016
Source: www.gresham.ac.uk
Regina (Al-Saadoon and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin)
‘The claimants brought public law claims in the courts of the United Kingdom arising out of the British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. The claims involved allegations of ill-treatment and in some cases unlawful killing, of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. By their claims for judicial review the claimants sought court orders requiring the Secretary of State to investigate alleged human rights violations. Issues arose relating to the UK’s obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including (i) the nature and scope of the state’s substantive obligation under article 2 of the Convention in relation to the use of lethal force while seeking to quell riots and uphold law and order during the occupation of Iraq, (ii) when the investigative duty under article 2 arose in such circumstances and (iii) the effect of delay on the investigative duties under articles 2 and 3 where the allegations of breach of the substantive rights were made many years after the incidents in question.’
WLR Daily, 7th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Ealing’s allocation policy has already had lawfulness problems, compounded by Ealing’s unlawful refusal to do anything about that unlawfulness. But this judicial review of the policy was on a different basis and confirms a whole fresh ground of unlawfulness.’
Nearly Legal, 27th April 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘One of the great benefits of modern society is the amount of information available to us everyday. Much of that information is now stored electronically. However, collecting a lot of information together creates risks. Big data showcases the potential utility of amassing information in bulk, but we need to be wary of the possible threat to our right to privacy.’
RightsInfo, 16th April 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The cabinet split over Theresa May’s call to withdraw from the European convention on human rights has deepened, after Michael Gove’s Ministry of Justice confirmed it was not government policy.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It is surprising that, during the 16 years that the Human Rights Act 1998 “HRA98” has been in force, that there has been no case in which the domestic courts have ruled upon the impact of convention rights in a case involving a right to light. The explanation for this may be found in the perception that convention rights are enforceable against public bodies, an understandable view in light of s6 of the HRA98, while litigation in these cases is between commercial organisations or private individuals. However, the perception that convention rights cannot apply in litigation between private individuals is not entirely correct. This article seeks to explore the basis upon which convention rights may assist in those cases concerning a right to light where conventional argument may not provide a successful outcome.’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In recent years there have been many high-profile protests on public property; St Paul’s Cathedral and the Parliament Square protests are two of the best known. These resulted in the cases of City of London v Samede and others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 and Hall and others v Mayor of London [2010] EWCA Civ 817. There are also numerous instances of protesters occupying privately-owned commercial land, claiming the protection of human rights defences to stay in possession. Ultimately, the law is against the trespassers but, without swift action, delay can cost the landowner significant sums. These costs are commonly due to the extra security required to prevent further trespassers from entering; the halt to construction or refurbishment works; and the disruption to a working building. It is not uncommon for landowners to incur costs of several hundred thousand pounds while enforcing possession orders against trespassers. Owners would be well advised to plan for such an incursion if there is a risk that their property could be a target.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has refused MGN Limited permission to appeal the decision in Representative Claimants -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 – the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the appropriate level of damages in eight phone-hacking ‘test cases’. This decision itself was an unsuccessful appeal by MGN against the High Court decision in Gulatti & Ors v MGN Limited [2015] EWHC 1482.’
4 KBW, 8th April 2016
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘Campaigners and politicians have criticised Home Secretary Theresa May’s assertion that Britain should leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).’
The Independent, 25th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The question of whether recoverable success fees in privacy cases are incompatible with publishers’ rights to freedom of expression is set to go before the Supreme Court, following a High Court ruling.’
Litigation Futures, 21st April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Regina (Hussain) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2016] EWHC 288 (Admin)
‘The claimant, an indeterminate sentence prisoner, was referred by the Secretary of State to the Parole Board for consideration of his suitability for transfer to open prison conditions for the remaining three years of his minimum custodial term (in accordance with the relevant National Offender Management Service guidance). The purpose of such a transfer was to enable the claimant to demonstrate during that period, and in those conditions, that he no longer posed a level of risk to the public that warranted further detention and could therefore be considered for release at, or shortly after, the expiry of his fixed tariff in 2017. The Board was obliged under the Parole Board Rules 2011 to consider the claimant’s suitability at an oral hearing within 26 weeks of receiving the referral and, although the case was made ready for listing in September 2014, it was only set down in the following February and subsequently heard in May 2015. The defendant accepted that the listing of oral hearings had been subject to substantial delays at the time due to a lack of resources but contended that the claimant had still been moved to open conditions some two years prior to the expiry of his tariff and therefore he had not lost the opportunity to show his suitability for release at the time of his tariff expiry date. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review, contending that the delay in listing the oral hearing was unlawful under common law and in breach of article 5.4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it had delayed his transfer to open prison conditions and consequently deprived him of the opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for release at, or shortly after, the expiry of his tariff.’
WLR Daily, 24th February 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An injunction banning the media in England and Wales from reporting the identity of a married celebrity who allegedly took part in a threesome has been lifted.’
BBC News, 18th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘It has long been clear that, so far as the common law is concerned, there is no neat dividing line between information which is private and that which is public. Thus, depending on the circumstances, information relating to an individual’s private life which has entered the public domain may yet engage privacy rights (see further e.g. McKennitt v Ash [2005] EWHC 303 (QB) and Green Corns v Claverley [2005] 958 (QB) and Rocknroll v News Group [2013] EWHC 24 (Ch)). However, what is the position where, notwithstanding that an injunction restrains the publication of the information domestically, the information is being extensively published and shared online elsewhere around the world?’
Panopticon, 18th April 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Government has been barred from deporting six men to Algeria because there is a “real risk” they could be tortured there, judges have ruled.’
The Independent, 18th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The claimants said that Northumbria Police owed PC David Rathband a duty of care to warn him of the threats made by Raoul Moat.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th April 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025