Speech by Lord Justice Gross: RAF Legal Services Conference – Judiciary of England and Wales
Speech by Lord Justice Gross: RAF Legal Services Conference (PDF)
RAF Legal Services Conference, 18th September 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
Category: international law
Threat from Syria: will new anti-terrorism proposals keep us safe? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘When the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 was passed against a backdrop of an IRA bombing campaign in the mainland UK, it was limited in time for a year (although would be re-passed annually until made permanent), and was passed among a genuine concern that the powers it gave were too wide-reaching. Roy Jenkins, taking the Bill through the House of Commons as Home Secretary, said “The powers… are Draconian. In combination they are unprecedented in peacetime”. One wonders what he and other legislators from 40 years ago would make of our discussions today.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 1st September 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Are surrogates and parents losing out due to a lack of global surrogacy laws? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘A Thai surrogate mother, C, gave birth to twins on behalf of Australian nationals D and WF in an arrangement where C was paid £9,000. When one of the twins, G, was born with Down’s syndrome, C alleged that D and WF abandoned the baby boy, taking only the healthy sister back to Australia. D and WF deny this.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 28th August 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
British arms sales to Israel face high court challenge – The Guardian
‘The government faces being dragged into the high court over the sale of military hardware to Israel in an unprecedented legal move that puts the UK’s controversial export policy on a potential collision course with the EU.’
The Guardian, 16th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina (Hussein) v Secretary of State for Defence – WLR Daily
Regina (Hussein) v Secretary of State for Defence [2014] EWCA Civ 1087; [2014] WLR (D) 361
‘The policy of the Secretary of State for Defence permitting a technique involving the use of shouting by the armed forces when questioning captured persons was compatible with international law and did not inherently give rise to an unacceptable risk of breaching international law, in particular the prohibitions on inhumane treatment, threats, insults, or unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment under the Geneva Conventions.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
State immunity does not avail Saudi Prince – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Rosalind English posted in January 2014 on Jones v. the United Kingdom, in which the Strasbourg Court decided that the inability of four men to bring torture compensation claims against Saudi Arabia in UK courts did not breach Article 6(1) of the Convention (access to court). The Court held that a grant of state immunity reflected generally recognised rules of public international law and so there had been no violation.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Emily MacKenzie: The Lawfulness of Detention by British Forces in Afghanistan – Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘On 2nd May, the High Court held that the UK Government must pay Serdar Mohammed (SM) compensation because British troops detained him unlawfully in Afghanistan. The case raised a myriad of international law issues, which are dealt with elegantly in an extensive judgment by Mr Justice Leggatt. This post will attempt to summarise some of the key issues involved.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
Unlawful detention overseas: is it time to review operations? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘Mohammed v Ministry of Defence and other claims raised the question of whether the UK Government had any right in law to imprison people in Afghanistan; and, if so, what was the scope of that right. The claimant was captured by UK armed forces during a military operation in Afghanistan. He was imprisoned on British military bases in Afghanistan for some time when he was transferred into the custody of the Afghan authorities. The claimant claimed that his detention by UK armed forces was unlawful (a) under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and (b) under the law of Afghanistan. The Queen’s Bench Division held that his extended detention for a total of 106 days beyond the 96 hours permitted by policy was not authorised and was contrary to both Afghan law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 27th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Chagos Islands dispute: court to rule on UK sovereignty claim – The Guardian
‘Britain’s sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and America’s lease for the Diego Garcia military base could be thrown into doubt by an international court hearing due to open in Istanbul on Tuesday.’
The Guardian, 21st April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Let’s Talk FGM’ – Garden Court Chambers Blog
‘Last week, Garden Court Chambers was delighted to welcome the Fabian Women’s Network for an evening of discussion about the pressing issue of female genital mutilation (FGM). On the panel, experts from the fields of law, politics, civil society campaigning and the health services talked about their experiences regarding FGM and made recommendations about what the Government must do if it is serious about ending the practice in the UK.’
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 7th April 2014
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
Regina (EM (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Commissioner for; Refugees intervening); Regina (EH (Iran)) v Same; Regina (AE (Eritrea)) v Same; Regina (MA (Eritrea)) v Same – WLR Daily
‘A presumption that members of an alliance of states such as those which comprised the European Union would comply with their international obligations in regard to refugee protection did not extinguish the need to examine whether in fact those obligations would be fulfilled when evidence was presented that it was unlikely that they would be. The removal of a person from a member state of the European Union was forbidden if it were shown that there was a real risk that the person removed would suffer inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It did not need to be shown that the source of that risk was a systemic deficiency in the asylum and reception procedures of the state to which the person was being removed.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
FGM: government is in breach of legal obligations, say lawyers – The Guardian
‘An influential group of Britain’s leading human rights barristers has told MPs that the government is in breach of its legal obligation to protect children by failing to stop girls becoming victims of female genital mutilation.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Trade unions challenge coalition sell-off of Britain’s probation service – The Guardian
‘Government plans to privatise the probation service amount to a breach of the international laws on forced labour, according to a union legal challenge that is being launched on Monday.’
The Guardian, 10th February 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Tube strikes – should the law be changed? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘We asked the business lobbying group CBI, the Institute of Directors (IOD) and Trade Union lawyer Richard Arthur for their views on reform of this prickly area of law.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 7th February 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides – WLR Daily
Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Case C-285/12); [2014] WLR (D) 37
‘An internal “armed conflict” existed, for the purposes of article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC, if a state’s armed forces confronted one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confronted each other. It was not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as “armed conflict” not of an international character under international humanitarian law; nor was it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.’
WLR Daily, 30th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
State immunity upheld against human rights challenges in Strasbourg – UK Human Rights Blog
‘The Strasbourg Court has ruled that the inability of four men to bring torture compensation claims against Saudi Arabia in UK courts did not breach the Convention. The Court held that a “grant of immunity to the state officials in the present case reflected generally recognised rules of public international law” and that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right of access to court).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
EU Controversy, Churchill and the Charter – The Human Rights Roundup – UK Human Rights Blog
‘This week, Chris Grayling and the Court of Justice go head to head over the domestic status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, while the ghost of Winston Churchill comes back to haunt the “United States of Europe” debate. Meanwhile, Theresa May’s plans to deprive terrorist suspects of their British citizenship are under fire, while calls for press accountability are repeated.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Who’s right about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? – Head of Legal
‘Confusion abounds about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights following Mr Justice Mostyn’s recent judgment in R (AB) v Home Secretary (in which he appeared to say the Charter puts into UK law all sorts of new rights British governments had wanted to exclude) and Tuesday’s reaction by the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling (who, it’s reported, is urgently trying to clarify whether the Charter ”applies in the UK”).’
Head of Legal, 21st November 2013
Source: www.headoflegal.com
Chemical Weapons and the Law – BBC Law in Action
“In this week’s programme Law in Action charts the history of laws forbidding the use of chemical weapons, and reveals how they first emerged in India over 2000 years ago. Today, with Syria now signing up to the chemical weapons convention, could we be on the brink of abolishing chemical weapons for good?”
BBC Law in Action, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
