‘In A and B (Minors: placement, faith)  EWHC 455 (Admin), two brothers of a family of Charedi Jews in north Manchester, acting through their uncle and litigation friend M, challenged Manchester City Council’s decision to offer them respite placement in Birtenshaw, a secular residential home in Greater Manchester, instead of in Bayis Sheli, an exclusively Orthodox Jewish residential home in London. A was 15, turning 16 in June 2021; B was 11 years, turning 12 in September 2021 : they both had medical and behavioural conditions that required a very high level of supervision [12, 13 & 14].’
Law & Religion UK , 4th March 2021
‘A High Court judge has handed down a ruling in a disagreement over whether two boys should be given respite placement accommodation in a residential home in the Greater Manchester area or in an exclusively orthodox Jewish residential home in London.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd March 2021
‘Jeremy Corbyn is to start a formal legal claim against the Labour party for suspending the whip, in a case which allies of the former Labour leader say is intended to prove there was a deal with Keir Starmer’s office to readmit him to the party.’
The Guardian, 26th November 2020
‘In R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Hackney London Borough Council and another (Respondents) UKSC 2019/0162, the Supreme Court held that it was lawful for a housing association to provide social housing only to Orthodox Jews, in its first ever ruling on positive action. In this blog, Charlotte Goodman, an equality law barrister at Cloisters, considers the importance of the judgment.’
Cloisters, 6th November 2020
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal over the lawfulness and proportionality of a housing charity’s policy of allocating social housing primarily to members of the Orthodox Jewish community in Hackney and in particular the Haredi community.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th October 2020
‘The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed this appeal about the application of anti-discrimination law to charities, where they are established to provide benefits (in this case, social housing) for particular groups which are the subject of their charitable objectives. The relevant anti-discrimination laws are contained in the Equality Act 2010 and Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 (the “Race Directive”).’
UKSC Blog, 16th October 2020
‘New UK law on oppressive behaviour in a relationship has been used successfully to persuade a recalcitrant Jewish husband to grant his wife a divorce recognisable in the religious courts: Rosalind English discusses this landmark case with Anthony Metzer QC”.’
Law Pod UK, 24th February 2020
‘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
‘Readers of the blog may well recall the case concerning five Charedi Jewish children at the centre of a family dispute. The children’s father is transgender and left the family home in June 2015 to live as a transgender person. She now lives as a woman. The children’s father sought face to face contact with the children. The childrens’ mother opposed the application.’
Transparency Project, 28th January 2020
‘The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal over whether a charitable housing association’s arrangements for allocating housing, which amount to direct discrimination on the ground of religion, were lawful.’
Local Government Lawyer, 9th December 2019
‘Alison Chabloz was convicted in 2018 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of three offences contrary to s.127(1) of the Communications Act 2003.
On appeal, in R v Alison Chabloz  Southwark Crown Court 13 February, the issue was whether or not the three songs were “grossly offensive” . She lost.
She then sought to appeal by way of case stated; however, following a hearing in May concerned with how the matter should proceed, the judge refused to state a case and indicated that the proper course was for her to seek permission for judicial review of the written ruling. No such application was ever formally made, although written grounds for judicial review were produced in September 2019. In Chabloz v Crown Prosecution Service  EWHC 3094 (Admin), Coulson LJ sets out the rather confusing procedural history of the case at -.
Law & Religion UK, 20th November 2019