‘A woman who lost her soldier sister in the Guildford pub bombings has said her family are “never going to get justice” even though the inquest has resumed.’
BBC News, 18th December 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘On Nov 11, 2019, the Conservative Party announced rather unclear plans to take legal steps to ensure that inquest juries in Northern Ireland could not return verdicts of unlawful killing in relation to actions by UK soldiers (and presumably other state agents such as the RUC police) in operations during The Troubles. The plans also apparently include barring prosecutions for any alleged unlawful acts during such operations during The Troubles (there is no statute of limitations on serious criminal offences in the UK so this would be an entirely novel step).’
Red Lion Chambers, 14th November 2019
Source: www.redlionchambers.co.uk
‘Conservative plans to water down the Human Rights Act – to prevent prosecutions of soldiers accused of murders in Northern Ireland – will make the UK a pariah, the party has been warned.’
The Independent, 11th November 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘ On 14 October 2019, the Upper Tribunal (UT) handed down judgment in SSHD v De Souza, immediately dividing commentators both in and outside Northern Ireland. Briefly, the UT had heard the Home Secretary’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision which had declared that the American claimant (respondent in the UT) was entitled to apply to reside in Northern Ireland under the EU Citizen’s Directive because his wife was permitted to self-identify as an Irish national in accordance with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). British nationality, the FTT declared, could not be “imposed” on her at birth, flying in the face of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA), section 1 of which, it was argued, does precisely that. The UT allowed the appeal and overturned the FTT judgment, revealing a tension which goes far beyond immigration law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘People born in Northern Ireland remain British citizens according to the law, even if they identify as Irish, tribunal judges have determined.’
BBC News, 14th October 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A 10-year “qualified statute of limitations” should be introduced to protect veterans and serving armed forces personnel from reinvestigation for alleged crimes, MPs have said.’
The Guardian, 22nd July 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Bill could make it illegal for a Boris Johnson administration to prorogue parliament.’
The Guardian, 17th July 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The next prime minister will have the power to prevent MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit, though would he or she dare close the Commons for three months?’
The Guardian, 13th June 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Where a court finds a wrongful arrest, it is often due to inadequate grounds for belief in its necessity. However, a brief judgment in Smith v Police Service for Northern Ireland [2019] NIQB 39 is a demonstration of where there is a lack of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has, themselves, committed the offence. Also of interest is the sum for damages – £3,550 for the unlawful arrest and ten hours’ consequent unlawful detention.’
UK Police Law Blog, 10th May 2019
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Campaign groups are warning that the new defence secretary’s pledge to opt out of the Human Rights Convention in future conflicts will hurt soldiers and civilians.’
Rights Info, 15th May 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘British troops and veterans will be given stronger legal protections against prosecution, Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt will announce.’
BBC News, 15th May 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The new defence secretary, Penny Mordaunt, declared that army veterans should not be “pursued unfairly for events that took place decades ago” hinting that she favoured an amnesty for British soldiers from historical prosecutions.’
The Guardian, 9th May 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A former soldier is to be prosecuted over the murder of a teenage boy, who was shot twice in the head in Derry in 1972.’
The Independent, 15th April 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The appellant argued that all the relevant evidence pointed to the decision not to hold the inquiry being a sham. The basis on which it had been suggested that this was a decision taken in the public interest was, Mrs Finucane argued, spurious. Moreover, the process of consultation and discussions was entirely cosmetic. The outcome had been predetermined. (See Lord Kerr’s summary of the grounds of challenge at paras 50-52)’
UKSC Blog, 26th March 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘On 27 February 2019 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the appeal brought by the widow of the Belfast solicitor, Pat Finucane, against the refusal of the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to hold a public inquiry into her husband’s death. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Kerr (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Hodge and Lady Black agreed) allowed the appeal on the basis that there had been a breach of the investigative obligation under ECHR, art 2. The Supreme Court found that although Mrs Finucane had a legitimate expectation that there would be a public inquiry into Mr Finucane’s death she had not shown that the government’s decision not to fulfil this promise was made in bad faith or that it was not based on genuine policy grounds. Lord Carnwarth gave a concurring judgment in which he commented on the criticism that had been made of obiter remarks he had made in United Policyholders Group v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2016] UKPC 17 in relation in relation to the necessity for a detriment to have been suffered before a claim for substantive legitimate expectation could be made.’
UKSC Blog, 26th March 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The official investigation into the 1989 murder of the Belfast solicitor Patrick Finucane, one of the most notorious killings of the Troubles, was ineffective and failed to meet the standards required under human rights law, the supreme court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 27th February 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Inquests for the 21 victims of the Birmingham pub bombings are set to reopen later after a long legal fight by families.’
BBC News, 25th February 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘If the Withdrawal Agreement is approved, then Parliament will be asked to legislate to give domestic legal effect to its content through the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. One of the most significant provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, Article 4, purports to give the entire contents of the Withdrawal Agreement special status within the UK’s constitutional order. Even though the UK would no longer be a Member State, the effect of Article 4 (if implemented) would be to give all of the laws within the Withdrawal Agreement the equivalent legal effect of EU law within a Member State. As a result, the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland (the Protocol), which forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement, would be supreme over any other domestic legislative provisions, and any provisions of the agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect would have direct effect. How the UK courts would be able to enforce this status will be determined by how the UK Parliament decides to legislate to give effect to Article 4 in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act. It is probable that the Government will propose to give the courts the power to disapply domestic legislation inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement by replicating the effect of the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972). Article 4 of the WA, as explored below, already includes the obligation to disapply provisions that contravene EU law. This post looks at the questions that might be raised if a UK court was ever asked to disapply domestic legislation on the basis that it was inconsistent with the Protocol. The potential constitutional effect of Article 4 is worth considering in view of the short time that Parliament is likely to have to consider the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. While the UK courts have been able to disapply domestic legislation since the European Communities Act 1972 (this power was more more fully explored in Benkharbouche v Sec’y of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 2017 – see Alison Young’s helpful 2017 blog post on the outcome) was enacted, what is constitutionally novel about Article 4 is the proposal that the courts would be able to do so when the UK is no longer a Member State.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 19th February 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘It may seem somewhat Dickensian that an unmarried parent would be ineligible for social benefits as a widow/er upon the death of their partner and co-parent, but that was the situation created by the legislation challenged in Re Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 48 (Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge and Lady Black). The issue under scrutiny was entitlement to widowed parent’s entitlement (WPA). WPA is a contributory social security benefit payable to parents of dependent children who are widowed; but, at the time of the claim, a widowed parent was only eligible for WPA if at the time of the death, s/he was married to, or the civil partner of, the deceased [para 1 of the judgment]. The appellant, who had four dependent children with her deceased partner, but had never married him, argued that this requirement discriminated against the survivor and/or the children on the basis of their marital or birth status, contrary to ECHR, art 14. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal majority of 4 to 1 (Lord Hodge dissenting) and made a declaration that s 39A is incompatible with ECHR, art 14 read with art 8, insofar as it precludes any entitlement to WPA by a surviving unmarried partner of the deceased.’
‘The Court held that a Coroner was entitled to remain unsure about the particulars of the death of an individual who was shot by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.’
Park Square Barristers, 16th November 2018
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2020