Coronavirus: Illegal house party host fined £10k apologises – BBC News

Posted September 14th, 2020 in coronavirus, enforcement, fines, freedom of movement, news, police, proportionality by tracey

‘A student who was fined £10,000 for an illegal house party of more than 50 people has apologised.’

Full Story

BBC News, 13th September 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Reforms to UK’s antiquated spying laws published by Law Commission – Law Commission

‘Reform is needed to bring the law into the 21st century and protect the United Kingdom from espionage (spying) and unauthorised disclosures (leaks), according to a report from the Law Commission that has been laid in Parliament today [01 September 2020].’

Press release

Law Commission, 1st September 2020

Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk

Sentencing and confiscation in prosecutions for breaches of planning enforcement notices (R v Roth): Sarah Wood for Lexis Nexis – 5SAH

‘This case involved an appeal against a fine and a confiscation order following criminal proceedings for breach of an enforcement notice served under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). The appellant, Mr Roth, had converted a property into 12 self-contained flats without prior planning permission. His appeal against sentence was successful; insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea in the Crown Court, where the case had been committed for the purposes of confiscation. The appeal against the confiscation order was advanced on three grounds: firstly, that the wording of the summons restricted the criminality to one day; secondly, that the rent received was not linked to the breach of the planning legislation; and thirdly, that it was disproportionate for the benefit figure to comprise the gross rental received. All three grounds were dismissed.’

Full Story

5SAH, 24th August 2020

Source: www.5sah.co.uk

BAME children three times more likely to have a Taser weapon used on them by police – The Guardian

‘Children from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are almost three times more likely to have a Taser electronic weapon used on them by police than their white counterparts.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 16th August 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Facial Recognition Technology not “In Accordance with Law” – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Police’s Automated Facial Recognition Deployments Ruled Unlawful by the Court of Appeal – Doughty Street Chambers

‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’

Full Story

Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020

Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

Let’s face it: use of automated facial recognition technology by the police – UK Police Law Blog

‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’

Full Story

UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020

Source: ukpolicelawblog.com

Regulation 33 certification: Court of Appeal quashes refusal of interim relief to Portuguese national – EIN Blog

Posted July 30th, 2020 in deportation, EC law, freedom of movement, news, proportionality by sally

‘R (Mendes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 924 (17 July 2020): The only target of this appeal was Murray J’s order refusing interim relief in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Home Office to facilitate the return of Mr Mendes to the UK pending determination of the judicial review challenge of the certification of his case under regulation 33 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 that his removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the order of Murray J refusing the earlier application for interim relief in R (Mendes) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 2233 (Admin), and remitted the application to the Administrative Court for re-consideration and re-determination. A Portuguese national and an EU citizen, Mr Mendes, was born in 2000 and settled in the UK with his family in 2013 or 2014. But from 2015 to 2018, he was convicted of numerous criminal offences, including, on 6 March 2018, six robberies and he was sentenced to a 12-month detention and training order. While serving his custodial part of that sentence (and while aged only 17 years) the Home Office served notice of liability to deportation. Representations made by him were rejected. Instead, a deportation order was made on his eighteenth birthday on 17 September 2018. In the decision letter, the decision-maker certified under regulation 33, that Mr Mendes’s removal pending any appeal would not be in breach of his human rights.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 28th July 2020

Source: www.ein.org.uk

A Guide to Protestor Rights Balanced Against Police Powers – St Pauls Chambers

‘Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines the right to the freedom of expression and Article 11 establishes the right of freedom of assembly and association. However, these rights are qualified, meaning that, in certain circumstances, these rights can be interfered with. The interference with these rights must be proportionate and necessary in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. For example, protestor rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly may be compromised where this is necessary in order to ensure public safety, prevent crime or disorder, protect the rights of others, or national security.’

Full Story

St Pauls Chambers, 18th July 2020

Source: www.stpaulschambers.com

Lockdown challenge — permission refused – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Mr Justice Lewis has refused permission to bring a judicial review in what is arguably the most comprehensive and wide-reaching challenge brought to date to the legality of the lockdown Regulations and the decision to stop providing education on school premises (save for the children of key workers) in R (Dolan and Ors) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1786 (Admin).’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 7th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Religious services ban in England may have been illegal, judge rules – The Guardian

‘Banning religious services may have been illegal but other restrictions imposed by the government in England during the coronavirus lockdown were legitimate, a high court judge has ruled.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 6th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Stop and search stats may thwart diversity push, UK police warned – The Guardian

‘Efforts to improve diversity among police officers are at risk of being thwarted by the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers against black men, a senior policing watchdog has warned.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 2nd July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

High court hears legal challenge to England’s lockdown restrictions – The Guardian

‘The government’s lockdown, which has closed schools, premises and companies while limiting free movement, is the “most sweeping and far-reaching” restriction on fundamental rights since the second world war, the high court has been told.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 2nd July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Discontinuing or settling a claim? Lawyers Beware – No. 5 Chambers

‘Thinking of discontinuing, or settling a claim? This 21-page Judgment (admonishment) provides some important guidance on the dos and don’ts, particularly the don’ts.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 19th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Yossi Nehushtan and Megan Davidson: The UK 14-Day Quarantine Policy: Is Public Opinion a Relevant Consideration? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘According to the government quarantine policy, that came into force on 8 June, nearly all international arrivals at UK ports must quarantine for 14 days. Elsewhere we argued that the quarantine policy is irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate and therefore illegal. Here we argue that the policy was introduced mainly because of public opinion – and that public opinion in this case is an irrelevant consideration, one that should not have been taken into account by government.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 30th June 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

What You Should Know About The UK’s 14-Day Quarantine Rule – Each Other

‘As many Britons bask in a summer heatwave, Kylie Neuhaus will remain housebound for the next week or else she could face a fine of up to £1,000.’

Full Story

Each Other, 24th June 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

UK police chiefs criticised for lack of action as race panel launched – The Guardian

Posted June 19th, 2020 in bias, equality, news, police, proportionality, race discrimination, racism by sally

‘An attempt by police chiefs to grapple with racism claims by launching a panel to recommend action has been criticised by victims’ representatives and met with scepticism from within their own ranks.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 18th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Yossi Nehushtan: The 14-Day Quarantine Policy is Illegal – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Harsh criticism, mainly from politicians and the travel industry has been expressed regarding the new government policy, according to which, and from 8 June, nearly all international arrivals at UK ports must quarantine for 14 days. It is surprising that very little has been said about the clear illegality of this policy, despite a very recent judicial review process that has been brought against the policy by a few airline companies. In this post it is argued that the quarantine policy is irrational, unreasonable and disproportionate – and therefore illegal. A preliminary note about the differences between rationality and reasonableness will be followed by applying rationality, reasonableness and proportionality to our case.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th June 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Latest on the Lockdown Challenge in the UK courts – UK Human Rights Blog

‘On 26 May, judicial review proceedings were launched in the High Court which not only challenged the lawfulness of the Lockdown Regulations as having been made “ultra vires” under the 1984 Public Health Act, but also claimed that they are disproportionate to the threat posed by Covid-19. Philip Havers QC of 1 Crown Office Row is acting for the claimant.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 9th June 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Neville Lawrence: black people still second-class citizens in Britain – The Guardian

‘Father of Stephen Lawrence says police’s promises to change have not been met.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 9th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com