‘The number of official applications for secret court hearings more than doubled in the past year, according to figures released by the Ministry of Justice.’
The Guardian, 15th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Journalists seeking to rely on the new ‘public interest’ defence to a claim of defamation will still have to be able to prove that they have taken steps to verify the accuracy of what they have published, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Home Office won a key legal challenge on Tuesday over the “deport first, appeal later” policy, which removes the right of foreign prisoners to appeal against deportation from within the UK.’
The Guardian, 13th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Two Government departments have refused to publish the legal advice that paved the way for Britain to launch a drone strike on Isis targets in Syria.’
The Independent, 9th October 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘David Bedingfield, barrister, 4 Paper Buildings, considers conflicting judicial attitudes to the vexed question of rights to privacy in financial remedies proceedings.’
Family Law Week, 1st October 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘This week, Lord Justices Elias, Richards and McCombe sat in the Court of Appeal and heard the first test cases against Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 94B, introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and which came into force on 28th July 2014, provides the Home Office the power to certify human rights claims made by people liable to deportation, so they are not entitled to an appeal within the UK. Instead they are expected to bring their appeal from the country in which the Home Office propose deportation. This logic has been catchily titled “deport first, appeal later” and the Conservatives pledged in their manifesto to roll it out for all immigration appeals. Indeed, the Immigration Bill 2015, published last week on 17th September, does just that.’
Free Movement, 25th September 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The courtroom divorce battle between Liam Gallagher and Nicole Appleton has triggered a landmark legal dispute over what can be reported in the public’s interest from the family courts.’
The Guardian, 22nd September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Channel 4 has asked the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to investigate a cash-for-access sting on two former foreign secretaries after criticism over its reporting of the allegations. The parliamentary commissioner for standards cleared Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, and said the damage done to the former MPs could have been avoided if Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately reported the exchanges they had filmed.’
The Guardian, 17th September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘On 3rd September 2015 the news reported the case of a 14 year old boy who took a naked photo of himself before sending it to a female classmate via Snapchat (a smartphone application that deletes a message or a photograph 10 seconds after it has been read). She took a screenshot of the photo and decided to send it to other people at school. A police officer based at the school became aware of the photo however. It was decided (obviously correctly) that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. However, he did have “the crime of making and distributing indecent images recorded against him”. It seems that this was a mandatory consequence of it coming to the notice of officialdom.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 6th September 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘On 3rd September 2015 the news reported the case of a 14 year old boy who took a naked photo of himself before sending it to a female classmate via Snapchat (a smartphone application that deletes a message or a photograph 10 seconds after it has been read). She took a screenshot of the photo and decided to send it to other people at school.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 6th September 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Businesses are not expected to scour the internet and other sources to check whether there is any information that, when linked with personal data they hold, would mean the data they hold is in fact sensitive personal data, according to a new UK ruling.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Lord Janner is expected to appear in court to face child abuse charges after his lawyers lost a High Court bid to prevent him having to attend.’
The Independent, 14th August 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Lord Janner should not appear in court to answer charges of child sex abuse because it would be a breach of his human rights, his lawyer has argued.’
The Independent, 11th August 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A judge has refused to allow the media to name a 14-year-old boy who admitted stabbing his teacher, saying the teenager’s welfare had to come before public interest in his crime.’
The Guardian, 10th August 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The right to be forgotten is beginning to generate some litigation, albeit not yet with any blaze of glory. Following on from the attempt to judicially review the ICO for refusing to try and enforce an individual’s complaint that his data rights were being breached (see here), earlier this week a claimant failed to get his right to be forgotten claim to fly before the Nottingham County Court.’
Panopticon, 31st July 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘A man involved in a £51m VAT scam has lost a legal bid to have news stories about him removed from Google under the so-called “right to be forgotten”.’
Full story
BBC News, 30th July 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view? Does the retention of a subjective test in s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (detriment due to the making of a ‘public interest’ disclosure) mean that the purpose of the 2013 amendment to that section will not always achieve the intended aim?’
Full story
No. 5 Chambers, 30th July 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘The apparently endless APPGER litigation has produced yet another decision of the Upper Tribunal for seasoned FOIA watchers, which amongst some very fact-specific issues, also contains two important clarifications of law: APPGER v ICO & FCO [2015] UKUT 377 (AAC).’
Panopticon, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The First-Tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal and held that following a freedom of information request Aylesbury Vale District Council was entitled to refuse disclosure of correspondence between its solicitor and the planning department.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th July 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024