‘Since 1969 no convicted prisoner in the UK has been allowed to vote. This prohibition was imposed, without debate, by the Representation of the People Act 1969. For two years before that there was no statutory bar to prisoners voting by post, albeit that there were, in many cases, administrative restrictions that prevented them from doing so.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 30th June 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘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
‘A leaked diplomatic cable published on the internet by a third party did not violate the archive and documents of the diplomatic mission which sent the cable since it had already been disclosed to the world by a third party. On that narrow ground it was admissible as evidence in court. However, even if the evidence in question had been admitted, it would not have led to a different decision and therefore was not a ground for allowing the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Rosalind English has summarised this unsuccessful appeal against the rejection of the Chagossians’ claims by the Divisional Court, and I have posted on this litigation arising out of the removal and subsequent exclusion of the population from the Chagos Archipelago in the British Indian Ocean Territory.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th May 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected on all grounds a claim that the cap on housing benefit amounted to unlawful discrimination against women.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Whilst the test of substantial relevance applied equally to applications for search warrants made in the context of domestic proceedings and applications made at the request of foreign authorities under the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003, its application invariably differed. In context a domestic court asked to assess substantial relevance in respect of foreign proceedings would do so on a necessarily more circumscribed basis than the same court would were the assessment in respect of proceedings before the same court.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘National decision-makers had an independent and autonomous responsibility under the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906) to determine the applications of those who had applied for asylum. An earlier decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to grant refugee status was not binding on the national decision-maker, nor did it create any presumption or shift the burden of proof.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th January 2014
‘Trade marks registered under international arrangements which had effect in a member state, as referred to in article 8(2)(a)(iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L78, p 1), were subject to the same system as trade marks registered in a member state, as referred to in article 8(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulation. As such, where pleaded in opposition proceedings before OHIM, they were subject to the requirement in article 42(3) of the Regulation to prove the requisite prior use, the concept of use of a Community trade mark in the European Union being exclusively and exhaustively governed by EU law.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that continued detention in prison following the expiry of the “minimum terms” or “tariff periods” of their indeterminate terms of imprisonment did not breach prisoners’ Convention or common law rights, but has left it to the Supreme Court to determine the substance of the Convention claims in detail.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The number of parental child abduction cases has more than doubled in the last decade, new figures from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) suggest.’
BBC News, 12th December 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
In the matter of KL (A Child) [2013] UKSC 75 | UKSC 2013/0212 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 4th December 2013
‘The law should be changed to make it clear that British courts are not obliged to implement judgments of the European court of human rights (ECHR), according to the former lord chief justice.’
The Guardian, 4th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“One of Britain’s most senior judges said the rapid rise in the number of laws in recent years had been necessary as other modes of social control such as religion and old fashioned morality declined.”
Daily Telegraph, 28th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘UK courts should stop deferring to the European court of human rights on every issue and develop their own rulings, according to Lord Justice Laws, the longest serving court of appeal judge.’
The Guardian, 27th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The relationship between the UK and the European Court remains turbulent and fractious. The Court has been the subject of significant criticism, notably from some politicians and commentators in the UK, relating to its supposed interference in domestic, sovereign questions and the quality of its judges. Some commentators, such as Michael Pinto-Duschinsky and the MP Nick Herbert have advocated withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Court.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“AB, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3453 (Admin). Here unfolds a story of sophisticated abuse of the asylum system in this country by an individual skilfully shamming persecution. Nor did the security agents who escorted the claimant on his departure come up smelling of roses: it emerged during the course of these proceedings that they had falsified a room clearance certificate to boost the defence case.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Tens of thousands of prisoners could be in line for compensation because they have been denied their ‘human right’ to vote, the Attorney General has warned. Dominic Grieve warned that all 85,000 prisoners in England and Wales could lodge claims with the European Court of Human Rights if they are barred from vote at the next election, costing taxpayers more than £60 million.”
Daily Telegraph, 6th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025