‘Court orders preventing young people from carrying knives and becoming embroiled in serious violence are now being piloted in London, Home Secretary Priti Patel has announced.’
Home Office, 7th July 2021
Source: www.gov.uk
‘A “staggeringly high” number of people with autism are referred to the government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme, a terror laws watchdog will say, calling for discussion about terrorism cases in which the disability features.’
The Guardian, 7th July 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A teenager has been convicted of the murder of two sisters in a London park last year whom he stabbed to death after coming through a government “deradicalisation” programme.’
The Guardian, 6th July 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The UK government is removing all children from a troubled jail for youths run by an American company after some were locked in their rooms for more than 23 hours a day.’
The Independent, 17th June 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘More than one in 10 terror suspects arrested in Britain is a child, figures reveal amid mounting concerns over online radicalisation. Thirteen per cent of those arrested in the 12 months to March under terrorism laws were aged under 18, up five per cent.’
The Independent, 10th June 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A man who karate kicked a 74-year-old fisherman into the River Mersey has been jailed for 10 weeks.’
BBC News, 10th June 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The family of 13-year-old Christopher Kapessa, who died after being pushed into the River Cynon in South Wales in July 2019, have won a High Court bid for a review of the decision not to prosecute the teenager accused of being responsible.’
The Independent, 11th June 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Even if you are not a keen follower of new government legislation, chances are you have already heard of The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.’
Each Other, 7th June 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘A mother plans to launch her own legal action if the decision not to prosecute the boy reportedly involved in her son’s death is not reversed.’
BBC News, 7th June 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Four men who murdered a teenager in a “well-planned execution” metres from his home have been jailed for life.’
BBC News, 15th May 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An autistic teenager who threw a six-year-old boy from the Tate Modern was not considered a risk to others at the time, despite previously assaulting police and a restaurant worker and hitting support staff with a brick, a report has found.’
The Guardian, 27th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Karl Maroni, 33, has spent all his adult life in jail.’
BBC News, 19th March 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal Criminal Division and the Divisional Court have confirmed the circumstances in which the Crown, a Defendant, or a third party can challenge the making, variation, or failure to make a reporting restriction for a young person in the criminal justice system.’
St Ives Chambers, February 2021
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The trial of a former Labour peer accused of sexually abusing younger children has collapsed due a “disgraceful” late disclosure of evidence by the prosecution, a judge has said.’
The Guardian, 9th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission for Shamima Begum to return to the UK. The Supreme Court judgment in the high-profile case of the British woman who left the UK as a 15-year-old girl to travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State, however, resulted in the Court effectively washing its hands of the case staying it until a full hearing can occur in future—a remote possibility. In the judgment, Lord Reed held the Court of Appeal was in error by substituting its own view of the balance to be struck between national security and the applicant’s rights. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment due respect. In this brief post, I wish to focus on a principal aspect of the Supreme Court’s judgment: the concept of deference.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘A mother who fought to change the law around murder says her daughter would be “very proud”.’
BBC News, 9th March 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Package includes £30 million for police to surge activity in serious violence hotspots and new money to steer young people away from crime.’
Home Office, 8th March 2021
Source: www.gov.uk
‘Shamima Begum has lost her legal battle attempting to return to the UK to fight for her British citizenship. The Supreme Court found that the former Isis member did not need to be in the country to have a “fair and effective appeal”, overturning a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal.’
The Independent, 26th February 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Human trafficking is internationally recognised as threatening human rights and the fundamental values of democratic societies. States have taken action to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking and to provide support to victims of what is the third largest illicit money-making venture in the world. But what happens when the victims of trafficking commit a crime themselves? Should they be prosecuted? What factors are relevant in this assessment? And which arm of the State should the assessment of whether someone is a victim of trafficking be entrusted to? This is the first time the European Court of Human Rights has tackled these questions. The Court found that the UK had breached its obligations under articles 4 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by prosecuting two Vietnamese children who were potential victims of trafficking.’
EIN Blog 24th February 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024