Source: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/12/
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 01:28:48
Document Index: 63062265

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 1', 'EWCA ', 'Art. 8', 'EWCA ', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 1']

December | 2011 | UK Human Rights Blog
Month: December 2011	December 29, 2011 by David Hart QC	The solar power subsidies case : when can you judicially review a proposal?
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Case comments, Environment, In the news, Technology	| 4 Comments
December 29, 2011 by Rosalind English	Dr Naik, hate speech and the principle of expectation
The decision was based on the fact that several of his statements fell within the Home Office’s “Unacceptable Behaviour Policy”, an indicative guide to types of behaviour which would normally result in grounds for exclusion, and that his presence would not be conducive to the public good.The Administrative Court dismissed Dr Naik’s application for judicial review of this decision, holding that the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the protection of national security is a central constitutional role, and encompasses a duty owed to the public at large. It could not be overridden by reference to any representation or practice relating to an individual entrant. Continue reading →
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in In the news	| 6 Comments
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 3 | Torture / Inhumane Treatment, Case comments, European, Immigration/Extradition	| Tagged asylum law, asylum seekers, EU Charter, refugee applications	December 22, 2011 by David Hart QC	UK’s EU failure on air pollution: who enforces?
R (CLIENTEARTH) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS (2011), QBD (Admin) Mitting J, 13 December 2011, extempore so transcript not available.
For some time now, the United Kingdom has known that it is in trouble under EU legislation, Directive 2008/50, limiting the amount of nitrogen dioxide in the air we breathe. The date for meeting these levels was 1 January 2010. ClientEarth, an environmental NGO, brought proceedings to enforce this obligation. They failed, despite an admitted breach by the UK. Why?
ClientEarth sought a declaration and mandatory orders against the Government for failing to comply with the levels set out in Article 13 of the Directive. Only 3 out of 43 areas and conglomerates in the UK met that target. Under Article 22, it was possible to extend the time for compliance with the limits by a maximum of five years. Recital nine to the 2008 Directive stated that where the objectives were not met, Member States were required to take steps to ensure compliance. In particular Articles 22 and 23 said that where an extension to the compliance time was sought, a Member State should publish an air quality plan indicating how compliance with the limits would be reached.
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Case comments, Case law, Environment, European, In the news	December 21, 2011 by 1 Crown Office Row	Terrorist asset-freezing: an intrusion too far – Dr Cian Murphy
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Criminal, In the news, Margin of Appreciation, Politics / Public Order, Property, Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property, Terrorism	| Tagged European Court of Human Rights, terrorism legislation	| 1 Comment
December 21, 2011 by Rosalind English	Human rights not a cash milchcow for groundless claims
That does not stop him from considering carefully all the Strasbourg jurisprudence canvassed before him. In general, however, most of the cases were ultimately unfavourable to the litigants in this case. Continue reading →
December 20, 2011 by Matthew Flinn	No human right to an hour’s minimum in the open air for “lifer” – Court of Appeal
Malcolm v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWCA Civ 1538 - Read Judgment
The Court of Appeal has decided that a failure to provide a life sentence prisoner with a minimum of one hour in the open air each day did not constitute a breach of his human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”).
Oliver Sanders of 1 Crown Office Row represented the Secretary of State in this case. He is not the author of this post.
Between 26 April and 2 October 2007, a period of 159 days, Mr Leslie Malcolm was detained in the Segregation Unit at HMP Frankland. During that time, he was provided with an average of 30 minutes in the open air each day. However, paragraph 2(ii) of Prison Service Order 4275 (“PSO 4275″), which contained policy guidance for prison officers operating under the Prison Rules 1999, stated that he should have had the opportunity to have at least one hour each day in the open air.
When Mr Malcolm first brought his claim, he complained that not only had his human rights under the ECHR been infringed, but also that the prison officers at HMP Frankland were liable for misfeasance in a public office. Both aspects of the claim were rejected by Sweeney J at first instance, and it was only the human rights question that was considered on appeal.
The judgment of Richards LJ, in leading a unanimous Court of Appeal, is an elucidating one insofar as it breaks down and draws attention to the various questions which need to be addressed when a human rights claim under Article 8 is brought. Continue reading →
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family, Case comments, Prisons	| 1 Comment
December 20, 2011 by Rosalind English	Slopping out regime in prison not in breach of human rights, judge rules
About 360 long term prisoners, who were at HMP Albany between 2004 and 2011, brought claims that their right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 and their right to respect for private and life under Article 8 had been violated by the regime under which they were detained in that prison, which included the use of a bucket for toilet purposes when they were in a locked cell and the later emptying of the bucket at a sluice (“slopping out”). Five lead claims were selected, of which two reached trial. Continue reading →
December 20, 2011 by Rosalind English	Release of Pakistani detainee ordered by Court of Appeal
Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Secretary of State for Defence [2011] EWCA Civ 1540 - read judgment
“Habeas corpus” is a legal action through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The original Latin designation simply means the initiation of a process requiring a person to be brought before a judge. It is a fundamental principle of English law that, where an individual is detained against his will, it is for the detainer to show that the detention is lawful, not for the detainee to show that his detention is unlawful.
In this case the appellant (R), a Pakistani national, had been captured by British forces in Iraq in 2004, handed to United States forces and transferred to a US airbase in Afghanistan as a suspected member of a proscribed organisation with links to Al-Qaeda. There he continued to be detained without trial. He sought the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, relying on a 2003 memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United Kingdom, the US and Australia, active at the time of R’s capture, under which the UK retained full rights of access to any UK-detained prisoners of war and a right to request their return. Continue reading →
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in In the news	December 18, 2011 by Melina Padron	Hearsay’s OK! Sort of – The Human Rights Roundup
Will Detainee Inquiry hearings broadcast? Have your say
The Detainee Inquiry Panel has shown its commitment to carrying out an inquiry that is as open and inclusive as possible by inviting comments on their broadcasting proposal, before making a final decision. The Panel welcomes views on this issue from the media, potential witnesses, NGOs and any other groups or individuals who are interested in the Inquiry’s work. You may submit comments via email by 7th January 2012. You can find more details here.
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in In the news	| Tagged human rights, Human Rights Act, lord irvine	| 2 Comments
December 18, 2011 by Rosalind English	Christmas elf….and safety!
Dufosse v Melbury Events Ltd CA (Civ Div) (Rix LJ, McFarlane LJ, Sir Mark Potter) December 14, 2011 (extemporare judgment)
Christmas is full of hazards for the unwary and nowhere is more dangerous it seems than Santa’s grotto, even where there is no sign of a freeze and the only icicles are plastic ones…
Poor Santa. Heavily chaperoned in his gift-dispensing activities lest there be any whiff of inappropriate behaviour near children, now it seems his benevolent insistence on a wintry wonderland is under threat. An elderly woman visited his grotto with five members of her family at a well-known department store in London. She tripped over a plastic icicle and injured her leg, and took proceedings against the event management group responsible for running the grotto.
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in In the news	| 3 Comments
December 17, 2011 by Alasdair Henderson	What price unfair dismissal, in times of austerity?
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Case law, Case summaries, Costs and Procedure, Disciplinary Proceedings, Employment	December 17, 2011 by Rosalind English	What does it mean, to “take account” of Strasbourg judgments?
There may not appear at first sight to be much common ground between a dispute in the European Court of Justice (CJEU) over hazardous premises and planning permission, and the relationship between the Strasbourg Court and domestic courts in their interpretation of the provisions of the Human Rights Convention. But one innocent-sounding phrase in the Human Rights Act which requires national courts to ”take account of” the rulings of the Strasbourg Court has been causing so much trouble lately that it is worth casting around for any elucidation of its meaning, and some very welcome light has been thrown on it by AG Sharpston in the CJEU, albeit in a completely different context.
Following the accidents at Bhopal and Mexico City, the EU introduced a Directive (“Seveso II“) to limit the consequences of incidents involving hazardous substances. Under Article 12 of the Directive, member states are obliged to keep a “suitable distance” between residential or environmentally sensitive areas and establishments presenting such hazards are sited. Continue reading →
December 16, 2011 by David Hart QC	European Court of Human Rights defers to traditional UK common law
OBG Ltd et al v. United Kingdom, 29 November 2011
We have become quite used to the Strasbourg Court having a serious go at bits of our statutory law, whether it be prisoners’ rights, anti-terrorist legislation or housing law. A lot of this statute enables the state to do things to private citizens which may or may not offend the Convention. But what is rather rarer in Strasbourg is the case where an applicant challenges judge-made law or common law, and does so where the dispute is between two private parties. Perhaps the best known example is the MGN/Naomi Campbell case in which privacy and costs issues got an intense scrutiny from the Strasbourg Court.
OBG sounds much less glamorous and more obscure, but is nonetheless interesting. The human rights of companies which have been injured by the wrongful exercise of administrative receivership powers have not been minutely examined in the case law, to say the least. But if this case sounds dry, and likely to hoist me by my own petard (should lawyers get named and shamed for being boring?), bear with me. Because it is actually quite a sad story of people being dealt an unjust result – for which neither domestic nor Strasbourg courts felt able to fashion a suitable remedy.
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Case law, Company/Commercial, In the news, Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property	| 3 Comments
December 15, 2011 by Rosalind English	Use of hearsay evidence does not automatically prevent a fair trial, rules Strasbourg
A brief account of the facts was given in Joshua Rozenberg’s post published earlier. The following detailed summary is based on the Court’s press release. Continue reading →
Share:EmailShare on TumblrDigg Pin ItLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in In the news	| 2 Comments