In Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1930 (Admin), Dr Salman Butt, a British citizen and practising Muslim, challenged the lawfulness of revised Prevent Duty Guidance and the role of the Home Office Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU) in collecting and storing personal data. Continue reading
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on two Belgian cases involving bans on wearing the niqab in public.
In Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium  ECHR 655 [in French], the applicants – Ms Samia Belcacemi (a Belgian national) and Ms Yamina Oussar (a Moroccan national living in Belgium) – challenged the Belgian Law of 1 June 2011 banning the wearing in public places of clothing which partially or totally covers the face. Continue reading
The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal by the Attorney General, John Larkin QC, against the Order made by Horner J at first instance in which he held that the abortion law in Northern Ireland was incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 in the circumstances where the foetus was diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality or where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. It quashed the declaration and concluded, by a majority, that the Court should not intervene in what was a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide. Continue reading
By a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal in R (A and B) v Secretary of State for Health  UKSC 41.
In 2012, A, a 15-year-old woman resident in Northern Ireland became pregnant. She used the services of a private clinic in England to secure an abortion accompanied by B, her mother (and litigation friend), at a total cost of £900 including travel. She did so because she reasonably believed that she would not be able to obtain an abortion in Northern Ireland or through the NHS in England because she was ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.
In Tonyuk v Ukraine  ECHR 492 the applicant, Yustyna Tonyuk, a Ukrainian national born in 1941 and living in Yaremche, in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region, complained about the existence and use of a cemetery that had been created adjacent to her home. Ms Tonyuk had obtained two judgments from the national courts banning the use of the cemetery for future burials on the ground that its proximity to her home was in breach of the applicable sanitary standards. Her house was some ten metres from the cemetery boundary, her yard was separated from the cemetery by a wire mesh fence and the nearest row of graves was about a metre from the fence (some eleven metres from her house) and clearly visible from her yard . Continue reading
A very, very sad week – and not one for flippant straplines…
The atrocity in Manchester
The appalling news from Manchester is beyond words. How society might react to it, however, is a legitimate matter for concern: there have already been calls in the social media for mass internments (of whom, precisely?) – and worse. Possibly one of the most measured reactions on Twitter was from Adam Wagner:
2/ Terrorism isn’t just senseless violence. It has a purpose, which is to terrorise us. We, the public who watch in terror, are victims too.
3/ It’s totally natural to respond to terror with fear, anger, sometimes even a need for revenge; an ‘eye for an eye’. That’s what they want.
4/ The very best human societies are open, tolerant, multicultural. Terrorism makes us close up, retreat into our safe, small groups.
5/ In times of fear and retreat we must trust the rule-based system we build in better times. It’s insurance against our worst natures.”
Church of Scotland on same-sex marriage
In a rather unusual case, Dingemans J has had to consider whether the moral attitudes – as revealed by his blog posts – of a father who was estranged from the mother of his son supported the Family Court’s decision not to allow him parental access.
In A v Cornwall Council  EWHC 842 (QB), A believed that abortion and same-sex relationships were both wrong. A’s relationship with M had broken down and he was refused contact with their son, S. A claimed that the Council had prevented him having direct contact and had not supported his application to have S live with him because of the views he had blogged about abortion and same-sex marriage – and that the Council had violated his Convention rights. The Council denied the claim and said that it had conducted proper safeguarding inquiries about S and had made proper recommendations to the Family Court that had taken the relevant decisions . Continue reading