This is interesting. People are leaving hotel quarantine after Red List emptied - govt telling them not to and that details of "early release" (nb the govt denies this is detention but hey ho) coming later.
There is also this - appears to be an intention to realise. This is legally complicated unless there is a law change - I suppose everyone could be designated a "relevant person" by the Secretary of State who will then direct them to isolate at home. But not straightforward
Actually, I'm not sure the Secretary of State has the power to designate people as relevant persons unless they fall within one of the express categories in Schedule 11 to the regulations. And "the minister has told me I can leave" isn't a listed reason for leaving quarantine
Haven't got time at the moment to tweet the key bits but two really important @UKSupremeCourt human rights judgments this morning:
- Ellan-Cane on non-binary "unspecified" gender on passports (E-C's appeal rejected)
- McKenna on NI Troubles investigation (appeal allowed in part)
Here are the links:
Ellan-Cane: supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-202…
McKenna supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-202…
I haven't summarised McKenna above as I actually don't understand exactly what has been ruled from the press summary! Will have a proper read later
Ellan-Cane includes an important discussion on the "mirror principle", i.e. the extent to which our domestic human rights case law should mirror the European Court of Human Rights case law. Says, I think, UK courts should go no further than ECtHR but there is some wriggle room...
This government may be the first in the history of liberal democracies which enacts a bill of rights which has the effect of reducing rather than increasing rights protections.
If there are other examples, please let me know!
This is like enacting a Clean Air Act which opens five new coal power stations
If I was responsible for these proposals I would be embarrassed. The idea that public authorities can't breach rights if implementing primary legislation. Or making human rights claims harder to bring by adding needless bureaucracy. Removing rights entirely from certian people...
So now we know why the govet has sat on its Independent Human Rights Act Review report for weeks - it is far more modest than the govt wanted. The govt's proposals for a bill of rights include some which go much further and would be regressive. Same as it did with judicial review
Government approach: 1. "This is very complicated we need an independent expert view" 2. Govt commission said experts - with total control over who it appoints 3. Experts give answer govt doesn't want 4. Govt ignores experts
5. Government consults on non-expert led proposals 6. Government ignores consultation and enacts regressive "bill of rights" which uniquely perhaps in the history of democracy bills of rights, reduces rather than increases rights protections
Let’s see the details of the government’s “bill of rights”. It doesn’t sound like there is much which hasn’t been widely trailed for the past few months. Very unlikely this will strengthen rights protections and will more likely weaken, or pick fights with the European…
Court of Human Rights by forcing judges to alter the balance in the way they interpret rights away from how Strasberg has, therefore, ironically leading to more influence from Strasbourg rather than less. The “right to trial by jury” may be legally meaningless but added…
… So that it can be said this “bill of rights” is not entirely regressive from a rights perspective. The freedom of speech change sounds like it is a sop to the right-wing press as the human rights act already has an extra emphasis on freedom of speech through section 12…