Subscribe RSS
Comment RSS
The author of this article, John Keown of Georgetown University, considers the DPP’s interim guidelines, outlining the factors to be taken into account in determining whether it is in the public interest to …
Art. 02 Right to Life, Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, Medical LawArticles in: Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life
Scottish Government Consultation on Identity Management and Privacy
December 20, 2009 | No CommentsThe Scottish Government has recently undertaken a consultation regarding the introduction and composition of Identity Management and Privacy Principles. The consultation seeks to “help ensure that respect for privacy is central to the way public services prove identity or entitlement and to help public service organisations comply with data protection and human rights legislation”.
This consultation began on 31st August and …
Ministry of Justice Consultation on the introduction of maximum penalties
December 20, 2009 | No CommentsThis consultation by the ministry of Justice relates to the creation of maximum monetary penalties of £500,000 for serious breaches of the Data Protection Principles.
Should such penalties be introduced, the Information Commissioner’s Office will publish guidance detailing the criteria to be use and the circumstances to consider when issuing such a penalty.
This consultation opened on 9th November 2009 and closes …
Omojudi v United Kingdom
December 17, 2009 | No CommentsThe ECHR decided that deporting a sex offender who had indefinite leave to remain in UK and had lived in UK for 26 years was a breach of Art 8. The deportation was an interference with the applicant’s private and family life and was not proportionate.
See Times Law Report December 15 2009
Maria Clarke
R (on the application of A) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Croydon (Respondents); and one other action R (on the application of M) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Lambeth (Respondents) and one other action [2009] UKSC 8
December 14, 2009 | No CommentsThe appeals of two asylum seekers (X and M) against a decision that they were adults and so were not entitled to be accommodated as children, were allowed by the Supreme Court. The appellants claimed to be under 18, however, the local authorities determined that they were in fact over 18.
Art. 06 Right to a Fair Trial, Art. 08 Right to Private and Family Life, Asylum & Immigration Law