The court held that EU Directive 2004/83, which recognised for the right to asylum as part of EU law did not alter the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that asylum decisions did not fall within the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1), and that a non-citizen had no right under Convention law to claim for damages for the delay in processing his asylum application.

The full report can be viewed here.

The court held that the decision on the deportation appeal did not involve a decision on the immigrant’s status and therefore the subsequent refusal of humanitarian protection by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not unlawful for inconsistency and that there was not a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

The full report can be viewed here.

In this Scottish case, an application by a father acting on behalf of his young child with disabilities and serious health problems, for judicial review of section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, as being incompatible with provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected by the Court of Sessions. The Court rejected the father’s argument that in only allowing the mobility component of disability allowance to be paid only on behalf of children over the age of three years old, the UK Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the opinion of Lord Brodie:-

“the court, in determining whether the statute is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, must recognise that while its role is to safeguard rights that role does not extend to review of what are essentially policy choices. Here Parliament, with the benefit of appropriate expert advice, has fixed the lower age limit for entitlement to the mobility component of DLA at three years. Having regard to what was advanced by the respondent in justification, I cannot say that that was an irrational decision or that it was in pursuit of an illegitimate aim or that it was disproportionate in its effect. I do not find it be incompatible with article 14, or any other provision, of the Convention.”

The full report can be viewed here.

]]> http://www.shrlg.org.uk/2010/03/11/sm-v-advocate-general-for-scotland-2010-scotcs-csoh_15-16-february-2010/feed/ 0 http://www.shrlg.org.uk/2010/03/07/national-offender-management-service-found-in-breach-of-race-and-disability-laws/ http://www.shrlg.org.uk/2010/03/07/national-offender-management-service-found-in-breach-of-race-and-disability-laws/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:54:55 +0000 Susan Reddy http://www.shrlg.org.uk/?p=2025 Following judicial review proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales by the Equality and Human Rights Commission against the National Offender Management Service, it was held that NOMS, in its treatment of some foreign prisoners, had failed to comply with laws on disability and race.

All public authorities are bound by law to conduct equality impact assessments and examine the implication of how their policies will affect, in relation to disability, ethnicity and gender, in advance of any change. A policy had been implemented by NOMS, named the Service Legal Agreement, whereby foreign male prisoners were transferred without due consideration of the effect such moves would have on disabled or ethnic minority prisoners, contrary to s.71 of the race Relations Act 1976 and to section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

This is the first Judicial Review sought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to reach the courts.

To read the judgment, please click here.

To read the Commission’s commentary on the judgment, please click here.

This appeal was based on Binyam Mohamed’s request for disclosure by the UK government of documentation and information, so as to assist his defence against charges which he anticipated would be brought against him by the US.Important legal issues arise from the working relationship of UK and US intelligence services and the issue of the confidentiality afforded to them, among them the principles of open justice, non-disclosure and public-interest immunity.

Reports were provided to the UK government by the US government, on the detention and treatment of Binyam Mohamed, under surveillance for suspected terrorist threat. The consideration was the balance between national security and of the openness of the judicial system, both matters being in the public interest. It was held that the issue of confidentiality amongst allied intelligence services was not absolute and that summary reports on the individual in question should form part of the judgement, on the basis that there was no potential risk therein to threaten national security and that it was in the public interest to disclose the intelligence information.

To read this judgment in full, please click here.