Hemmati: The Dublin III Regulations and the Detention of Asylum Seekers
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
4y ago
In the recent case of R (on the application of Hemmati and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56, the Supreme Court decided upon a case that will have significant consequences regarding the detention of illegal immigrants that have already applied for refugee status in the EU. Facts of the case This case had five claimants, all of whom arrived illegally in the UK during 2015. Relevant enquiries upon their apprehension revealed that all five had already made asylum applications in EU countries (in aggregate the five claimants had applications in Bulgaria, Austria ..read more
Visit website
Bias & recusal: 'judicial discomfort at continuing with the case is not the test'
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
4y ago
In Akers v Kirkland [2019] EWHC 2176 (QB) the High Court has reaffirmed core principles around when (and whether) judges and tribunal members should recuse themselves because of apparent bias. Mr Justice Waksman held that in this case, a District Judge had been wrong to recuse himself due to a connection between himself and counsel involved in the case, stating clearly that 'judicial discomfort at continuing with the case is not the test.' The case arose out of county court litigation. That litigation settled, but it remained necessary to assess the costs of the respective parties' solicitors ..read more
Visit website
'Inappropriate, protracted and hostile': High Court reminds Tribunals about witness questioning
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
4y ago
Beard v General Osteopathic Council [2019] EWHC 1561 (Admin) The High Court has criticised a Professional Conduct Committee ('PCC') for its conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Questions amounted to 'vexing the witness rather than illuminating the factual issues' and compromised the fairness of the proceedings. The judgment is a valuable reminder to Tribunal members, legal assessors and lawyers of a Tribunal's duty to remain impartial. Facts B was an osteopath. She saw Patient A about a problem with his foot. Patient A was dissatisfied with the treatment B provided, was critical of her recomme ..read more
Visit website
Adverse Inferences: A Watershed Moment
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
4y ago
R(Kuzmin) v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 2129 (Admin) In a clear and useful judgment, the Divisional Court has put beyond doubt a longstanding question in establishing that professional disciplinary tribunals have an inherent power to draw adverse inferences from a practitioner's failure to give evidence before them. An Interim Orders Tribunal imposed a conditions of practice order on K pending the outcome of substantive disciplinary proceedings. Those conditions required K to inform the Hampshire Doctors On Call Service ('DOCS') of the other conditions. K did not do so upon the order b ..read more
Visit website
Automated Facial Recognition ruled lawful in landmark court ruling
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
4y ago
Authored by Olivia Rogers (Trainee solicitor) The High Court has ruled that the use of automated facial recognition technology ('AFR') by South Wales Police ('SWP') is lawful. This is the first time that a court has considered the use of AFR after a judicial review claim was brought by Ed Bridges against the Chief Constable of South Wales alleging that SWP's use of AFR breached his human rights (constituting an interference with his rights under ECHR Article 8(1) respect for private and family life which was not in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate) and data protection law (i ..read more
Visit website
Disciplinary processes: A pause between decision and sanction?
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
5y ago
The Court of Appeal has handed down their judgment in Sanusi v General Medical Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1172, considering whether a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) should adjourn between its decision on impairment and sanction in the absence of the accused. This case confirms that there is no obligation to adjourn prior to considering sanction. It is also a reminder to regulators to ensure they have undertaken a reasonable review of relevant material and a reminder to registrants of the consequences of being voluntarily absent from proceedings. Background Dr Sanusi, a registrar, was referr ..read more
Visit website
Extra-territoriality and the Public Sector Equality Duty; the geographical effect of UK equality legislation
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
5y ago
The Administrative Court (sitting as a Divisional Court) has recently commented on the geographical limits of the obligation of the Public Sector Equality Duty ("PSED") for public authorities in Hoareau & Bancoult v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2019] EWHC 221 (Admin). This blog explains the Court's decision and highlights the potential implications for public authorities. The case is part of long-running litigation between the UK government and the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands – a remote archipelago located in the British Indian Ocean Territory.  In ..read more
Visit website
Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of unsuccessful parties' liability for pre-permission costs in statutory review and judicial review claims
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
5y ago
Campaign to Protect Rural England – Kent Branch v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230 The Court of Appeal has confirmed that, where permission to seek statutory or judicial review is refused, a claimant can be liable for the costs of more than one defendant or interested party. The Court of Appeal also clarified that the costs of interested parties in statutory and judicial review cases concerning environmental matters under the Aarhus Convention are not outside the scope of the Aarhus costs cap, so that a claimant's costs liability under an Aarhus cap ..read more
Visit website
Promoting Professionalism, Reforming Regulation – the Government's latest consultation response
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
5y ago
Five years since the Law Commission published its recommendations and Draft Bill for the regulation of health and social care professionals, the Department of Health and Social Care has published its response to the most recent consultation.  While it contains some further details of how professional regulation will be reformed, including in response to the controversial Bawa-Garba case, it also suggests further consultations on other details. The Law Commission's Draft Bill was first published in 2014, with the Government's response following in January 2015. In January 2017 the Government's ..read more
Visit website
Integrity v Dishonesty - Legal distinction or legal confusion?
Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory
by
5y ago
Written by Alex Beresford (Trainee Solicitor) The distinction between integrity and dishonesty in professional regulation continues to be in the spotlight. After a number of cases and commentary attempting to grapple with the concept of integrity in particular, Mostyn J in the case of Adetoye v SRA [2019] EWHC 707 (Admin) may have confused the issue further.  Last year, Wingate v SRA [2018] EWCA Civ 366 appeared to shed some light on the difference between integrity and dishonesty, confirming that the two concepts were not synonymous. Jackson LJ made the distinction that honesty is "a basic mo ..read more
Visit website

Follow Fieldfisher | The Public Eye | Public & Regulatory on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR