Information even unlawfully obtained is admissible to the GMC – Joanna Glynn

UK Human Rights Blog

785px-Doctors_stethoscope_1R (on the application of Nakesh) v Metropolitan Police Service and General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3810 (Admin) – read judgment

The High Court has ruled that although information obtained unlawfully by the police is admissible in regulatory proceedings (even if not in criminal proceedings), it  “carries little weight” in the assessment of competing interests required by Article 8(2). 

The General Medical Council [“GMC”] has wide powers under section 35A Medical Act 1983 to require disclosure of information which appears relevant to the discharge of the Council’s statutory functions in respect of a practitioner’s fitness to practise.

Where the police are in possession of confidential material that they are reasonably persuaded is of some relevance to an investigation being conducted by the GMC, a doctor’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR are not breached by the police disclosing that information, even where it was unlawfully obtained. However, the police…

View original post 897 more words

Advertisements

Delays in prisoner rehabilitation did not breach Convention – Strasbourg Court

UK Human Rights Blog

man_in_prisonDillon v United Kingdom  (no. 32621/11)  – read judgment  and David Thomas v United Kingdom (no. 55863/11) – read judgment 

Two prisoners have failed in their human rights protest against prison rehabilitation courses in the United Kingdom.

Dillon

The applicant Dillon, currently detained in HMP Whatton, had been given an indeterminate sentence following his conviction for sexual assault. He was given a tariff period of four years. His release after the expiry of this tariff period was subject to the approval of the Parole Board.

He completed the core Sex Offenders Treatment Programme (“SOTP”) in March 2009 and had been assessed as suitable for the extended SOTP in 2010. But then the  prison authorities concluded that he was insufficiently motivated to undertake the extended course.  He complained that the only way that he could address the risk he presented to the public was by completing the extended SOTP, but his…

View original post 588 more words

From Pari Passu to Par in Parem ? A Brief history of Argentina’s Sovereign-Debt Litigation and its Outcome

International Law Matters is pleased to welcome this guest post from Alexandre Belle.  Alexandre is a LLM student at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.  He completed his master’s degree in law at the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium. Follow him on twitter @Alexlubelle

Sovereign-debt litigation is interesting for two reasons. First of all, the topicality of the question is undeniable as demonstrated by recent US decisions and the emotion they provoked in the legal doctrine. But more than this, sovereign-debt litigation also reminds us of a fascinating and frightening reality: that a nation state, the cornerstone of modern society, can default. The sudden growth of litigation on sovereign debt also highlights the fundamentally hybrid nature of sovereign debt as an instrument created through contractual means in order to achieve a public purpose.

The purpose of this contribution is to focus on Argentina’s reconstruction and its troubles with US courts, as it constitutes a clear-cut example of the judicial, economic, and political issues on sovereign-debt litigation. At the origin of today’s litigation before US courts lies Argentina’s economic crisis between 1998 and 2001 that was caused by a forced deflation of Argentina’s economy and a lack of liquidity of the South American republic government.  This economic crisis led Argentina into the most important debt-restructuring process in history[1] ($85 billion dollars (US)). In 2005, cumbersome and fruitless negotiations with its creditors led Argentina to make a unilateral offer, proposing to pay $62.3 billion (US) of the total sum owed in principal[2]. Ninety-three percent of the bondholders accepted this offer; and since then, Argentina has fulfilled its obligation towards them. Continue reading

The Media and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: TTIP of the Iceberg?

International Law Matters is pleased to welcome this guest post from Edward Guntrip.  Edward Guntrip is Lecturer in Law at the Sussex Law School at the University of Sussex.  His research interests lie in international investment law. He completed his law degree at the University of Western Australia.  He earned his LLM in international law at the University of Cambridge, and he completed his PhD at Brunel University.  Follow him on twitter @ejguntrip. 

In the United Kingdom (UK), the mainstream and popular media has been reporting details of the proposed impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) (see for example, articles from the Independent, the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Huffington Post). The TTIP is a trade agreement that is intended to minimise regulatory differences and remove trade barriers between the EU and the USA. The TTIP also seeks to open the market between the EU and the USA for investment and services. In the majority of stories discussing the TTIP, journalists and columnists have raised concerns regarding its potentially negative influence. There is apprehension concerning the possibility of increased privatisation of state-run healthcare services, the relaxation of environmental standards, and the introduction of food that does not comply with existing EU standards. Examples of these types of media reports can be found here and here. In addition, the media is warning the public about the threat of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) (see for example, here).

The potential impact of the TTIP on citizens of EU member states and the USA needs to be fully discussed, and a dialogue between all interested parties is to be encouraged. An open conversation could have easily been achieved had those negotiating the TTIP made the negotiating aims transparent from the outset. However, the mandate setting out the negotiating directives was only made public in October 2014 after seven rounds of negotiations. Given the recent change in policy regarding the transparency of the negotiations, the main source of information regarding the TTIP for the vast majority of people, so far, has been through reports in the media. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the debate has been presented to the public by the UK media in an incomplete manner. This practice has been most prevalent when the UK media discusses ISDS. Continue reading

Legality of Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts: A Note on Serdar Mohammad v. Ministry of Defence

NALSAR International Law Blog

Rahul Mohanty

III Year

NALSAR University of Law

The Legal Basis of Detention in Non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) has been subject of renewed debate after the recent High Court decision in Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence.[1] The High Court held that UK did not have legal authority for detention under international humanitarian law in the course of the non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan, and that any detention of such individuals longer than 96 hours violates Article 5 ECHR and applicable Afghan law.

Justice Leggatt held IHL did not by itself give authority to UK to detain because: Firstly, neither Common Article 3 nor Additional Protocol 2 expressly authorises to detain individuals, they merely set out certain minimum standards of treatment of detainees during NIAC. Authorisation for detention cannot be inferred from them.

He rebutted argument that these articles impliedly permitted detention because they contemplated the fact of detention…

View original post 1,193 more words