United Kingdom 2018 Human Rights Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Rt Hon Sir Robert Neill MP Justice Committee Chair House of Commons London 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A OAA
HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ The Rt Hon Sir Robert Neill MP Justice Committee Chair House of Commons London 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A OAA 5 May 2020 Dear Sir Robert, COVID-19 IMPACT ON LEGAL SECTOR 1. Thank you for your letter of 8 April highlighting the impact of the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak on the legal professions. As the minister responsible for spending on the Justice system, I am responding on behalf of the Chancellor. 2. The government recognises the importance of the work of the legal professions in enabling access to justice across the country, and my officials are working closely with their counterparts in the Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency to understand and mitigate the impact of Covid-19 on the sector. 3. In response to Covid-19, the government is making sure that people and businesses have access to the support they need as quickly as possible. We have announced unprecedented support for business and workers to protect them against the current economic emergency including an initial £330 billion of guarantees – equivalent to 15% of UK GDP. 4. The financial support schemes announced by the Chancellor should be accessible to firms in the legal sector who are experiencing reduced demand during this period. These are the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS), the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS) and the Coronavirus Financing Facility (CFF). These schemes are designed to provide financial support to firms of all sizes facing cash-flow issues as a result of Covid-19. -
Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law
ADVISORY SERVICE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND SIMILAR BODIES ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (25 January 2021) NATIONAL COMMITTEES AND SIMILAR BODIES ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW As of 25 January 2021 (total by region) EUROPE CENTRAL ASIA ASIA & PACIFIC THE AMERICAS AFRICA MIDDLE EAST Austria Kazakhstan Australia Argentina Algeria Bahrain Belarus Kyrgyzstan Bangladesh Bolivia Benin Egypt Belgium Tajikistan China (People’s Republic of) Brazil Botswana Iran (Islamic Republic of) Bulgaria Turkmenistan Cook Islands Canada Burkina Faso Iraq Croatia Indonesia Chile Cabo Verde Jordan Cyprus Japan Colombia Comoros Kuwait Czech Republic Kiribati Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Lebanon Denmark Malaysia Dominican Republic Eswatini Oman Finland Mongolia1* El Salvador Gambia Palestine France Nepal Ecuador Guinea-Bissau Qatar Georgia New Zealand Guatemala Kenya Saudi Arabia Germany Papua New Guinea Honduras Lesotho Syrian Arab Republic Greece Philippines Mexico Liberia United Arab Emirates Hungary Republic of Korea (the) Nicaragua Libya Yemen Iceland Samoa Panama Madagascar Ireland Sri Lanka Paraguay Malawi Italy (two committees) Vanuatu Peru Mauritius Lithuania Trinidad & Tobago Morocco Netherlands Uruguay Namibia Republic of North Macedonia Venezuela Niger Poland (two committees) Nigeria Republic of Moldova Senegal Romania Seychelles Slovakia Sierra Leone Slovenia South Africa Spain Sudan Sweden (two committees) Togo Switzerland Tunisia Ukraine Uganda United Kingdom Zambia Zimbabwe TOTAL: 30 TOTAL: 4 TOTAL: 17 TOTAL: -
British Overseas Territories Law
British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. -
France 2014 Human Rights Report
FRANCE 2014 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY France is a multi-party constitutional democracy. The president of the republic is elected by popular vote for a five-year term. Voters elected Francois Hollande to that position in 2012. The upper house (Senate) of the bicameral parliament is elected indirectly through an electoral college, while the public elects the lower house (National Assembly) directly. The 2012 presidential and National Assembly elections and the 2014 elections for the Senate were considered free and fair. Authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces. The most significant human rights problems during the year included an increasing number of anti-Semitic incidents. Anti-Semitic incidents and violence surged during the summer in connection with public protests against Israeli actions in Gaza. Government evictions of Roma from illegal camps, as well as overcrowded and unhygienic prisons, and problems in the judicial system, including lengthy pretrial detention and protracted investigations and trials, continued. Other reported human rights problems included instances of excessive use of force by police, societal violence against women, anti-Muslim incidents, and trafficking in persons. The government took steps to prosecute and punish security forces and other officials who committed abuses. Impunity was not widespread. Note: The country includes 11 overseas administrative divisions covered in this report. Four overseas territories in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and La Reunion have the same political status as the 22 metropolitan regions and 101 departments on the mainland. Five divisions are overseas “collectivities”: French Polynesia, Saint-Barthelemy, Saint-Martin, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna. -
Committee for Justice Report on the Legislative Consent Motion to Allow the Inclusion of Amendments to Court Rule-Making Procedu
Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Justice Report on the Legislative Consent Motion to allow the inclusion of Amendments to Court Rule-Making Procedures in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Thursday 12 September 2013 Report: NIA 111/11-15 Contents Background Committee Consideration Purpose of the Legislative Consent Motion Conclusion Appendix 1 Legislative Consent Memorandum - Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as laid on 28 June 2013 Appendix 2 Departmental Memoranda Background 1. Court Rules are made in a variety of different ways with some Rules being subject to the negative resolution procedure while others, such as County Court and Magistrates’ Court Rules, are currently not subject to any Assembly procedure. 2. The previous Justice Committee, during its consideration of the Justice Bill 2010 (now the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011), sought further information on the background and rationale for some Court Rules such as the County Court Rules and Magistrates’ Courts Rules not being subject to any formal Assembly procedure (although they could be scrutinised by the Committee). 3. The Committee noted that the reason for the varying approaches to scrutiny appeared to be largely historical rather than due to logic or principle and was of the view that a change to the position to make all Rules subject to negative resolution procedure, which would require amendments in primary legislation, was logical and consistent. The Committee therefore wrote to the Minister of Justice regarding harmonising court rule making procedures so that the same level of scrutiny would apply to all court rules. 4. The Minister of Justice agreed with the Committee’s position and undertook to make the necessary changes to primary legislation at the next available opportunity. -
Swearing in of the Lord Chancellor
THE RT HON. THE LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD SWEARING IN OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR COURT 4, ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE 19 June 2017 1. My Lord Chancellor, it is a real pleasure to welcome you today on behalf of Her Majesty’s judges. Your appointment comes at a time of real challenge for our justice system. You are a Lord Chancellor for interesting times; ones that will reshape our justice system for the 21st Century. 2. You first bring to your office your scholarship as a historian. Your doctorate at Cambridge focused on the enforcement of penal statutes from 1558-1576 before the Court of Exchequer. It is quite some time since a Lord Chancellor has been an expert on that particular court. 3. I hope that the study did not extend too closely to my predecessors who were Chief Justices during that period and, if so, that they did not shape your view of a Chief Justice. The one who occupied that post for almost the entire period of your study was Sir Robert Catlynne. He presided over the conviction of the Duke of Norfolk for treason. Lord Campbell concluded that Sir Robert Catlynne acted in a manner in which he could “hardly be defended from the charge of consciously perverting the law of treason.” However, we all know that Lord Campbell, who became a historian after he retired as Lord Chancellor, does not enjoy a reputation for total accuracy. 1 4. We have moved some way away from the practices and procedures common to the Court of Exchequer and the other courts before the Chief Justiceship of Sir Edward Coke in 1606. -
United Kingdom 2019 Human Rights Report
UNITED KINGDOM 2019 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK) is a constitutional monarchy with a multiparty, parliamentary form of government. Citizens elect members of Parliament to the House of Commons (MPs), the lower chamber of the bicameral Parliament. They last did so in free and fair elections on December 12. Members of the upper chamber, the House of Lords, occupy appointed or hereditary seats. Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Bermuda all have elected legislative bodies and devolved administrations, with varying degrees of legislative and executive powers. The Northern Ireland devolved government was not in operation throughout the year. The UK has 14 overseas territories, including Bermuda. Each of the overseas territories has its own constitution, while the UK government is responsible for external affairs and defense. Except in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the national police maintained internal security and reported to the Home Office. The army, under the authority of the Ministry of Defence, is responsible for external security and supports police in extreme cases. The National Crime Agency (NCA) investigates serious crime in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and it has a mandate to deal with organized, economic, and cybercrimes as well as border policing and child protection. The NCA director general has independent operational direction and control over the NCA’s activities and is accountable to the home secretary. Scotland’s judicial, legal, and law enforcement system is fully separate from that of the rest of the UK. Police Scotland reports to the Scottish justice minister and the state prosecutor and coordinates cross-border crime and threat information to the national UK police and responds to UK police needs in Scotland upon request. -
Prime Minister Dr Kenny D. Anthony Convenient
Saint Lucia No. 79. Saturday, February 19, 2005 A publication of the Department of Information Services 26th Independence Anniversary kicks off this weekend - page 2 Fund for new hospital mounts - page 2 Governor General presents Charter for the Pitons to UNESCO Director General t. Lucia now has access to the many privileges that world heritage sites enjoy. Direc- tor General of UNESCO Mr. Tourism is key sector, keeps SKoichio Matsuura, who earlier this improving - pages 3 & 8 week led a UNESCO delegation to St. Lucia for the inscription ceremo- ny of the Piton Management Area as a World Heritage Site, said that designating an area as a world heri- tage site was an occasion for boost- ing national pride and increasing a society’s commitment to protecting and developing that area in a sus- tainable manner. He said the status of world heritage also brought inter- national attention to the site and its surrounding area, attracting inter- national funding and potential in- creases in tourism. Intangible cultural heritage encom- UNESCO has established a pro- $100,000 for Guyana fl ood victims “It may be noted that the world heri- cess for promoting an interest in and - page 7 passes among others, world traditions tage centre has established programs and expressions including language, respect for intangible cultural heri- for small island developing state to performing arts, social practices, ritu- tage called the masterpieces of the provide enhanced assistance in the als and festive events and traditional oral and intangible heritage of hu- preparation of nominations to UNES- manity. Given the fact that 12 coun- CO’s world heritage list. -
A Comparative Approach to Reform of Judicial Accountability in Egypt
Clash of the Titans: A Comparative Approach to Reform of Judicial Accountability in Egypt Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji* ABSTRACT: This Article argues for the reform of judicial accountability rules in Egypt. The lack of a real separation of powers and “checks and balances” between the three powers often leads the judiciary to become a periphery in the executive body, rather than an independent authority that invigilates and monitors any violation of the law. Judges who refuse to comply with executive wishes are often subjected to persecution from the Ministry of Justice and its Judicial Inspection Department, which can reach up to the level of impeachment. The Ministry of Justice uses judicial accountability as a tool of retribution over disobedient and inconsistent judges. Currently, the executive authority monopolizes the judicial accountability process and its outcomes. Reformation towards a transparent democratic judiciary requires major participation by the public in the judicial accountability process. This participation aims not only to exclude the authority of the Ministry of Justice over the judiciary and the judges, but it also aims to increase public participation in a democratic judiciary. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 62 I. THE JUDICIAL MASSACRES OF 1969 AND 2016 ...................... 68 * The author wishes to extend his deep gratitude and appreciation to Michael Mullen, Brett Harris, Drew Sena, Courtney Olson, Mylla Dawson, Claire Weyland, Laurent Mayali, Mark Bevir, and Luc Heuschling for their constructive comments and helpful edits, and his wife for her continuous help and support. 61 62 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 41:1 II. ARBITRARINESS AND VAGUENESS OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY RULES IN EGYPT .............................................. -
"Do Not Forget This" Cause, but We Were Sustained and by Dr
i. d. a.! news notes Published by the United States Committee of the International Defense and Aid Fund for Southern Africa P.O. Box 17, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 December, 1982 Telephone (617) 491-8343 CANON JOHN COLLINS concerned about apartheid. He was particularly interested in America, for here he sensed a growing consciousness of the evils of 1905-1982 apartheid and a desire to do what can be done to support those The death of the Reverend Canon L. John Collins on December who oppose it. This faith in America caused him to establish our 30, 1982 in the 78th year of his age has brought to a close a great American Committee and to support it to this day. His clerical life of creative service for God and the world; and we, associated colleagues thought him egotistical, intolerant, and a bit fuzzy on with the work of the International Defense and Aid Fund for the niCeties of doctrine. His secular critics thought him "soft" on Southern Africa, have been deprived of our founder, President, the "hard" issues of our times. But there are countless sons and and guiding force. That there is a Defense and Aid Fund today daughters of Africa, exiled or imprisoned, who weep at word of and an ever growing world-wide consciousness of the evils of his death, for they know that in John Collins they have lost an apartheid is due to the Christian outrage, organizational skills, incomparable friend and advocate. I join them in their sense of loss and personal charisma of John Collins. -
Lord Neuberger at the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee For
Justice Innovation Programme Lecture for the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Justice Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court 3 March 2016 1. It is a great pleasure to be here in Belfast, and a particular pleasure and indeed a privilege to be asked to address the Assembly’s Committee for Justice, and to be a guest of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. The work of the Committee, led by its chairman, Alastair Ross, has been exemplary in terms of substance and procedure. Your pioneering work in investigating what can be done to improve and modernise the justice system, and in particular criminal justice has been imaginative and thorough. And the constructive way in which you have worked together with the Justice Minister, the Lord Chief Justice and others concerned with the administration of justice and the criminal law has been exemplary. 2. I know that this talk marks the final segment of the Committee’s Justice Innovation programme, and I will certainly want to discuss some issues in that connection. However, this is the first time that a President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has formally addressed the Committee for Justice, or indeed any arm of the Assembly, and as president of the Court, I cannot pretend to be at the sharp end of the judicial system. Accordingly, I hope that you will forgive me if I also discuss some wider issues. There will be time for questions at the end and if you have a question, please do not feel limited to the topics I am about to discuss. -
1 —The Office of Lord Chancellor
Select Committee on the Constitution Inquiry: The Office of Lord Chancellor [email protected] (July 2014) —THE OFFICE OF LORD CHANCELLOR— Graham Gee Birmingham Law School The University of Birmingham In this evidence, I draw on research conducted between 2011-2014 with Robert Hazell (UCL), Kate Malleson (Queen Mary) and Patrick O’Brien (UCL) as part of an AHRC- funded project on The Politics of Judicial Independence in the UK’s Changing Constitution. This included 150 confidential interviews with judges, politicians, officials and others involved in the administration of justice in the UK. Although drawing on research conducted jointly with Hazell, Malleson and O’Brien, this evidence is my own interpretation of our findings. 1. What are the current functions of the Lord Chancellor (as distinct from those of the Secretary of State for Justice)? 1.1 There are eight main functions of the new-style Lord Chancellors: (i) to ensure that there is an efficient and effective court system, including by providing the necessary resources and accounting to Parliament for their efficient and proper use;1 (ii) to decide the framework for the organization of the court system, including determining the total number of judges after consulting with the LCJ;2 (iii) to determine the pay, pensions and conditions of judicial service, taking into account recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body;3 (iv) to determine (with the LCJ) the aims of HMCTS, to endeavour to agree its budget with the LCJ, and to supply sufficient staff and resources;4 (v) a shared responsibility (with the LCJ) for complaints, supported by the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, and accounting to Parliament for the operation of the complaints system as a whole;5 (vi) to accept, reject or request reconsideration of the individual selections made either by the JAC for vacancies in the High Court or by ad hoc panels for the most senior appointments (i.e.