Legal Weekly Human Rights Roundup

A report by Baroness Casey has revealed that 20% of Metropolitan Police officers facing allegations of sexual misconduct, misogyny, racism and homophobia had more than one complaint raised against them. Only less than 1% of officers facing multiple allegations had been dismissed from the force. Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that this “cannot continue”.

A survey of lawyers and judges found that racial bias played some role in outcomes in court, and that judicial discrimination was directed particularly towards black court users. A study from the University of Manchester claims that the English and Welsh judiciary is “institutionally racist.” 95% of lawyers and judges who responded to a study claimed that racial bias affected court decisions in some way, and 29% said it had a “fundamental role” to play. The study also shown that black court users, including attorneys, witnesses, and defendants, were disproportionately targeted by judicial discrimination. But since 2020, there has only been one verdict from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office that has been made public and found a judge guilty of racism.

The CPS is facing outrage after dropping a rape case against Jade McCrossen-Nethercott after the defence team had pleaded, she had suffered from “Sexomnia” and this point was not contested in court or heard before a jury. The CPS have apologised, and The Centre for Women’s Justice has taken up her case.

The Listening Project, which was officially included in the Covid-19 inquiry earlier this year, will be awarded to one of 12 companies on a pre-approved government list following a competitive procedure the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group has asked eight firms on a pre-approved government list to withdraw from the tender process to instil greater confidence in the forthcoming inquiry.

MPs voted to ban anti-abortion protesters from standing outside abortion clinics in England and Wales.

The High Court dismissed the case of AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department, holding that only Grounds 1 and 2 out of five satisfied the tests for hearing a case which has become academic.

In Bernacki v The Regional Court In Slupsk, Poland, the High Court dismissed an appeal against the decision of District Judge Bouch to order the Appellant’s extradition to Poland. The Court held that the inevitable emotional hardship resulting from extradition was not sufficient to prevent extradition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Appellant in the case of L3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1357, against the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. A Libyan national had limited leave to remain in the UK until 2018, but the Secretary of State cancelled this and the family moved to Turkey. The Court held that the guidance in ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was not decisive in the present context. The appellant ‘A’ appealed a decision by the special Immigration Appeals Commission that rejecting A’s request for the Secretary of State to reconsider the decision to bar him from remaining in the UK. ‘A’ is a citizen of Libya. His wife holds dual citizenship in the UK and Libya, and their six children also hold dual citizenship in the UK and Libya. Up until 2018, he was granted a limited leave to remain (LLTR). This was revoked by the Secretary of State’s decision dated September 8, 2017 (referred to as “determination 1”), and the family thereafter relocated to Turkey. ‘A’ has acknowledged having contact with individuals who went on to become extremists or terrorists and was rumoured to have held a senior role in the militia organisation known as the Zintan Martyrs Brigade (or “ZMB”), active in Libya.