There are essentially two ways in which a person may challenge the sufficiency of inquest proceedings or a decision by a coroner not to hold an inquest at all. The first and most obvious is by way of judicial review proceedings. The second is by way of a s13 application under the Coroners Act 1988.This paper will briefly consider the law and procedure pertaining to applications to the Attorney-General for a fiat and applications to the High Court pursuant to s13 of the Coroners Act 1988.
On 11 October 2016 the IPB passed the report stage , which leaves only the third reading before royal assent. It is likely to become law in January 2017. The Bill is an unprecedented legislative assault on privacy. Although it is welcome in that it seeks to regulate what the authorities have been doing anyway without any formal legal basis , it contains incredibly far-reaching powers with insufficient oversight.
This paper considers some of the obligations and powers under which the State comes to investigate deaths , incidents of serious harm and abuse , and other forms of wrongdoing. These obligations and powers can , in limited circumstances , be used in judicial review proceedings to challenge decisions of Government and other public authorities on whether to conduct an investigation , and , if so , what form of investigation is required
The last few years have seen a raft of discrimination claims come before the higher courts in public law cases. A significant proportion of these claims have succeeded , in areas as diverse as the allocation of social housing and the payment of disability benefits.
Legal aid is vital to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer are able to access to justice. Prior to April 2013 , legal aid was generally available to separated migrant children for all immigration applications that they may need to make , e.g. for cases which raised either asylum or Article 8 ECHR/EEA grounds , or a mixture.
Now , with a few exceptions , it is available only for protection claims
This is a note prepared by PLP’s Rakesh Singh for the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA) on changes to the Home Office policy on when JR will not suspend removal. It has been included in the ILPA mailing for November 2016 and was part of a talk prepared for the working group on removals , detention and offences on 10/11/16.
PLP views this consultation with considerable disquiet , as it appears to be no more than a renewed attempt by Government to introduce a new DFT , notwithstanding the rejection of its recent attempt to do so by the TPC and despite the evidential deficiency identified by the TPC not having been filled.
The investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) provides a legal framework to UK state surveillance , purporting to balance personal privacy with the needs of state to provide security and prevent fraud and terrorism. The panellists disucss the public law issues arising from the so called ‘snoopers charter’.
The introduction of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (“DoLSâ€) to the MCA 2005 on 1 April 2009 imposed a statutory responsibility on local authorities to oversee and operate a scheme to lawfully deprive the liberty of adults who lack the capacity to consent to arrangements made for their care or treatment in either hospitals or care home in their own best interests.
There have been rapid technological developments and the scale of data sharing and collection has increased dramatically. Intelligent technology allows private and state use of personal data on an unprecedented scale. There is a wide variation in national implementation of Directive 95/46/EC , and a need to do away with legal uncertainty and current costly fragmentation.
The next six years marks out the most ambitious period of change since the Judicature Acts of the 1870s. The aim that the Lord Chief Justice and I have agreed with the Lord Chancellor is quite simply to strengthen the rule of law. The reform programme that was announced this last month is a breathtaking £1bn investment project.
Response to ‘Transforming our Justice System’ consultation , 10 November 2016.
Please note that this response is a response to both parts of the consultation , covering both ‘assisted digital’ issues and the proposed changes to tribunal panel composition.