Reflections on the JUSTICE Human Rights Conference 2020 – ‘Review of the Year’
University of Edinburgh Pro Bono Society Committee members attended the JUSTICE Human Rights Conference 2020. They have produced six blog posts based on their reflections. The second blog in this series is by Gabriella Barnes, Pro Bono Society Secretary, and Graduate LLB student, reflecting on the ‘Review of the Year’ by Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, Doughty Street Chambers.
Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC went through a “review of the year” after the keynote speaker, Philip Alston, who had spoken about COVID-19 and human rights. Gallagher QC is a human rights lawyer with a focus on open justice, having been involved in many landmark human rights cases in the UK. Described as a whistle-stop tour of human rights cases in the UK since the last conference in October, she categorized them in “the good, the bad, and the ugly”, first setting the scene with bushfires ravaging New South Wales, US drone strike killing an Iranian General, the US impeachment trial and the media storm surrounding Kanye 2020.
Beginning with the ugly, she began with poverty and discrimination cases, discussing three. She went over education and the impact lockdown has on it, specifically the case where the Good Law Project and Sutton trust has against local authorities complying with Section 19 of the Education Act, ensuring disadvantaged children receive appropriate provisions during the lockdown, which did not actually have to go to court. Next, she discussed food poverty and inadequate free school meals, another situation which did not go to court as after a Premier League star publicly put pressure on the government, changes were made. The third, which is going ahead, is a case of judicial review which was brought by charity Article 39 surrounding the Department of Education’s removal and weakening of children’s legal protections. SI 445 made around 100 changes, 65 of which are identified to impact safeguards of some of the most vulnerable children.
She next spoke of two more cases Austerity policies of government and welfare policies, which Philip Alston the keynote speaker had declared “so sexist that may have well been compiled by a group of misogynists in a room”. Included in this was the universal credit scheme, which she discussed two cases. The first is a case brought by single mother Danielle Johnson and the Child Poverty Action Group with three other mothers. The Court of Appeal rejected the Government’s appeal and stated failed to consider when the date of pay is as unlawful, citing irrationality. The second is a European Court of Human Rights decision which Gallagher QC herself was involved, surrounding the bedroom tax and sanctuary schemes. The case is about a woman who has special safeguards in her home for protection against a domestic violence abuser but she received letters that as she had an extra bedroom and needing to make changes such as moving or taking in a lodger. The ECHR ruled that the Bedroom Tax unlawfully discriminated against victims of domestic violence specifically women, which the UK Government challenged which was then refused. Still awaiting change in law to be in effect.
Gallagher QC next went to the “bad”, discussing three cases. She began with the recommenced Grenfell hearings, which the members of the families of the victims are only able to attend remotely. UN special rapporteur on adequate housing Leilani Farha wrote to the UK Government citing that it could be a violation of international law. The next is a series of cases related to inquests about Article 2’s application in a medical context. She cites two cases, one with inadequate PPE concerns for coroners to examine for inquests, and the Maguire case surrounding issues relating to potential system failures in inquests are more difficult than previously thought to identify. The last is about surrounding mother and daughter travelling from NI to England for an abortion. The case which won 3-2 in the Supreme Court accepted the impossibility excuse for leaving NI as an exception for not allowing abortion which would lead to others travelling around the country for medical procedures for eye appointments, etc, however, the justification fell apart days later after agreement amongst MPs that there would be an exception.
Finally, to the much anticipated “good”. She states that she is the main issue that has come up recently is the issue of open justice. As a result of the lockdown, courts have been moved to online meetings utilising software just as the one we did during the conference, allowing more people to attend hearings. This was implemented relatively quickly and it is now common for judges to hear cases virtually. Justice is far more accessible now to access the courts, with journalists able to attend hearings when they wouldn’t have otherwise. She gives an example of a conviction of a person being outside without reasonable excuse, thus being in violation. However, a journalist from The Times and a QC later, her conviction was quashed as a wrongful conviction. This happened again and has now resulted in the CPS investigating every charge, conviction, and sentence brought under the legislation.
The discussion of the “bad” and the “ugly” demonstrates that there is still so much to improve upon. It is remarkable to see the new disruptions created due to the pandemic and trying to reconcile with older concerns such as the bedroom tax and universal credit. It was interesting to hear situations that can have a lasting impact on the future court system, including both cases themselves and the fundamental way courts hear cases. As a member of the Pro Bono Society, it was elating to hear the “good”, an improvement to open justice, and I hope that this persists even when lockdown is over. Open justice is a fundamental part of fairness in courts, which can often be overlooked in the “normal” day-to-day. I hope that with the court system embracing technology out of necessity, this will give journalists and others the ability to attend hearings. With that, fairness and justice will hopefully have a better chance to prevail through increased scrutiny and transparency.
Recent comments