October 2013

In many criminal cases, before the Magistrates’ Courts and the Crown Courts, a judge can punish those guilty of committing offences through the imposition of fines. Should those fines not be paid within a certain period of time, a person can be ordered to serve time in prison instead of paying the fine.

Various organisations have raised concerns on many occasions over how cases involving human rights, whether decided upon by UK courts or Strasbourg, are reported on by the UK media.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) considered 2 appeals. The appellants both worked as staff in foreign diplomatic missions. Before 2 separate tribunals, their claims were dismissed as state immunity under the State Immunity Act (SIA) was applicable.

The EAT were asked to consider the European Convention of Human Rights. However the Convention and the Human Rights Act could not be applied. In order for the courts to read the SIA as convention compliant, would require the courts to amend the legislation, essentially going further than the courts were able to.

In previous editions of the Update, we referred to a judicial review brought on behalf of a Christian organisation. The challenge related to a decision by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to refuse to allow London buses to carry adverts that claimed gay people could be ‘cured’. These adverts were modelled on the Stonewall pro-gay advert: ‘Some people are gay. Get over it’.

The High Court upheld the Mayor’s decision to ban the adverts. However that decision is currently subject to appeal. The appeal itself is scheduled to be heard at the start of December 2013.