Alexander Horne

Kemi Badenoch is expected to reveal the Conservative party’s new approach to equality law in a speech today. Most prominent will be an announcement that the Conservatives will scrap the public sector equality duty (PSED). This is designed to ensure that when making decisions, public bodies consider the need to eliminate discrimination; advance equality of opportunity; and ‘foster good relations’ between people who have protected characteristics and people who do not. Critics have argued that the PSED has promoted divisive agendas. Badenoch is expected to say that it has ‘become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge’.

Against the backdrop of the current leadership chaos engulfing Labour, in Wednesday's King’s Speech the government announced new legislation that would ‘increase confidence in the security of the immigration and asylum systems’. A briefing document published shortly afterwards put some flesh on the bones, revealing that a package of contentious measures first floated by the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in November last year would be taken forward in a Bill. No. 10 has described the proposals as the 'most significant' on asylum 'in a generation’. They include plans to ‘introduce a new asylum model based on contribution, integration and respect for UK laws’.

Next week, the Court of Appeal will hear Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s appeal against a High Court decision that the proscription of Palestine Action last summer was unlawful. The case will be hugely consequential. Earlier this month, more than 500 people were arrested at a Palestine Action demonstration. In total, more than 2,700 people have been arrested for expressing support for the group since they were banned in July last year by Mahmood's predecessor Yvette Cooper. Prosecutions against these individuals were put on hold following the High Court's judgment in February. I have previously argued that the High Court’s decision was both unfortunate and unwise.

There was considerable pressure on Sir Keir Starmer this morning to indicate what action might be taken against his former US ambassador, Lord Mandelson. In addition to his ill-advised friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Mandelson has been accused of leaking confidential government information to the convicted paedophile. Despite his previous, improbable, resurrections it is impossible to imagine the Prince of Darkness bouncing back from this disgrace The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan Police, and it has been alleged that it could potentially mean Mandelson being prosecuted for misconduct in public office, a criminal offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment on the so-called 'Gaza family' claim, which sparked such outrage at Prime Minister's Questions back in February. The row related to a decision of the Upper Tribunal to allow a Palestinian family from Gaza, who had a relative living in the UK, to enter the country. The family had initially applied under the Ukraine Family Visa Scheme and also relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a family life). Their claim was initially refused, but they were allowed to stay, on appeal, after the Upper Tribunal determined that they had demonstrated 'a very strong claim indeed' and that there were 'compelling or exceptional circumstances' to justify the appeal being allowed.

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is set to announce a series of new measures in the Commons today to combat illegal migration. The new laws are said to be based on measures introduced in Denmark which have significantly reduced the number of asylum seekers arriving there. In 2014, 14,792 asylum seekers went to Denmark; in 2024 the figure was 2,333. The Danish laws have been described as some of the toughest in Europe, but still it remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mahmood’s proposals include new rules under which people granted asylum in the UK would have to wait 20 years to settle permanently (rather than the current five).

Today is the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. In spite of its longevity, the Convention faces a number of challenges, and this is perhaps not the happiest of birthdays. In the UK the Convention faces a significant challenge. For the first time, both the Conservatives and Reform will enter the next general election pledging to withdraw from it The development of the ECHR was, in part, a response to the aftermath of the second world war and the serious violations of human rights which occurred during the conflict. Much is made by its supporters of the fact that British lawyers, such as Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (a Nuremberg prosecutor), were heavily involved in drafting it. It is frequently described as ‘Churchill’s legacy.

One of Kemi Badenoch’s biggest announcements ahead of Conservative party conference was her pledge to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On Sunday, she said that exiting the ECHR would be a manifesto commitment at the next general election. On the same day, a legal opinion by the shadow attorney general, Lord Wolfson KC, was circulated by the Conservatives. Lord Wolfson’s advice runs to 185 pages, and he acknowledges the support of a team of barristers, solicitors and academics (I declare an interest here, having contributed part of a section on the mechanics of leaving).

Yesterday, the High Court allowed Palestine Action to challenge the Home Secretary’s decision to ban it. Since its proscription, under terrorism legislation, it has been an offence to be a member of the group, or to invite support for it. There is absolutely no need for peaceful protestors to associate themselves with a group concerned in unlawful acts While it was not a final determination, the High Court hearing was revealing.

Barely a week passes without headlines about the UK’s ongoing issues deporting foreign national offenders (FNOs). Foreign offenders are estimated to make up around 12 per cent of the UK prison population and many are not deported upon release. While some stories may be exaggerated or misrepresented – such as the well-known case of an Albanian offender who initially avoided deportation due to his son’s aversion to foreign chicken nuggets (a decision later overturned on appeal) – there’s little doubt that the current system is both inefficient and somewhat unpredictable.

In a landmark judgment, after years of controversy, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers today. The issue the court had to determine was enormously significant, namely the meaning of 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010. In a detailed and compelling ruling, the UK’s top court unanimously concluded that the terms refer to biological sex. The case arose following a decision by the Scottish government in 2022 to introduce revised statutory guidance which stated that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) would be considered a woman for the purposes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (which was designed to increase the proportion of women on public boards).

In a decision that will be welcomed by many in Parliament today, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed a claim by prominent businessman Sir Philip Green. Green had argued that his right to a private life and a fair trial had been infringed when a Labour Peer, Peter Hain, made a statement on the floor of the House of Lords claiming Green had been accused of sexual harassment and bullying by former employees. The employees in question had signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and so Green had obtained an interim injunction (pending a trial) and anonymity order from the Court of Appeal after he learned that the Daily Telegraph planned to report on these allegations. These orders effectively prevented the Daily Telegraph from reporting on the claims against him.

Almost every day there seem to be new headlines about abuses of the asylum and immigration system. The latest involves the case of a Gazan family who were granted the right to remain in the United Kingdom after they applied to enter the country under the Ukraine Family Scheme visa. Unsurprisingly, the Home Office determined that the Gazan family did not qualify for the Ukrainian scheme. The government also concluded there were no compelling, compassionate circumstances to justify the family remaining in the UK. The family’s initial application was dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal judge in September last year.