The JSN publishes these case notes for the purpose of assisting our network members in the development of their legal knowledge. Here we summarise the key facts and analyse the outcome.
Publish your work
Student members of JUSTICE are invited to submit case notes for review by our policy staff and publication on this page. In the first instance, please send a brief proposal to firstname.lastname@example.org. Join as a student member today.
On 26 June 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear arguments for two cases related to President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning nationals from six countries from travelling to the US and suspending the admission of refugees.
The two joined appeals concern alleged UK involvement in breaches of human rights by foreign governments.
Concerning removal from the UK pending appeal of an immigration decision, and fair and effective participation in the appeal hearing (Articles 8 ECHR)
Privacy, private life and the press (Articles 8, 10 ECHR)
In the cause WF 
The Court of Session in Scotland recognised a person’s right under Article 8 ECHR to be heard in opposition to the disclosure of confidential records.
R v Jogee (Appellant) 
On 18 February 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned 30 years’ legal precedent on the doctrine of joint enterprise.
On 28 January 2015, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5 – 2 majority that police could not be liable in negligence to members of the public.
On 18 June 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal regarding the duty of disclosure on the police post-conviction. Although the Court dismissed the appeal on the facts, it did clarify when a duty of post-conviction disclosure exists.
Belhaj & Anor v Straw & Ors 
On 30 October 2014, the Court of Appeal ruled that the legal case against the former foreign secretary Jack Straw and a senior MI6 officer, which alleges that they were unlawfully involved in the torture and illegal rendition of a Libyan man and his pregnant wife, to Gaddafi’s Libya in 2004, can be heard in an English Court.
A unanimous seven judge panel at the Supreme Court held that the deceased soldiers were under the UK’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 2 ECHR at the time of their deaths.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2012, the Supreme Court considered the interests of children of requested persons in joined appeals from European arrest warrant cases and confirmed that these must be carefully considered prior to executing a warrant.
On 8 February 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that there is a preventive operational obligation under article 2 of the ECHR for the State to safeguard the lives of voluntary psychiatric patients when at risk of suicide.
On 31 October 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that for the purpose of habeas corpus, the UK does not need to have physical custody of the person concerned. It is sufficient that there is material before the Court which supports the conclusion that the UK has a reasonable prospect of securing release.
On 13 July 2011, the Supreme Court rule by a majority that the courts had no power to adopt a procedure allowing the use of secret evidence in civil trials unless parliamentary legislation directly allowed it.
Cadder v HM Advocate 
On 26 October 2010, a unanimous seven judge UK Supreme Court confirmed that the law in Scotland breaches the right to a fair trial by not allowing advice and representation to detained persons in the police station.
EM (Lebanon) v SSHD 
On 22 October 2008, in a unanimous five judge ruling the House of Lords held it would be a flagrant denial of the right to respect to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the government to remove EM and her son to Lebanon where she would automatically lose custody of her son.
S. and Marper v UK 
On 4 December 2008, a unanimous judgment the European Court of Human Rights found that the retention of the applicants’ fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life.