In UK News
On Tuesday the government published its response to the public inquiry into Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. The inquiry was a response to a 2017 investigative documentary, which included footage of staff abusing detained people. The inquiry’s report was published on 19 September 2023. In its response the government described the documentary footage as “utterly shocking”, but emphasised the fact that “[d]etention is and will remain a fundamental element of the immigration system”. The government rejected the report’s key recommendation that it should set a time limit on detention. The response sought to highlight changes that have been made across the immigration detention estate since the events of 2017, such as the improved ratio of custodial staff to detained persons and the introduction of accredited training and a code of conduct for staff. The government stated that a “comprehensive review” into complaints and whistle blowing processes is being undertaken.
In other news, a memorandum disclosed to the Afghanistan Inquiry shows that in 2011 a UK Special Forces commander raised concerns that “there is in effect an unofficial policy… to kill wherever possible fighting aged males on target, regardless of the immediate threat they pose to our troops. In some instances this has involved the deliberate killing [of] individuals after they have been restrained… and the subsequent fabrication of evidence to suggest a lawful killing in self-defence”. The inquiry is investigating alleged unlawful conduct by UK Special Forces in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013 and the adequacy of the Ministry of Defence’s response to concerns that were raised at the time. Johnny Mercer MP, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, has stated in his witness statement that he was shown a copy of the memorandum but not allowed to keep it. Mercer been ordered to disclose the names of those who told him about alleged war crimes to the inquiry.
In international news
The Hong Kong government passed new national security legislation known as ‘Article 23’. The new law increases prison sentences for national security related offences, including a maximum jail sentence of 10 years for sedition where an ‘external force’ is involved. Any speech which is critical of the government could potentially come under the scope of sedition, and Hong Kong’s justice minister has since stated that a person might commit an offence if they share criticism of the legislation online. The legislation gives the police the power to detain someone for 16 days without charge and to prohibit the person from consulting with a lawyer for 48 hours. UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron previously stated that the legislative proposals would “have a negative impact on the people of Hong Kong in the exercise of their rights and freedoms”. The EU has expressed concerns over the legislation’s ‘sweeping provisions and broad defintions’ and described the increased penalties, which have extraterritorial reach, as “deeply worrying”.
In the courts
The Court of Appeal ruled that an individual’s views on climate change do not form part of the ‘circumstances’ of criminal damage which is committed as part of a protest. Previously, climate protesters had successfully relied on the defence that they honestly believed the owner of the property would have consented to the damage if they had known of the damage “and its circumstances”. The Court emphasised that the “circumstances must belong to the damage, not to the defendant”, and that there “must be a sufficient connection between the damage and its circumstances”. The case under consideration involved a climate protester (“C”) who had caused damage to the offices of various charities and political parties. The court held that “what C had to say about the facts of or effects of climate change could not amount to the circumstances of the damage” and that such evidence would be inadmissible in relation to the consent defence.
The post Weekly Round-Up: Hong Kong passes new security law and Court of Appeal rules on protesters’ criminal damage defence appeared first on UK Human Rights Blog.