header-logo header-logo

Detention under scrutiny

25 July 2018
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has announced a new series of inquiries into the UK’s immigration detention system and its compliance with human rights, following on from the Windrush scandal. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding ‘inhuman and degrading’ treatment, as well as the lack of mechanisms through which a detainee may challenge their detention, which can be continued indefinitely under the present framework. The Committee is now seeking evidence on areas in which the current system is failing; interested parties may provide submissions of up to 1,500 words before 7 September 2018, via this link.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll