header-logo header-logo

20 September 2020
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Potential COVID-19 breaches: PPE, visits, and test & trace app

The government could have breached human rights by failing to provide adequate PPE to doctors, nurses, care workers and others in the frontline, a parliamentary committee has warned
The Joint Committee on Human Rights report, ‘The government's response to COVID-19: human rights implications’ highlights several potential breaches. The report, published this week, will inform the government’s six-month review of its COVID-19 legislation, as required by the Coronavirus Act 2020.

It warns the government is ‘under a duty to take appropriate steps to protect life where there is a known risk to life (or the risk at least ought to be known).

‘In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic it is arguable that this duty included prioritising the provision of available PPE to healthcare staff, other frontline workers, and persons most vulnerable to the virus such as those in care homes, older people, or those with specified underlying health conditions.

‘It is also arguable that when it became clear that Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities were suffering disproportionately from the effects of COVID-19, the right to life (Article 2, ECHR) read together with the right to non-discrimination in the enjoyment of the substantive ECHR rights (Article 14, ECHR) should have required the prioritisation of the allocation of PPE to (for instance) BAME doctors and nurses. We have received evidence that in some cases the reverse has in fact been the case.’

The 96-page report calls on the government to ‘urgently’ address a number of issues to ensure the steps it has taken are necessary and proportionate, and to ensure it is open and transparent about the evidence it has considered and how it had made its decisions.

It highlights that a public inquiry is ‘very likely’ and that it must consider deaths of healthcare and care workers, transport workers, police and security guards due to lack of PPE (personal protective equipment), deaths in care homes due to early release from hospital and deaths in detention settings.

The report also raises concerns about privacy, data protection and discrimination in the contact tracing app, and recommends tailored legislation be introduced to protect people’s data.

On access to justice, it highlights the right to a fair trial and right to liberty, and urges the government to ensure those who are digitally excluded or vulnerable in other ways are not disadvantages. The rights of children with special educational needs and disabilities may also have been affected by school closures as well as regarding their return to school.

‘Blanket bans’ on visitors to prisons, hospitals and care homes may breach the right to family life, the report warns. It calls for visits to be resumed as soon as it is safe to do so.

Harriet Harman, chair of the committee, said: ‘The scale of this crisis is unlike anything many of us will see again in our lifetime.

‘Confusion over what is law and what is merely guidance has left citizens open to disproportionate and unequal levels of punishment for breaking the rules, and unfortunately, it seems that once again, this is overtly affecting BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) individuals. The government must learn from these mistakes to ensure that any additional lockdowns do not unfairly impact specific groups.

‘Parliament and the public must be kept appropriately and promptly informed about changes in policy, especially when the human rights of so many are affected in such a wide variety of ways. This is an unprecedented and uncertain time for everyone, and the government must act in a justifiable, fair and proportionate way.’

View the report at: bit.ly/3mFHMUc.

Issue: 7903 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll