Data protection regime

Public Law weekly highlights—15 January 2026

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes a hand-picked summary of news analysis, legal updates and case law from the world of Public Law. These highlights include the latest updates on Brexit, constitutional and administrative law, judicial review, equality and human rights, public procurement, subsidy control and State aid, public sector contracts, projects and infrastructure, information law and other public law news. This edition also features the latest edition of the Public Law case law quarterly.

Decision to ban Israeli fans from Birmingham match partly based on undisclosed police reliance on AI 'fake match'

The Chief Constable of the West Midlands, Craig Guildford, has written to the Chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Dame Karen Bradley, admitting that a decision to ban Israeli fans from a major football match in Birmingham was partly based on evidence about a non-existent previous match in the UK, generated by use of Microsoft Copilot. The Chief Constable had previously told the Committee that the error was not the result of using AI. The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that she no longer has confidence in him.

SSHD’s unlawful conduct at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre breached the ‘systems duty’ under Article 3 ECHR—R(AH) v Home Secretary

Public Law analysis: This case dealt with two claims for judicial review brought by individuals detained at the notorious Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. Under Article 3 ECHR, the Home Secretary has an obligation to put in place a legislative and regulatory system of protection (the ‘systems duty’). The court considered the operation at Brook House of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the mechanism by which vulnerable detainees are reviewed by a medical practitioner. Mrs Justice Jefford found that the Home Office’s failure to produce a Rule 35 report with respect to the claimants in this case was demonstrative of systemic failures at Brook House which constituted a breach of the ‘systems duty’. That duty extended to ensuring that the system in place is working. Written by Kyran Kanda, barrister at St Philips Chambers.

Rehabilitated offender can still be deported for previous serious offending (Majera v Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Public Law analysis: The Secretary of State made a deportation order against the Appellant because of his serious criminal convictions. The Appellant applied for revocation of the deportation order, following which there was a six-year delay during which the Appellant was involved in legal proceedings concerning other immigration matters. Following their conclusion, the Secretary of State refused to revoke the deportation order. The Appellant appealed, arguing that he was rehabilitated and that this gave rise to very compelling circumstances allowing him to resist deportation. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal because in the assessment of the proportionality of deportation of a serious offender, rehabilitation alone is of little weight and rarely of great weight when balanced against the public interest in deportation. Further, the Upper Tribunal (UT) had been correct to remake the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) rather than remitting the appeal for a fresh hearing before the FTT. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister, Normanton Chambers.