Family analysis: The applicant mother’s primary application was for orders under sections 8 and 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), together with other protective declarations and injunctions to curtail the respondent father’s exercise of his parental responsibility, against a background of serious domestic abuse. The mother also applied pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) for a declaration of incompatibility under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), based on the fact that it is not possible in law to revoke a father’s parental responsibility where the father was married to the mother at the time of a child’s birth. This differs from the position for unmarried fathers, whose parental responsibility can be extinguished by order of the court. Ms Justice Russell granted ChA 1989 and injunctive relief, but refused to make a declaration of incompatibility. Jennifer Perrins, barrister at 1 King’s Bench Walk, considers the issues.

There are three main principles of statutory interpretation relevant to the protection of human rights in the UK: • the statutory duty under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) to read legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention rights so far as it is possible to do so • the presumption that Parliament does not intend to abridge fundamental rights in the absence of clear words doing so—the interpretative ‘principle of legality’, and • the presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate contrary to the United Kingdom's international obligations, including its obligations under international human rights instruments—the presumption of compatibility Prior to the UK’s exit from the EU, presumptions also existed in relation to the construction of legislation relating to/in conformity with UK obligations derived from EU law. Although the UK is no longer a member of the EU, those presumptions may continue to be of relevance in relation to matters of assimilated law (or questions of retained

The issues for determination in the welfare jurisdiction of the Court of Protection are often deeply personal and very often involve either the endorsement of the exercise of state power, or the exercise by the court itself of state power, over an individual, for instance by placing restrictions on contact between the protected person (P) and their family. It is therefore unsurprising that human rights permeate all aspects of the court’s decision making. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), which provides that it is unlawful for any public authority to act in a way that breaches a person’s human rights. This applies to all local authorities and National Health Service (NHS) bodies as well as the courts themselves. The Court of Protection has jurisdiction to hear a claim under HRA 1998 that a public body has acted (or proposes to act) in

A consortium of charities have published a response to the government’s Freedom from Violence and Abuse strategy, outlining concerns about the approach to protecting women and girls, particularly migrant victim-survivors. The response highlights that the strategy does not adequately address the additional vulnerabilities and intersecting discrimination faced by migrant women, especially those subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds condition. It raises concern over the minimal inclusion of human rights frameworks, such as a women‐centred approach, due diligence and an intersectional perspective. It also notes that recent immigration reforms and proposals, such as changes to asylum policy and remits for expedited removal for 'foreign national offenders', risk increasing these women’s vulnerability. The response asserts that prevention efforts are undermined by reliance on punitive measures and a universalised framework. This framework neglects culturally specific abuse dynamics, communication barriers and the specific challenges that structural racism and immigration status pose.

A claim made by a person to the Secretary of State at a place designated by the Secretary of State that to remove the person from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 6 (public authority not to act contrary to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) as being incompatible with his Convention rights.

STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is currently being updated to take account of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Entry Clearance Officer v FA [2026] EWCA Civ 1014, which found that although the refusal of a medical visit visa application did constitute (in the particular circumstances of the case) the refusal of a human rights claim, that did not necessarily mean Article 8 ECHR was in fact engaged where there was no pre-existing private life in the UK and the Article 8 family life ‘additional elements of dependency’ threshold was not met. Importantly, in the judgment, Lady Justice Andrews identified two material errors in the ‘Human rights claims in visit applications: caseworker guidance’ and stated that the guidance should be withdrawn and replaced following this judgment and IA v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1516. See News Analysis: Article 8 found not engaged in Gazan medical visa case (ECO v FA). A person who makes an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain as a visitor (standard)

STOP PRESS: on 1 August 2023, the Cabinet Office published three new standard contract document collections, containing updated templates and guidance for the government’s Model Services Contract, Mid-Tier Contract and Short Form Contract. Further guidance on the adoption of the standard contracts is provided in a supplementary Procurement Policy Note (PPN). PPN 08/23: Using Standard

Boilerplate provisions in public sector contracts This Practice Note looks at human rights clauses in public sector contracts. For more information on what contracting authorities (and other interested parties) need to know when using boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements, see Practice Note: Boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements: general considerations. Authorities that are minded to incorporate human rights provisions in their contracts need to give careful thought in advance to a number of questions.  How will it be established that a breach of human rights constitutes a breach of contract, and how will this be demonstrated if challenged in a contract dispute?  What would be the contractual consequence of breach: termination of the contract, damages or some other remedy?  Careful thought would have to be given to the application of such remedies.  None of this is to say that such clauses should not be applied and given effect to, but that their application can cause serious issues during and

Why is human rights due diligence important? Human rights due diligence is not a legal requirement in the UK but is accepted good industry practice driven by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The practical reality is that it is becoming increasingly possible for companies and their directors to become liable for overlooking their human rights due diligence duties. The Court of Appeal's judgment in R (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency (NCA) in June 2024 confirms that anyone who imports or sells goods in the UK, knowing or suspecting that they are the product of forced labour, is potentially liable to criminal investigation and prosecution. For more information, see News Analysis: Pulling at the thread—new judgment confirms supply chain risk for companies (R (oao World Uyghur Congress) v NCA). Aspects of the responsibility to respect human rights may be compelled by national law, for example through health and safety and non discrimination or environmental laws. It is also increasingly recognised that it is good business practice to

Human rights due diligence, as part of legal due diligence, is not currently a legal requirement in the UK, but is accepted good industry practice driven by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). However, the European Commission has published a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (EU) 2024/ 1760 that makes human rights due diligence mandatory for in scope (including non-EU) entities. To track these developments and find out more, see Practice Notes: EU ESG and sustainability—horizon scanner and EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Lawyers should understand the relationship between business and human rights and provide clients with advice on identifying human rights impacts that are material to assessing and addressing risk. They should also consider this within the context of the wider developments and requirements around

1 Introduction 1.1 We have performed an assessment of the areas where our organisation is most at risk of either: 1.1.1 causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through its own activities, or 1.1.2 having its operations, products or services directly linked to adverse human rights impacts by its business relationships. 1.2 [We were assisted by[name of external consultants] in carrying out the assessment.] 1.3 [As part of the assessment we engaged with the following stakeholders through [insert brief details of method(s) of stakeholder engagement used, if any]: 1.3.1 [insert details of first internal and external stakeholders engaged with during the assessment] 1.3.2 [insert details of next internal and external stakeholders engaged with during the assessment].] 1.4 [We have followed the impact assessment methodology set out in [eg The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), in association with the UN Global Compact Guide to Human Rights

1 Introduction 1.1 We have performed an assessment of the areas where our firm is most at risk of either: 1.1.1 causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through its own activities, or 1.1.2 having its operations, products or services directly linked to adverse human rights impacts by its business relationships. 1.2 [We were assisted by [name of external consultants] in carrying out the assessment.] 1.3 [As part of the assessment we engaged with the following stakeholders through [insert brief details of method(s) of stakeholder engagement used, if any]: 1.3.1 [insert details of first internal and external stakeholders engaged with during the assessment] 1.3.2 [insert details of next internal and external stakeholders engaged with during the assessment]] 1.4 [We have followed the impact assessment methodology set out in [eg The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), in association