A mug’s game to predict but: I reckon CA will lift the temporary injunction on the basis of “balance of convenience”, letting the asylum seekers stay until everything (planning law, remedy) can be finally determined following a full hearing If I’m wrong I’ll send you all a virtual cocktail

Show Post

This is hilarious but also underlines the danger of a strict liability offence where the police only have to prove that your slogan gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that you support a proscribed organisation.

Show Post

I was more interested in the ECHR angle to the balance between the first of the "major" factors in favour identified in para 106 v the corresponding factor against in para 114. The interest in enforcing planning control v the interest in housing asylum seekers. 0 consideration of Art 8 there.

Show Post

I have been thinking about John Gardner recently. I read one of his papers on discrimination law, and it made me miss him even more. johngardnerathome.info

Show Post

Not a legal comment as such but this looks unsatisfactory from a policy perspective. It suggests that the political tactics of encouraging protests & whipping up fear, even if unjustified, can affect the decision (even if only of "limited weight").

Show Post