Public Interest Lawyers is an extraordinary firm of solicitors, who must be – certainly should be – the pride of the legal profession. Through their tenacity, quality and sheer hard work – often from unpromising beginnings and in dark times for public funding – they have single-handedly been responsible for shining the torchlight of legal accountability in a range of new areas. The work continues unabated. No barrister or judge, here or in Strasbourg, could have come to deal with the sorts of human rights issues which PIL continues to raise, but for their principled and brave pursuit of justice.

 

PIL demonstrates three further important things. First, how positive and constructive can be the use of public funding in public law cases, in the public interest. It has been hard. But PIL and the LSC have forged a partnership which is second to none, as to the importance of the cases that are brought, their success and their wider impact. Secondly, PIL demonstrates that London does not always lead, and a London-centric focus is neither helpful nor fair. This firm, from what are still sometimes thought of as “the provinces”, is the nation’s leader for human rights application in challenging cases. That PIL is looking, as a Birmingham-based firm. How refreshing for it to be that way.Thirdly, let it not be forgotten that PIL was set up as a new firm of solicitors. This is not the further and continued work of an established firm, set up long ago when times were different. This was an innovation; a leap of faith in the rule of law. It was a boat launched in a sea of uncertainty, which has turned out to be the flagship for public law accountability under the rule of law.

 

Michael Fordham QC
Michael Fordham QC
 
 

Taxi for Privacy?

15 November 2011: The Metro reports  that Oxford City Council is to require CCTV systems to be installed in its 650 licensed taxis by 2015, and that those systems must be capable of recording audio as well as video.  The privacy NGO, Big Brother Watch, has condemned the move and says it will be making a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The local authority’s move raises important questions under the Human Rights Act 1998, the legislation that gives effect to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  Article 8 ECHR protects private, home and family life.  The right is not absolute; measures can impact upon privacy in order to protect a legitimate aim, but they must be proportionate.

One can see various possible legitimate aims to the Council’s decision, not least the protection of drivers from physical and/or verbal abuse.  But is the recording of passengers’ conversations really “necessary” in order to meet such a legitimate aim.  Jim Duffy, a solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, thinks this is questionable. 

Recording people's private conversations represents a new low in our ‘Big Brother’ society”, he says.  “Taxi drivers, like all workers, are in need of protection from abuse, but the Council seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and its approach  could be wide open to legal challenge.”

See the full story at http://www.metro.co.uk/news/881733-cctv-cameras-to-be-fitted-in-taxis-as-big-brother-tapes-cab-conversations .


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  BBC: Baha Mousa book and Marie Colvin honoured by Orwell Prize ...
  HIGH COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW IN AFGHAN KILLINGS CASE...
  Guardian: British soldier under investigation for murder over shooting of young Afghans...
  Guardian: Labour abstention on workfare bill prompts party infighting...
  The Independent: First Al-Sweady witnesses to appear...
  DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling...
  Judicial Review launched against Birmingham City Council over cuts to "Shelforce" - a supported disa...
  The Times: Lawyer of the week – Tessa Gregory...
  BBC: Al-Sweady inquiry opens in UK into deaths of Iraqis...
  Birmingham City Council threatened with Judicial Review proceedings over cuts to 'Shelforce' - a sup...
  Open Democracy: Home Secretary, please call off the attack on kidney patient Roseline Akhalu ...
  Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quas...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down tomorrow, Tuesday 12 February 201...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down on Tuesday 12 February 2013 at 10...
  BBC: New Iraq abuse cases by British forces go to High Court...
  Public Interest Lawyers respond to false reports in the Sun Newspaper regarding cases relating to Af...
  Legal Challenge to Doncaster Mayor's Decision to Reduce Library Funding wins Permission to Appeal...
  Observer: Is Britain guilty of systemic torture in Iraq?...
  Ali Zaki Mousa (no.2) and Others v Secretary of State for Defence...
  Legal Challenge to Cuts to North Somerset Youth Services Wins Permission to Appeal...
  New Statesman: The trials of Roseline Akhalu...
  Maya Evans case: secret courts, torture and avoiding embarrassment...