Human Rights Laws Could Throw UK Prime Minister’s Brexit Schedule Off Course

The fate of European citizens in the United Kingdom post-Brexit is still left to chance as the UK government intends to use it as a “bargaining chip” in its talks with the EU over Brexit. But UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans could have a hole as European citizens can invoke general human rights laws to remain in the country despite the results of EU-UK negotiations.


According to Express UK, if European citizens have established their “roots” in the country including their fulfilment of UK requirements for residency, they still have a right to do so and remain. According to EU Law Spanish Professors Antonio Fernandez Tomas and Diego Lopez Garrido, the “vast loss of rights” for European citizens in the United Kingdom “only leads to a nightmarish web of legal complications” that would take decades to untangle.

The professor said EU citizens could use the human rights laws existing in the European Commission of Human Rights to file — specifically articles one and eight, which establishes any European citizen their right to property and to a family life if the UK deports Europeans staying in the United Kingdom post-Brexit.

Garrido stressed the UK and EU must strive for a “good” agreement upon closing the issues of Brexit. This is to ensure the closure of the situation to be fair and balanced in terms of human rights for all parties.

According to UKIP MEP Diane James, who is a member of a Brexit Committee, UK Prime Minister Theresa May does not intend to “kick out” Europeans but acknowledges that insights for the “worst-case scenario” that could happen post-Brexit is important.


EU Citizens Could Remain in ‘Limbo’ After Brexit

Once Brexit pushes through, Europeans living in the United Kingdom could be stranded in the United Kingdom without any legal rights. According to analysts, the British Immigration System does not have the constitution to handle floating individuals especially after a legal overhaul the Brexit may cause.

European diplomats believe the UK Immigration is incapable of handling millions of EU migrant documents to provide legal rights and decide who stays on time. The UK is set to restrict access to nationals from 27 other EU member states. The document from MEPs in the European parliaments employment committee said the UK has “no population register” that “makes it difficult to determine which citizens resided legally in the UK before Brexit.

According to a survey by the Observer, majority of UK nationals believe that EU migrants residing in the United Kingdom — despite the legality of their stay – should be given the automatic right to stay. A senior eastern European state diplomat said it was “surprising” that the UK could not manage to monitor the passage of European immigrants in their country and said the UK need to find a workable solution as soon as it can.

UK Prime Minister Theresa may is stressing on the importance of having an early deal on EU citizen rights before Brexit. However, the UK government has yet to give any “absolute assurances” and the government could use the premise as “a bargaining chip” during the country’s negotiations with the EU, experts said.

Denise Clair Was Bribed Money To Drop Her Case

Fighting against her assailants, football stars David Goodwillie and Dundee United Ex-team member David Robertson, rape victim Denise Clair said the two players tried to bribe her with huge amounts for her to turn the other way. She said “they tried to buy me off” and commented “not the men of action who still claim they did nothing wrong.”


Ms Clair is one of the most successful women to have sued elite-status individuals such as Goodwillie and Robertson. The Court of Session handled her complaint after the Scottish Crown Office refused to prosecute the two football stars. According to the case, the two men took advantage of Denise Clair after they took her out from a bar claiming they would get Denise back home “to her mother.”

Denise Clair said she was taken to a West Lothian property where she was raped. The two men said they were innocent. They said to Lord Armstrong that Denise Clair was a “willing sexual partner” for both men. The Law Lord condemned the two men as liars, allowing Denise to win £100,000 in damages against her body.

Denise said it was not about the money but it was about exposing the two men for “who they are.” She said the three offers she did not make public until after the hearing as it would have derailed her case against the two men.

UK Investigatory Powers Bill Shot Down By European Court Of Justice: ‘General And Indiscriminate Retention’ Of Electronic Communications Illegal

The European Court of Justice shot down UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s push for the Investigatory Powers Bill or “Snooper’s Charter” after the highest court said only targeted interception of traffic and location data with a focus on crime and terrorism is justifiable government data retention. The ECJ’s decision echoes Brexit Secretary David Davis’ legal challenge against the “Snooper’s Charter” during his days as an MP.


A government appeal defeated Davis and legal challenge partner MP Tom Watson’s victory in the UK Supreme Court about the disqualification of the charter and the Court of Appeals brought it to the European Court of Justice. As the decision has been made by the ECJ it would hand the decision to the UK Court of Appeals and will be resolved in the UK’s legislation.

The Court of Appeal’s forwarding of the case to the ECJ was meant to clarify EU’s law on surveillance. The ECJ said electronic communications allow the immediate conclusion of a person’s profile based on their private lives retained through the data provisions the proposed law provides. It said that if the government would intervene with data without informing electronic communication services could give out the impression that citizens’ private lives are under close surveillance.

Investigatory Powers Bill Now Approved

The Investigatory Powers Bill or “Snoopers’ Charter” would legitimise data collection practices by the GCHQ since 2012 — the time when whistleblower Edward Snowden shed light on the UK intelligence centre and America’s NSA.

The Former US National Security Agency contractor said the new laws in the United Kingdom are the “most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”

According to Prime Minister Theresa May, the new bill — which she introduced when she was first home secretary — is “world-leading” when introducing new safeguards such as judging interception. However, it gives permission to the hacking  of computers and mobile phones.


Privacy and human rights organisation Liberty said the new Snoopers’ Charter and its passage through parliament is a sad day for British liberty. According to Bella Sankey, the group’s policy director, in a statement Thursday.

According to Ms Sankey, under the guise counterterrorism “the state has achieved totalitarian-style surveillance powers”. She labelled it as the “most intrusive system of any democracy in human history.”

Open Rights Group Executive Director Jim Killock said authoritarian regimes in other countries may likely abuse the law. He said they may use the law to “justify their own intrusive surveillance powers.”

Virtual Mobbing Is Now A Crime

‘Virtual mobbing’ or in today’s lingo ‘trolling’ is now grounds for court action.

If authorities can prove that the use of derogatory hashtags, ‘photoshopped’ or manipulated images to humiliate others, the ‘trolls’ can be arrested.

However, not everyone is convinced that it can work.

The challenges to the law’s possible execution include offshore suspects who ‘troll’ from overseas and finding the ‘troll’ who had instigated virtual violations against the victim.

According to Crown Prosecution Service Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders:

“The internet’s not an anonymous place where people can post without any consequences. People should think about their own conduct.

“If you are grossly abusive to people, if you are bullying or harassing people online, then we will prosecute in the same way as if you did it offline.”

According to cyber-bullying and virtual mob victim Kevin Healey — a renowned psychiatrist — the new law looks good on paper but its implementation can be puzzling.

“Not even one troll has been prosecuted or jailed, even though I have made complaints to Twitter and the police.

“It’s been a nightmare; it’s been horrific – it doesn’t go away. It’s with you 24 hours and seven days a week, there’s no escape from it”.

Ban on Legal Highs Could Push Activities To the Dark Web

A new law passed May this year banned the use of all psychoactive substances including those deemed as legal highs. Much to the disappointment of young adults and ‘head’ aficionados, legal highs are going to increase in prices. Worse still, their deregulation also means riskier products at higher prices.

Banning drugs only makes it harder for consumers to get their needs and makes it easier for suppliers to earn more for their keep as prices push up.

According to the National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime in the United Kingdom, the trade of legal highs would move online.


“Change in legislation around NPS in May 2016 effectively banning so-called ‘legal highs’ is likely to see a large increase in these drugs being offered through the dark web instead,” the report, published late last week, reads. According to the report’s methodology, “likely” refers to an “associated probability range” of 75-85 percent.

UK-based sellers are now selling at higher prices for synthetic cannabis using bitcoin — a crpytograph-based currency — to sell their products.

“This was a legal high in the UK untill [sic] very recently, it is extremely strong and unless you are an experienced user of this type of product I would strongly urge you not to order this, it will be too strong for you to enjoy and certainly not a drug you would want to take up as a new user,” the product description reads.

Researchers in the dark web according to found many legal highs being sold in the black market.

Before the ban, digital shops on the mainstream web sold these products. Even before, the shops existed as actual establishments all throughout London.

UK Law Firms Sign Up Irish Solicitors Post-Brexit

European Law is still booming business for legal firms. A circle of the United Kingdom’s biggest lawyer firms — Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughter and May, and Allen & Overy — had announced a recruitment drive for legal solicitors in the Republic of Ireland.

The firms had even begun their drive for Irish solicitors before the EU referendum on June 23. Slaughter and May had partnered up with its competition to join the growing number of Irish solicitors from Freshfields and Hogan Lovells.

Allen & Overy had registered a small number of English competition lawyers before the referendum.

The Law Society of Ireland said it receives about 30 initial queries a day from UK solicitors since the Brexit. About 219 English solicitors were admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in England compared with 70 in 2015.

Brexit is the primary reason of seeking admission in Ireland for many of these UK firms.

Solicitors qualified in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will undergo a process that allows them to practice as solicitors in Ireland.

According to Hogan Lovells, the firm is in the process of registering lawyers from its competition practice in London and Brussels in Ireland.

No Points-Based System for New UK Immigration System


According to Immigration Minister James Brokenshire, a points-based immigration system similar to Australia is something the UK will not adopted despite the latter being promised by leading Leave campaigners.

Mr Brokenshire said Britain’s new immigration system would still filter the free-flowing migration to the United Kingdom from the European Union. However, the model would be slightly different.

The Immigration Minister also said that the estimated 2.9 million EU nationals in Britain do not have a guarantee to their position until the position of UK citizens in EU countries is also secured. Even long-term EU citizens in the United Kingdom might still be removed, although Mr Brokenshire said it would be very difficult.

Under EU law, EU citizens from other countries within the block have a right to live permanently in the UK if they had lived for five years.

“Having established that right, I think, as a matter of law, it would be virtually impossible … to then take that away from them,” said Brokenshire.

He disclosed that a Home Office “international immigration group” has already started work on mapping out the options for a post-Brexit immigration system that is feeding into the Cabinet Office’s central co-ordination Brexit unit under Olly Martins.

UK Government Promises Discussion Over Snooper’s Charter

The increasing debate regarding the implementation of the new Investigatory Powers Bill or “Snooper’s Charter” had many human rights advocates clamouring for better discussion.

The bill has reached the higher levels of Parliament, concerning many professionals from almost all fields.

Many from the legal profession had spoken about the issue. Solicitor General For England and Wales Robert Buckland QC said to the House of Commons “Dialogue will continue and will allow for meaningful scrutiny and debate” amid a grilling from MPs across the political spectrum.

Aside from Robert Buckland, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Council of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates had raised issues about the privileges that could be abused with the new bill.

The Solicitor General has already met with the Bar Council to discuss the bill and is due to meet the Law Society of England and Wales today.

He said the Bar Council “have kindly undertaken to come up with further proposals by which the issues that took up so much time in Committee might be resolved”.

He added: “It is perhaps a little unfortunate that those particular proposals were not crystallised prior to today’s debate, but there will of course be more time. If clear proposals come forward—I am sure that they will—they can be subject to full, proper scrutiny in the other place.”