Civil Liberties & Human Rights: A London (Bar) Overview

Civil Liberties and Human Rights

Legal issues arising out of civil liberties and human rights cases have been impossible to ignore over the past year. Policies that have historically attracted only specialist legal argument or affected a small number of vulnerable people have been thrust into the public eye through public protests. At the same time, government-led data initiatives are propelling privacy issues beyond the remit of covert surveillance, making data rights an unavoidable aspect of civil liberties and human rights practitioners’ practices.

Drawing the line: protest and proscription

Protests have dominated the last twelve months for civil liberties and human rights cases and are likely to continue to do so.

The Court of Appeal confirmed in R (Liberty) v SSHD that the “Serious Disruption” regulations (the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023) that sought to define “serious disruption” as disruption which is “more than minor” were ultra vires. The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court’s findings that “serious” indicated that a high threshold must be met before the police could impose conditions on protests pursuant to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.

The Court also re-examined sentencing for protest-related offences, in R v Hallam & Ors, confirming that after conviction, a protestor’s Article 10 and 11 rights must be considered by a sentencing judge, even in actions that cause serious disruption or are shocking to the public.

In July 2025, the Home Secretary added Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under terrorism legislation, making support for the group a criminal offence. Since then, there have been a number of arrests for those displaying banners or symbols of support for the group. A judicial review has already been brought to the Home Secretary’s decision, arguing that the decision breaches individuals’ Article 10 and 11 rights. Permission was granted, but is currently under appeal. Irrespective of the outcome of the judicial review, these issues will need judicial resolution either in the criminal courts or in the High Court.

“More in focus… or about the same?” Equality and human rights

The Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex has led to widespread reviews of internal policies for schools, employers and service providers.

Notably, the Supreme Court reached its conclusion on statutory interpretation without any explicit consideration of the Human Rights Act 1998. This leaves a significant area of uncertainty for public authorities that have to comply not only with the Equality Act 2010, but also with rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. In practice, decision-makers now face the difficult task of reconciling the clarified statutory language with broader human rights obligations, often in politically charged and contested contexts.

There are already challenges under way seeking to understand the confines of this, and many more are likely to follow as the aftershocks are felt by many. Until the courts provide guidance, public authorities remain exposed to legal challenges from multiple directions, making this one of the most unsettled areas of equality and human rights law in the current landscape.

AI spy with my little eye: surveillance, technology and human rights

An increasing number of government schemes involve the use of some form of technology, bringing with it the promise of government efficiency and cost savings. However, there are significant human rights considerations arising around the data security of such schemes and the extent to which complex decisions will be made without overreliance on artificial intelligence.

Almost all migrants are now required to use eVisas (digital IDs) to prove their status to employers and landlords, and to access welfare benefits. This scheme has limited room for errors; any breach or malfunction – even minor ones – will have deleterious consequences for individuals required to use this scheme. Now the government is exploring proposals to roll out digital IDs for all working adults, which may bring the issue (and risks) home to all.

Facial recognition has returned into focus as it continues to be rolled out by police at protests, with the Metropolitan Police now facing a new judicial review challenge to the use of this technology (due to be heard in the coming year). The government is also seeking to expand its use beyond the policing context and extend it to age assessments for those who arrive in the UK and whose ages are not believed by immigration officers. The results of this technology are often hailed without properly scrutinising what the trade-off is, thus demonstrating that the use of AI is increasingly embedded in public authority decision-making.

The recent lifting of the super-injunction regarding the Ministry of Defence’s data leak of those who had applied under the Afghan relocation scheme provides an extreme, but by no means unrepeatable, example that there can be serious consequences to the use of technology even where strict measures are in place regarding data security.

Planes may be diverted from Kigali to Calais: (re)cycling asylum policy

While the UK government is no longer seeking to send people to Rwanda, there continue to be renewed promises to review the framework around who can stay in the UK and under what conditions. However, these reviews will still need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998, which remains the source of family rights and modern slavery protections.

For those awaiting the processing of their asylum claims, the hope that the prolonged and unsuitable use of hotels will soon end has been soured by a renewed promise to look at the use of barracks-style accommodation. The government has already fallen short of its obligations in some respects of the existing barracks and it is yet to be seen whether these issues will recur.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is still making its way through Parliament and the confines are still being worked out.

It is like déjà vu all over again: conclusion

Civil liberties and human rights issues are unlikely to abate in the forthcoming 12 months and the cocktail of impending issues surrounding the use of terrorism laws, a roll-out of (digital) ID cards and a promise to “fix” asylum policy will leave many practitioners with a sense of déjà vu.