That question has come to the fore because of events involving politician and broadcaster Nigel Farage, Coutts Bank, and Natwest Bank. There is no need here to rehearse those particular events except to note that Mr Farage said that he would be campaigning for a right to have a bank account.
In 2014 when the European Union issued a Directive (here) requiring Member States
The 1984 Act followed the Younger Report on Privacy (1972), the Lindop Report on Data Protection (1978), and the 1981 European Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. (This Convention is the work of the Council of Europe and not the European Union. The UK ratified the Convention on 26 August 1987).
Subsequently, the
Sanctions:
Sanctions have been put in place by the UK as well as several other nations and the European Union.
The following links provide further information -
1) The imposition of sanctions is authorised in law by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and, in relation to Russia, by the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
2) UK Government -
a) UK sanctions regimes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
b) Sanctions List and Asset Freeze List
In their Weekly Notes, the ICLR has included a useful "round up" showing the state of play at those inquiries which are either still on-going or have concluded taking evidence but have yet to issue reports.
Weekly Notes: legal news from ICLR, 14 July 2023 - ICLR
Other reports:
In addition to the ICLR's round up, it is worth noting:
Although this was plainly a serious offence, there were a number of exceptional features. Whilst a sentence of imprisonment was inevitable, the question was whether the term could be low enough to enable the imprisonment to be suspended but with requirements aimed at rehabilitation.
The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Pepperall, considered that he was unable to reduce the sentence below 28 months. This could not be suspended because it exceeded 2 years.
On appeal, the sentence was reduced to 14 months imprisonment to be suspended for 18 months from the date when she was first sentenced. There is also a rehabilitation requirement of up to 50 days to give her the opportunity to engage in various interventions designed to assist her, including counselling.
The Court of Appeal's summary judgment was published on 19 July and full reasons for the decision will be handed down in due course.
Earlier post - Law and Lawyers: R v Carla Foster - 28 months imprisonment - abortion (obiterj.blogspot.com)
Appeal - Summary of the court's judgment - R -v Carla Foster (judiciary.uk)
Addendum 22 October 2023:
The Court of Appeal's full judgment is at R -v- Foster (judiciary.uk). It can be seen - (para 51-53) - that the court did not take too kindly to a lengthy letter sent to the trial judge by eminent medical professionals who are listed at para 51. In summary, the letter said -
The Inquiry Chair (Baroness Hallett) had issued a notice, under the Inquiries Act 2005 section 21, for the government to produce certain material which, in her view, related to matters to be investigated (in Module 2) by the inquiry. The government brought judicial review to challenge the notice. The High Court held that the notice was valid.
The court recorded that the Cabinet Office may respond to the notice by making an application pursuant to section 21(4), that it is unreasonable to produce material which does not relate to a matter in question at the inquiry. It will be for the Chair of the Inquiry to rule on that application.
Therefore, the court's ruling does not mean that everything produced to the Inquiry will necessarily be published in full. Material supplied to the inquiry that is ruled not to relate to a matter in question at the inquiry is to be returned.
The 16 page judgment is at Cabinet Office -v- Chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. The government indicated that it would not appeal.
