In this latest episode we consider the probable attitude of the judiciary to any challenges regarding the government’s responsibility for providing sufficient PPE, the risk imposed on individuals, such as prisoners and mental health patients in detention during lockdown, their obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 11.

How are we as a society, and the government, going to regard the question of “judicial activism” in this unprecedented situation in a post-pandemic UK?

Here are the statutes, statutory instruments and cases referred to in the course of my interview with Dominic Ruck-Keene and Darragh Coffey:

Coronavirus Act 2020, under which have been issued the

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 

Civil Contingencies Act 2004

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

Article 15 (derogation provision) European Convention on Human Rights


R (Miller) v Prime Minister[2019] UKSC 41

 Smith v MOD [2013] UKSC 41

 Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trus[2012] 2 AC 72

Liversidge v Anderson [1941] UKHL 1

I’m sure our 300K + listeners will forgive the variability in the sound quality of this three way interview as we all step up to the challenges of voice technology whilst locked down. Our producer Simon Jarvis from Whistledown has performed his usual heroics with the resulting recording.

Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple PodcastsAudioboomPlayer FMPodbeaniHeartRadio PublicDeezer or wherever you listen to our podcasts.

Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.