header-logo header-logo

22 November 2007
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

BANGLE WRANGLE

In brief

A Sikh schoolgirl is suing her school for excluding her for wearing a small religious bangle—despite previous House of Lords’ rulings that Sikh children could wear items representing their faith, including a turban, to school. Human rights group Liberty is acting for 14-year-old Sarika Singh in her action which arose after she was forced to have isolated school lessons for nearly two months before being excluded from the school for wearing the Kara as a sign of her faith. Liberty will argue that the governing body of Aberdare School is breaching the Race Relations Act 1976, the Equality Act 2006 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll