header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

INCITEMENT OUTLAWED

In brief

Threatening people because of their religion or stirring up hatred against them because of their religious beliefs is now an offence, following the implementation of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. This Act is similar to the Public Order Act 1986, which forbids inciting racial hatred. This allows Jews and Sikhs to be protected by race hatred laws because they are found by courts to be racial groups. Members of other religions were not, however, and this Act closes this loophole giving all religions the same protection. The law was watered down from original proposals to protect the right to free speech.

Issue: 7292 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll