There has been public concern that some suicides are not investigated to identify causes or triggers, unless required by the European Convention on Human Rights. The paper reviews the statute and case law governing the decision of the Coroner as to the scope of investigation into suicide. The role of the Coroner in assessing public interest is discussed. There is particular reference to allegations of bullying. The science of suicide and bullying is reviewed and their impact on how an inquest is held is considered. Drawing together the science and caselaw, a framework is proposed for judicial decision making.
This article aims to investigate the impact of incarceration on women with regard to their right to health in the criminal justice system in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Despite the universal recognition of the right to health within detention facilities, it has received limited scholarly attention. There is a pressing need for research on this topic due to the identified gap in the literature concerning incarcerated women, with the available data being fragmented and insufficient in addressing the women offender’s right to health in detention settings in the region. The findings of this article indicate that the use of detention facilities as a punitive measure has a significant detrimental impact on women, resulting in additional challenges within these environments. This results in gender-based disparities and differential inequalities of treatment that are systematically imposed upon women within the prison and criminal justice systems. Despite this evidence, incarcerated women are marginalised in discussions related to criminal justice system treatment. A significant absence of concrete steps towards reforming the criminal justice system remains.
Prisons operate with varying aims, including the infliction of punishment, individualdeterrence and general deterrence, even retribution or revenge. One aim is to enable offenders to become aware of their mistakes and be accepted back into the community. A problem with implementing this aim is, however, that imprisonment may generate greater capacity for offending in the convict, who may emerge from prison ‘worse’ than when entering it. This article briefly reviews the philosophy that lies behind alternatives to imprisonment by reference to a small slice of the literature and concludes that more research is required to draw firm conclusions about their efficacy. Research is needed on the domesticlevel and internationally to determine how alternative punishments may result in upholding the human rights of offenders and improving outcomes for society as a whole.
The case note, Freedom from Religion: American Legion, et al. v. American Humanist Association, et al. by Stephen Pitt-Walker, critiques the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision that upheld the presence of a Latin cross war memorial on public land, arguing it undermines the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The case revolved around whether the display of a religious symbol on government property violated the principle of government neutrality toward religion. The Court’s majority justified its decision through a “contextual historical justification,” framing the cross as a secular symbol of World War I remembrance rather than a Christian emblem. Pitt-Walker contends that this reasoning abandons the long-established “neutrality principle,” which had guided previous court rulings to ensure governmental impartiality in religious matters. He argues that the decision unfairly favours the Christian (cultural) majority, discriminating against religious minorities and non-religious groups, ultimately eroding pluralistic values. The dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is discussed extensively, as she criticized the Court’s departure from neutrality and warned of the discriminatory consequences. The case note locates the case within broader legal and philosophical frameworks, particularly exploring the tensions between rights theory and utilitarianism. Pitt-Walker proposes that the decision represents a form of “tyranny of the majority,” where the rights of minority groups are overshadowed by majoritarian interests. He concludes that the ruling sets a troubling precedent for future interpretations of the establishment clause, weakening constitutional protections for religious freedom in the U.S.
Climate change can no longer be viewed through the singular environmental lens; its impact on human rights must be considered to gain a comprehensive understanding of its consequences. Not only is climate change devastating the environment, it is depriving many of the enjoyment of their homes and basic human necessities. Consideration must be given to the potential benefits human rights law can offer in the fight against the consequences of climate change. Unfortunately, there appears to be hesitation about implementing the human rights approach. Some arguments have leaned in favour of the environmental approach due to concerns about the inability to assign accountability and the possibility that including the human rights approach will obscure the innate value of the environment. Hence, the objective of this article is to explore the importance and benefits of adopting a human rights approach to foster a balance between the two approaches. This article focuses on India which, due to its significant climatic disturbances, serves as an ideal example of the human rights violations resulting from climate change. The method used in the study underpinning this article was a doctrinal review of the relevant literature, including journal articles, legislation, and international legal documents. The debate of which approach is more effective may continue for years to come, with both sides presenting plausible arguments. However, the solely environmental approach has not proved to be the most effective. Implementing the human rights approach to climate change should be intentionally considered without nullifying the environmental approach.
