Rajiv Shah
@rajivshah.bsky.social
Interested in law, politics, the constitution, and policy. Former special adviser in MOJ, AGO, and No 10.
@RajivShah90 at the other place
@RajivShah90 at the other place
It's deeply unfortunate - but telling - that defenders of the ECHR say torture when they talk about Article 3, when it is actually so much more and allows arguments about anxiety to be made
Yet to see anyone willing to defend fact a risk of slap on the face can block removal (Bouyid v Belgium)
Yet to see anyone willing to defend fact a risk of slap on the face can block removal (Bouyid v Belgium)
September 27, 2025 at 10:59 AM
It's deeply unfortunate - but telling - that defenders of the ECHR say torture when they talk about Article 3, when it is actually so much more and allows arguments about anxiety to be made
Yet to see anyone willing to defend fact a risk of slap on the face can block removal (Bouyid v Belgium)
Yet to see anyone willing to defend fact a risk of slap on the face can block removal (Bouyid v Belgium)
The Guardian charges Farage of Trumpism but the Trump admin is still complying with the Torture Convention: for those who are at a real risk of torture in their country of origin, Trump is sending them to South Sudan.
August 27, 2025 at 6:35 AM
The Guardian charges Farage of Trumpism but the Trump admin is still complying with the Torture Convention: for those who are at a real risk of torture in their country of origin, Trump is sending them to South Sudan.
I agree, I think the case was largely a product of the way it was argued
I found the summary rejection of the legal fiction reading of s 9 GRA striking. I understand why no one argued for that interpretation but I wonder whether the outcome would have been different if the court said s 9 was one
I found the summary rejection of the legal fiction reading of s 9 GRA striking. I understand why no one argued for that interpretation but I wonder whether the outcome would have been different if the court said s 9 was one
April 20, 2025 at 6:40 PM
I agree, I think the case was largely a product of the way it was argued
I found the summary rejection of the legal fiction reading of s 9 GRA striking. I understand why no one argued for that interpretation but I wonder whether the outcome would have been different if the court said s 9 was one
I found the summary rejection of the legal fiction reading of s 9 GRA striking. I understand why no one argued for that interpretation but I wonder whether the outcome would have been different if the court said s 9 was one
No, the Court in Corbett explicitly acknowledges that there are cases where the first three criteria can point in different directions
April 16, 2025 at 9:31 PM
No, the Court in Corbett explicitly acknowledges that there are cases where the first three criteria can point in different directions
"Genetic, hormonal or gonadal"
That's literally what the Court says in Corbett v Corbett
That's literally what the Court says in Corbett v Corbett
April 16, 2025 at 9:17 PM
"Genetic, hormonal or gonadal"
That's literally what the Court says in Corbett v Corbett
That's literally what the Court says in Corbett v Corbett
Ah fair - well there was always page 59 of the Tory 2024 manifesto!
April 16, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Ah fair - well there was always page 59 of the Tory 2024 manifesto!
The Canadian Federal Court rejected the Miller 2 test (as opposed to finding that it applied but was not met on the facts)
March 7, 2025 at 11:15 PM
The Canadian Federal Court rejected the Miller 2 test (as opposed to finding that it applied but was not met on the facts)
Yes they still have to be voted on but the term prior to them being voted on is 'amendment' not 'proposed amendment'
February 14, 2025 at 10:56 AM
Yes they still have to be voted on but the term prior to them being voted on is 'amendment' not 'proposed amendment'
On this, for a good chunk of the time I was a spad I wasn't a British citizen, and I had other colleagues who were in the same boat. More generally there are a fair few other Commonwealth/Irish in SW1
I still find it remarkable that it is a fact that no one commented on
I still find it remarkable that it is a fact that no one commented on
February 13, 2025 at 2:12 PM
On this, for a good chunk of the time I was a spad I wasn't a British citizen, and I had other colleagues who were in the same boat. More generally there are a fair few other Commonwealth/Irish in SW1
I still find it remarkable that it is a fact that no one commented on
I still find it remarkable that it is a fact that no one commented on
This is a very good letter re JR
The major problem is not JR but is that Parliament passes lots of laws that require planning authorities to consider all sorts of things
Duties to consider are the worst of both worlds: burdensome to comply but too weak to change outcomes
They should all go
The major problem is not JR but is that Parliament passes lots of laws that require planning authorities to consider all sorts of things
Duties to consider are the worst of both worlds: burdensome to comply but too weak to change outcomes
They should all go
February 2, 2025 at 11:20 PM
This is a very good letter re JR
The major problem is not JR but is that Parliament passes lots of laws that require planning authorities to consider all sorts of things
Duties to consider are the worst of both worlds: burdensome to comply but too weak to change outcomes
They should all go
The major problem is not JR but is that Parliament passes lots of laws that require planning authorities to consider all sorts of things
Duties to consider are the worst of both worlds: burdensome to comply but too weak to change outcomes
They should all go
If that's true then why is clause 24 of the Bill needed?
February 2, 2025 at 9:11 AM
If that's true then why is clause 24 of the Bill needed?
Why did you vote against hearing from the Royal College of Psychiatrists?
January 24, 2025 at 4:23 PM
Why did you vote against hearing from the Royal College of Psychiatrists?
Hi Mark, I'm a bit confused by the part of your coverage where you said Danny wanted to replace the Royal College of Nursing
The motion Danny tabled is available on parliament website and you'll see it contained all those bodies you mentioned + the Royal College of Psychiatrists
The motion Danny tabled is available on parliament website and you'll see it contained all those bodies you mentioned + the Royal College of Psychiatrists
January 21, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Hi Mark, I'm a bit confused by the part of your coverage where you said Danny wanted to replace the Royal College of Nursing
The motion Danny tabled is available on parliament website and you'll see it contained all those bodies you mentioned + the Royal College of Psychiatrists
The motion Danny tabled is available on parliament website and you'll see it contained all those bodies you mentioned + the Royal College of Psychiatrists
To see the point take the justification alleged by the claimants in M2: I want to negotiate a deal without Parliament interfering so that I can make a credible threat of leaving with no deal
[but bear in mind that Parliament would come back before exit day and so could still block no deal]
[but bear in mind that Parliament would come back before exit day and so could still block no deal]
January 11, 2025 at 12:10 PM
To see the point take the justification alleged by the claimants in M2: I want to negotiate a deal without Parliament interfering so that I can make a credible threat of leaving with no deal
[but bear in mind that Parliament would come back before exit day and so could still block no deal]
[but bear in mind that Parliament would come back before exit day and so could still block no deal]
Exit day was 31st Oct but under the prorogation there was to be a state opening of Parliament on 14th Oct.
January 9, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Exit day was 31st Oct but under the prorogation there was to be a state opening of Parliament on 14th Oct.
But I can't see how criticism of the status quo on the ground of lack of effectiveness of safeguards is an argument in favour of the Bill when the Bill doesn't change them
November 16, 2024 at 12:32 PM
But I can't see how criticism of the status quo on the ground of lack of effectiveness of safeguards is an argument in favour of the Bill when the Bill doesn't change them
1/ that reading doesn't make sense of this passage by which he introduces the point
2/ but even then it won't replace it because terminally ill people can still go with their relatives to n Switzerland (and will be dealt with by DPP policy)
2/ but even then it won't replace it because terminally ill people can still go with their relatives to n Switzerland (and will be dealt with by DPP policy)
November 16, 2024 at 10:48 AM
1/ that reading doesn't make sense of this passage by which he introduces the point
2/ but even then it won't replace it because terminally ill people can still go with their relatives to n Switzerland (and will be dealt with by DPP policy)
2/ but even then it won't replace it because terminally ill people can still go with their relatives to n Switzerland (and will be dealt with by DPP policy)
The Bill does not repeal s. 2 Suicide Act or replace it with a new coercion offence. Rather it creates a limited exception to it for those who act within the scheme created by the Bill. Nor does the Bill require DPP to issue new guidance
November 16, 2024 at 9:15 AM
The Bill does not repeal s. 2 Suicide Act or replace it with a new coercion offence. Rather it creates a limited exception to it for those who act within the scheme created by the Bill. Nor does the Bill require DPP to issue new guidance
Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division of the High Court, has published an absolutely devastating critique of the judicial elements of the Leadbeater Bill
transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dyi...
transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dyi...
November 14, 2024 at 2:48 PM
Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division of the High Court, has published an absolutely devastating critique of the judicial elements of the Leadbeater Bill
transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dyi...
transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dyi...
Our greatest judge, Lord Bingham, thought that there was no logical distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia: if you allow one you have to allow the other
Would our courts, faced with such a challenge, say that Lord Bingham was wrong?
Would our courts, faced with such a challenge, say that Lord Bingham was wrong?
October 30, 2024 at 3:45 PM
Our greatest judge, Lord Bingham, thought that there was no logical distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia: if you allow one you have to allow the other
Would our courts, faced with such a challenge, say that Lord Bingham was wrong?
Would our courts, faced with such a challenge, say that Lord Bingham was wrong?
Para 104 and 105 of Conway are key on why the doctors/judges would not be an effective safeguard
October 27, 2024 at 11:34 PM
Para 104 and 105 of Conway are key on why the doctors/judges would not be an effective safeguard
Very important letter on Assisted Suicide from a wide range of legal academics and lawyers
The slippery slope is real (inc a real risk for the ECHR) and there's no way of preventing people from being pressured
The slippery slope is real (inc a real risk for the ECHR) and there's no way of preventing people from being pressured
October 27, 2024 at 10:27 AM
Very important letter on Assisted Suicide from a wide range of legal academics and lawyers
The slippery slope is real (inc a real risk for the ECHR) and there's no way of preventing people from being pressured
The slippery slope is real (inc a real risk for the ECHR) and there's no way of preventing people from being pressured