The small boy, Eshan Ahmed, who lives in Aston, fell head-first from the outside staircase onto the concrete below in March last year, after running from staff at Little Hippos Nursery and Day Care Centre in Summer Lane, Birmingham.

The staircase had large gaps on either side, easily big enough for nursery children to fall through. The owner knew the fire escape was unsafe but it was used as a regular entrance and exit from the nursery.

The child was put into an induced coma by Birmingham Children’s Hospital for four days. According to the Telegraph, his mother, Sabrina Ahmed, says: “Doctors have told us the effects of the fall might not show until Eshan reaches puberty as it could have damaged his pituitary gland at the base of his brain that controls hormones.”

Barry Berlin, prosecuting, told the court how the nursery owner, Irshan Ahmed, tried to cover up the reason for the fall, by telling the boy’s mother while her son was still in hospital, as well as Ofsted, that the child had been pushed off the stairs during a fire-drill.

He even attempted to persuade two other staff members to back up his story. They refused.

Dominic Adamson, defending, said the nursery owner erroneously believed the fire-escape was safe because the nursery had passed a fire inspection and an inspection by Ofsted.

The Telegraph reports that Ahmed admitted to one count of breaching his duty to safeguard those not in his employment, contrary to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He also admitted failing to notify Birmingham City Council of the incident within the required period of ten days, under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).

Eshan’s mother has said she is disappointed by the verdict, and believes that the nursery-owner should not be allowed to care for children. Unfortunately, it does seem that this was an accident ‘waiting to happen’.

Original story:

The Telegraph

Simons, a client of the Birmingham Law Centre, wants the Court to examine whether section 39 (4) (f) of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (SRSA) is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 cites the right of participating citizens to respect for private and family life.

While section 39 (4) of the SRSA prohibits the disclosure of personal information gathered for the census, there are certain exemptions. Thus, section 39 (4) (f) means disclosure can be made for a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings, even if these do not take place in the UK. However, there appear to be few safeguards or monitoring mechanisms regarding possible disclosures.

Privacy campaigners are concerned because one firm contracted by the UK Government to process census data, Lockheed Martin, is an American security company that has statutory obligations under the U.S. Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act can compel U.S. companies, including those that operate overseas, to hand over any information that the American Government requires. Therefore, it is feasible that a foreign government could access information about UK citizens without informing them.

Since Simons did not complete and return his 2011 census from, he could be prosecuted for this offence under section 8 of the Census Act (1920). In recent times, the Crown Prosecution Service has taken legal action against approximately 250 people for similarly failing to complete the census.

Notably, failing to take part in the census is a strict liability offence, meaning no defence is admissible. Consequently, if the disputed exemptions part of the SRSA proves to be incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR, Simons’ lawyers say he will seek a declaration stating that making the census compulsory also contravenes the principle of respect for private life.

Original story:

Guardian

Birmingham Law Centre