Article 8 evaluation:

• However one of the drawbacks of this system is that in other areas

  of protection, such as environmental human rights the ECtHR has shown itself to be more cautious

  in its approach. in addition, countries have a wide margin of appreciation in relation to this right and therefore will be able to avoid rights across the countries. Thus breaking the main theory of the

  Human Rights law which is to be within a democratic society.
• One of the arguments relating to article 8 is regarding how this article is an engine to change the

  way of society. Article 8 has been a positive engine for change in protecting the rights of both the

  vulnerable and minority groups, such as transgender rights. It encompasses mental as well as

  physical well-being, for example, Bensaid v UK (2001). It is the mark of a civilised society that it would seek to protect the rights of a vulnerable person such as one who is in the act of attempting suicide from having their image broadcast in public: Peck v UK (2003).
• Article 8 has also been a useful vehicle for those campaigning for equality in relation to sexual orientation and gender rights.
• The second argument relating to article 8 is regarding celebrities and private life. One of the benefits of this is that It could be argued that those who have benefitted most are those able to bring high profile cases such as celebrities who aim to protect their private life. A string of cases including Campbell v MGN (2004), Weller v Associated Newspapers (2015) and more recently Sir Cif Richard v BBC (2018) have strengthened the rights to privacy.
• However one of the drawbacks

  of this is that the print media would argue that this creates a danger of there being a 'chilling effect' around freedom of expression, which may make newspapers less willing to engage in investigative journalism. A gain under Article 8 can represent a loss under Article 10. The issue of proportionality and balancing competing rights demonstrates that human rights law is an area where simple answers are not easy to find.
• However one of the disadvantages of DNA retention is that The issue is still a live issue as seen in the recent case of Gaughran v the United Kingdom (2020), where photographs, fingerprints and a DNA profile were retained after a conviction for a recordable offence of drink-driving. The ECtHR observed that; The United Kingdom is one of the few Council of Europe jurisdictions to permit indefinite retention of DNA profiles, fingerprints and photographs of convicted persons.
• The applicant's biometric data and photographs were retained without reference to the seriousness of his offence and without regard to any continuing need to retain that data indefinitely
• There is no provision allowing the applicant to apply to have the data concerning him deleted if conserving the data no longer appeared necessary
• The indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph of the applicant as a person convicted of an offence, even if spent, without reference to the seriousness of the offence or the need for indefinite retention and in the absence of any real possibility of review, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests
• The third argument relating to article 8 is DNA retention. One of the benefits of this is that There is

  a delicate balance to be struck between the police being able to conduct investigations

  thoroughly with sufficient Stand and the excessive retention of such evident Son and Marper v UK

  (2008) said that the blanket retention of DNA was in breach of Article 8. This led to the

  government passing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which set limits on this blanket

  retention.
• The final argument of article 8 is relating to the scope of which this article covers. One of the

  benefits of this is that the definition has been given a wide, inclusive definition which was stated in

  Peck V UK (2003). This means that the article covers a wide range of areas and protects the right

  of the individual from different angles of society, which means that it is fair for the victim and the

  state.
• However one of the disadvantages of this is that the definition has been criticised for

  making the right too uncertain. This was shown in R (Razgar) V Secretary of State for the Home

  Department (2004), where Lord Walker expressed his concerns that the words were unclear and

  that any rights developed from this could be seen as “volatile and abstract”. This just potentially

  means that when the article becomes wider, it becomes harder to define it accurately. This means

  that it can lad to the possibility that the right may become harder to use in courts to support a

  claim.