Human Rights

Created by

Angie

Cards (40)

Article 2 - Right to life
Article 3 - Prohibition of torture
Article 5 - Right to liberty
Article 6 - Right to a fair hearing
Article 8 - Right to private & family life
Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience & Religion
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
Article 11 - Right to peaceful assemble
Article 14 - Prohibition on discrimination
Protocol 1 art 1- peaceful enjoyment of possession
Art 2 - Education
Art 3 - Elections
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) 
An international treaty with its own court
Historically the uk system operated freedom or liberty
Rights  
The entitlement to require or prevent action or decision by reference to a legal rule
Malone v Metropolitan police commissioner
Victim phone was tapped by MET commissioner
Metropolitan police commissioner had done nothing wrong as the ECHR had no force in the UK courts then
Wheeler v Leicester City Council ( freedom of speech)
Rugby players on tour to South Africa were banned from using a recreation ground for training after answering a question asked in South Africa
Ban was quashed
Frameworks for deciding which rights to protect
Positivism - What is protected by case law & statute is protected
Natural law - what morally requires protection regardless of case law / statute
Transcendental - Given by a higher power
Immonent - inherent in your nature as a human being
Justifying protection of rights
Social contract theory
Rawls veil of ignorance
Dworkin
Social contract theory
Agree with certain obligations ( abide by the law)
Consent to certain powers being used against you (coercive force)
Agree to rights for others that you yourself have (freedom of expression)
Rawls theory  
"Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all "
Dworkin
Not to worry about the majority but think about how to protect : minorities and unpopular groups
Key provisions of HRA 1998
Section 2 - interpretation of convention rights
Section 3 - interpretation of statutes
Section 4 - Declarations of incompatibility
Section 6 - Public authorities under the HRA
Section 7 - Victim status / standing
Section 10 - Remedial Action
Absolute Rights
Rights that cannot be qualified
Ireland v United Kingdom  
Prohibits in absolute terms & inhuman treatment
Restriction in rights should only happen if they have a legitimate democratic purpose
Proportionate limits on Rights
Vertical effect - Individuals asserting rights against public authorities
Horizontal effect - can individuals assert convention rights against non public authorities
Indirect Horizontal effect - If not can this be achieved by other means e.g court injunctions
Subsidarity
Each member state is responsible for providing their convention rights
Article 3 - Prohibition of torture  
Ireland v united kingdom
>Was not classified as torture
>Noise, deprivation of sleep, food and drink
Article 8- Right to respect private & family life  
Smith and Grady v united Kingdom
>Sexual orientation was made public
>ECHR described investigating sexual orientation as intrusive
Article 9 freedom of thought conscience & Religion  
R (Williamson) v ss Education & Employment )
A belief must satisfy some modest, objective requirements
>Be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity
>Posses an adequate degree of seriousness & importance
> Be coherent in the sense of being capable of being understood
Interference with Art 9 can be justified if
prescribed by the law
Serves a legitimate aim
Necessary in a democratic society
R (Begum v Denbigh High School Governors )
Begum was sent home for wearing a jibab (religious garment)
She was not allowed back until she followed the schools uniform policy
She sought Judicial Review on the grounds that it violated her Art 9 rights
It was held that the schools uniform policy was compatible with Art 9
Playfoot v millais School
>Purity ring case - commitment to celibacy
>School uniform prohibits jewellery wearing
>She chose to attend the school knowing the schools policy
>it was not a requirement of her faith
>Was not justified
Watkins Singh V Aberdare Girls High School  
> Kara bracelet case
>WS wished to wear a kara bracelet ( religious belief)
>She was of Punjabi and Welsh heritage
>She was asked to remove the bracelet by the school uniform policy
> Ruled in favour of Watkins Singh as the schools decision was unlawful
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
Protects expression, holding opinions and receiving imparting information and ideas without interference by public authorities
Not all forms of expression are permissible
R v SSHD ex parte simms
Freedom for a prisoner to speak to journalists
>Home secretary put a ban on prisoners partaking in interviews with journalists
> Simms and another brought forward a judicial review against the Home Secretary
>It was held that they should have freedom of speech
Steel & Morris v United Kingdom
Political expression via protest case
>Applicants were sued by Mcdonalds after handing out a six page leaflet containing damaging allegations about the company
>Held that political expression: including matter of public interest and concern requires a high level of protection under Art 10
No restrictions shall be placed unless prescribed by law and is a necessity in a democratic society
Legitimate aims
National security
public safety
Prevention of crime and disorder
Protection of health and morals
Protection of rights and freedom of others
Preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
Test to restrict qualified rights
Prescribed by law (sunday Times v UK)
Necessary in a democratic society (smith & Grady v UK )
Legitimate aim
Prescribed by law
Must be identifiable
Must be accessible and foreseeable and applied according to rules and good faith
Legitimate aim
Is the restriction pursuing a legitimate aim ?
Necessary in a democratic society
Must be a pressing social need
R v Shayler (national security issue, prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim) 
>Shayler was a former member of the security services
>Signed a confidentiality declaration before starting the job
>Provided 30 documents to journalists relating to national intelligence and security issues
>Restriction on shaylers freedom of expression was justified in order to protect national security
>The court found that the interference was prescribed by law and pursed a legitimate aim
Sunday Times v United Kingdom ( Legitimate aim and prescribed by law) 
>Publication of news article regarding the Thalidomide disaster
>Thalidomide was a prescribed sedative for pregnant women
>Women who took it ended up with children with deformities
>Actions were filed against the distillers
>Sunday Times released articles about the issue and an injunction was granted to restrain future publications for safeguarding. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society
R v (British Broadcasting corporation) v Secretary of State for Justice  
Interview with someone detained without charge for terrorism offences
>Mr Ahmed as first arrested without charge and was released after 6 days
>He was then arrested again
>The court quashed a decision of secretary of state not to allow BBC film a broadcast interview with him
> The courts found that the secretary of states refusal to be a disproportionate interference with the right of freedom of expression
Proportionality is finding the right balance between different rights and should only limit peoples rights as much as necessary to get the job done
Nilson v uk 
>Nilson was a violent serial killer serving a whole life tariff
>He wrote an autobiography detailing his life including how he carried out his offences
>UK sought to prevent publication and the court agreed
>Interference with his right was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim of protecting health, morals and rights of others as it would cause distress to surviving victims and families
General measures are regulatory frame works to comply with
Animal Defenders international v United kingdom (General measures ) 
>Animal Defenders proposed an advert showing abuse of chimps in entertainment
>It was classed as political
>The appellant sought a declaration of incompatibility with Art 10 which protects the right to freedom of political expression
>The court refused to make a declaration of incompatibility