Smith v Trafford Housing Trust  EWHC 3221 (Ch) - read judgment
Turner v East Midlands Trains  EWCA Civ 1470 - read judgment
Two employment cases, about Facebook and train tickets respectively, indicate the difficulties of deciding where human rights may or may not be raised in disputes between private parties – neither defendant in these cases was a public authority.
It is perfectly clear that where there is a statutory provision under attack, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act mandates the “reading down” of its wording to conform to Convention rights even though there is no “public authority” amongst the parties to the litigation. The Turner case below illustrates this particular aspect of the “horizontal” effect of the HRA in disputes between private parties.
Malik v United Kingdom 23780/08  ECHR 438 (13 March 2012) - Read judgment
The European Court of Human Rights held that the suspension of a GP from the Primary Care Trust (PCT) Performers List did not violate his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court declined to decide whether there was a possession that could be interfered with in this case, but held that suspension did not affect Dr Malik.
Dr Malik ran a general practice from premises he owned in London. He was under a general medical services contract with his PCT so that he had to ensure patients on his list were provided with GP services (whether by himself or a salaried doctor); his premises was rented (for a notional amount) so that it could be used for NHS services. Dr Malik was also on the PCT’s performers list so that he personally could provide GP services.
Philip Havers QC of 1 Crown Office Row is representing Martin in the judicial review proceedings. He is not the author of this post.
Albert Camus famously wrote: ‘there is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.’ However profound a philosophical problem, the question of suicide or, more precisely, assisted suicide is proving quite a legal conundrum.
It is a well-known fact that, at present, it is lawful in England and Wales to commit (or to attempt to commit) suicide but unlawful to help someone else to do so. Encouraging or assisting suicide is an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. On a literal reading of the Act, even obtaining information about euthanasia for someone who plans to commit suicide could constitute a breach of section 2.
Joseph Lennox Holmes (Appellant) v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Respondent)  UKPC 48 - read judgment
The disciplinary procedures of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons did not give rise to any appearance of bias so as to breach a practitioner’s right to a fair trial under Article 6.
Despite the fact that the membership of the committee dealing with the prosecution of charges was drawn from the College’s governing body, in whose name any charges were brought, and that the body dealing with the determination of charges was also drawn from the College’s governing body, in practice their procedures were fair.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital and Botham (FC) v Ministry of Defence  UKSC 58 – read judgment.
Although not strictly speaking a human rights case, the Supreme Court handed down an important employment law decision this week which has significant impact on employees’ ability to claim damages if they are sacked unfairly or if an internal disciplinary process isn’t properly followed by their employer.
Both cases, which had been conjoined for the purposes of the appeal, dealt with situations where an employee had a contractual right to a particular disciplinary procedure but the procedure was not properly followed. The employees argued that as a result of the flawed disciplinary process, incorrect and highly damaging findings of fact were made against them, which prevented them from finding future employment. In both cases the incorrect findings of fact concerned allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, in the case of Mr Edwards (a surgeon) with patients and in the case of Mr Botham (a youth worker) with teenage girls in his care, so the employees’ upset is readily understandable.
This is a case in which Philip Havers QC of 1 Crown Office Row appeared for the General Dental Council; he is not the author of this post.
The General Dental Council v Savery and others  EWHC 3011 (Admin) – Read judgment
Mr Justice Sales in the High Court has ruled that the General Dental Council’s (GDC) use and disclosure of the dental records of fourteen patients of a registered dentist who was the subject of investigation was lawful.
The court also offered general guidance about how the GDC may proceed (particularly by reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to privacy and family life) when it wishes to investigate allegations against a dentist of impairment of fitness to practise by reference to confidential patient records in the absence of consent from the patients in question.
R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School  UKSC 30 – Read judgment
On 4 October 2007 the parents of a 15 year old boy complained that he had been kissed by his 22 year old school sessional music teaching assistant (G).
After an (inconclusive) Police investigation, the school held a disciplinary hearing and dismissed G. They also referred his case to the Secretary of State with a view to him being barred from working with children. The Claimant appealed to the school governors. He also sought to be represented by his solicitor. In this he was successful on judicial review and at the Court of Appeal.
The question for the Supreme Court was, did Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) mean that G was entitled to be legally represented at the hearing before the school governors?
R (on the application of G) (Respondent) v The Governors of X School (Appellant)  UKSC 30 – Read judgment / press summary
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial, is engaged in internal disciplinary proceedings if the will have a “substantial influence” on future proceedings which are likely to determine a civil right.
However, in this case of a teaching assistant sacked for sexual misconduct with a child, the court ruled by a majority that article 6 rights were not available at a school’s internal disciplinary hearing and the man was therefore not entitled to legal representation. This was because the result of the hearing would not have a substantial influence on the secretary of state’s decision whether to place the man on the list of people barred from working with children. Simply, the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was obliged to make its own independent judgment.
As Martin Downs posted in April, this decision – which supports the previous decision of the court of appeal – will have an important effect on all internal disciplinary hearings held in the public sector, not just those held at schools. It will now be easier for teachers, doctors, dentists, nurses and others to secure the right to legal representation, alongside other rights such as the right to an impartial panel, at disciplinary hearings which will have a substantial influence on their career.
R (Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council  EWHC 1585 (Admin) – read judgment
This post was coauthored by Richard Mumford and Joanna Glynn QC. Kieran Coonan QC and Neil Sheldon of 1 Crown Office Row appeared for the claimant in this case.
On 21 June 2011 the Divisional Court held to be “irrational and … a breach of the Claimant’s Article 6(1) right to a fair hearing” a decision by the Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council to admit hearsay evidence under its own rules, having determined that such evidence would not be admissible under the criminal rules of evidence .
Professor Bonhoeffer, described in the judgment as “an eminent consultant paediatric cardiologist of international repute”, was charged by the GMC with impairment of his fitness to practise arising from alleged serious sexual misconduct towards boys and young men in Kenya. It was alleged that over a number of years the Claimant travelled to Kenya to undertake charitable medical work and that the victims were children and young men to whom he had provided sponsorship by paying for their education and accommodation.
The Royal College of Nursing & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor  EWHC 2761 (Admin) (10 November 2010) – Read judgment
The High Court has ruled that a scheme which prohibits people convicted or cautioned for certain crimes from working with children or vulnerable adults breaches human rights law.
The system of automatically banning those convicted for or who admit certain crimes from working with children and vulnerable adults without allowing them to make representations breached their rights to a fair trial.
A district court in California has ruled that the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is unconstitutional, and has awarded the plaintiffs a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the statute embodying the policy. Read judgment.
The Times reports today that Judge Virginia Philips found that the policy violated the plaintiffs’ rights to substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and their rights of freedom of speech, association, and to petition the government, guaranteed by the First Amendment. Continue reading
Gaunt v OFCOM  EWHC 1756 (QB) (13 July 2010) – Read judgment
The High Court has ruled that OFCOM did not breach a DJ’s freedom of expression rights by finding that he contravened the Broadcasting Code after calling a guest a “Nazi” during an interview on talkSPORT. The decision by the regulator led to the DJ’s sacking.
Jon Gaunt applied for judicial review of the decision by OFCOM that he had breached rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Broadcasting Code. Liberty supported his claim. He argued that OFCOM’s decision amounted to a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression and an infringement of his rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Governers of X School v R(on the Application of G) (Claimant) & Y City Council and Secretary of State for Children and Schools and Families (Interveners) & Equality and Human Rights Commission (Interested Party)
 EWCA Civ 1;CA (Civ Div) (Laws LJ, Wilson LJ, Goldring J) January 20 2010
Where an individual had a civil right being determined in one set of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6, he would be able to claim protection under that provision in any other proceeding involving him if the outcome of that other would have a substantial effect on the determination of that civil right.
The claimant had been employed as a teaching assistant at the appellant school. As a result of alleged incident of a sexual nature with a pupil, disciplinary procedures were instigated against him which culminated in the hearing before the committee. He was told that in these hearings employees could be represented by a colleague or a trade union representative but that any other form of legal representation would not be permitted.