• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Article 7

Article 7 | Anti-retrospective conviction

Read posts on this Article

Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides as follows:

(1) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

(2) This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised norms.

Art.7 is limited to retrospective criminal measures. The Strasbourg Court has not applied it in such a way as to ossify policy in the criminal sphere. In SW v United Kingdom : CR v United Kingdom (1995)  21 EHRR 363 the applicants complained that they had been made retrospectively criminally liable for rape within marriage, since at the time of the commission of their offence, there was still an exception in the criminal law for intercourse in marriage. The Court rejected this argument, saying that the applicants must have anticipated the necessary evolution of the law on marital rape and that it was reasonably foreseeable that they would be prosecuted. The Court found that the concept of lawfulness in Article 7 does not prevent the gradualclarification of the criminal law from case to case, ‘provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen’.

The Commission has also stated that Art.7 does not require a restrictive reading of the criminal law (Application No.00008710/79 DR 28). States may adopt an extensive interpretation of an offence if this is necessary to adapt it to developments of society, but such an extension must be foreseeable by the citizen: Application No.00013079/87 60 DR 256.

  • Return to Incorporated Rights Index
  • Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Leave a Comment »

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 9,414 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • The Fat Tax - Daniel Barnett - Dale & Co. February 9, 2012
    • Case Law: Axel Springer v Germany, Grand Chamber finds violation of Article 10 – Sara Mansoori February 9, 2012
    • Supreme Court decision on Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust - Hempsons February 9, 2012
    • T, R (on the application of) v Greater Manchester Police & Anor [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin) (09 February 2012) February 9, 2012
      Student fails in human rights challenge to Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate with warning incurred when he was 11 for theft of 2 bicycles
    • Strasbourg Rulings on Two Personal Privacy Claims February 8, 2012
    • Open Justice « 2drj February 8, 2012
    • Wigs off, jeans on at the Judicial College | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk February 8, 2012
    • Contempt laws are still valid in the internet age | Dominic Grieve February 8, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • T, R (on the application of) v Greater Manchester Police & Anor [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin) (09 February 2012) February 9, 2012
      Student fails in human rights challenge to Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate with warning incurred when he was 11 for theft of 2 bicycles
    • Othman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSIAC B1 (6 February 2012) February 8, 2012
      Terrorist suspect Abu Qatada granted bail on strict conditions. However, Secretary of State must show evidence of progress in his deportation in next 3 months then deprivation of liberty will no longer be justifiable.
    • AT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 42 (07 February 2012) February 7, 2012
      Control order of member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ruled unlawful as wasn't given enough information about case against him as mandated in A v UK
    • Moussaoui, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 126 (Admin) (03 February 2012) February 6, 2012
      Detention of Mentally ill foreign criminal pending deportation was unlawful as regular reviews not carried out. Given damages of £1
    • Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 48 February 1, 2012
      Investigator Glen Mulcaire loses self-incrimination appeal against order that he should reveal phone hacking clients.
    • D and S, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council [2012] EWHC 17 (Admin) (12 January 2012) January 31, 2012
      Chalenge by 2 elderly disabled people to £17m adult social care cuts by Manchester City Council fails. Consultation and regard to equality duties adequate.
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • RT @SkyNewsBreak: David Cameron has spoken to King Abdullah of Jordan to try to extradite radical cleric Abu Qatada 37 minutes ago
    • RT @daniel_barnett: Here's what I REALLY think about the Stott case - http://t.co/gCIHyevb. @AdamWagner1 also has excellent piece at htt ... 1 hour ago
    • Congrats to @1crownofficerow's Martin Forde QC, to fill Judicial Appointments Commission vacancy left by Lord Sumption http://t.co/wu7yVWAx 2 hours ago
    • RT @INFORRM: Case Law: Axel Springer v Germany, Grand Chamber finds violation of Article 10 - Sara Mansoori http://t.co/r5pBIQU3 2 hours ago
    • ... would have found that but for case law! Mr Justice Parker inviting Court of Appeal / Supreme Court to bite the bullet here 3 hours ago
    • ... also gives permission to appeal. Wld have found scheme "provides no mechanism for review.. disproportionate.. not compatible with A8.".. 3 hours ago
    • ... police warning were for theft of 2 bicycles when 11, student now 20. High Court judge "reluctantly" finds no breach of article 8... 3 hours ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • Abu Qatada relased on “very restrictive” bail conditions February 9, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Please stow your rights in the overhead compartment February 9, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Hospital had human rights duty to protect voluntary patient from suicide, rules Supreme Court February 8, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Libya employee can sue for dismissal in UK February 8, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Times contempt challenge thrown out in Strasbourg February 8, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Indefinite detention: not very British February 8, 2012 freemovement
    • UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts? February 7, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Axel Springer and Von Hannover: Grand Chamber victory for media – Inforrm February 7, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com. Fonts on this blog.

Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,414 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.