A shock decision?

15 February 2011 by

JR1, Re Judicial Review [2011] NIQB 5 – Read judgment

A decision of the Northern Ireland high court has highlighted the continued narrow definition of “standing”, or the right to bring a claim, under the Human Rights Act 1998.

An 8-year-old child applied to bring a claim, which included a challenge under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life), to the decision by police to introduce tasers in Northern Ireland.

A taser is a weapon which, when fired, sends an electrical current through the body of the person it is fired at. This causes temporary loss of muscular control and pain. Medical evidence on the dangers of taser use on children is inconclusive and incomplete. However, it is not yet safe to say that they are not potentially lethal to children.

No standing

In order to challenge the introduction of tasers on human rights grounds, the Applicant needed to establish that she was a victim, within the meaning of the relevant law. Article 34 of the ECHR sets out that to bring such a  challenge, an Applicant must be a

… victim of  violation of one of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto.

The Court noted that there is “a degree of flexibility in[..]the concept of victimhood” (paragraph 12). However, a public interest challenge, that is a claim brought not by victims of a violation but by a person or persons who merely object to a decision, is not permissible.

The Applicant had several arguments to support her case that she was a victim. First, her grandmother had been killed in 1981 by a plastic bullet fired by police. The Applicant said this made her fear the same event happening to her mother. The Court was not persuaded this made the child a victim: the circumstances of the grandmother’s death were “entirely divorced” from those in question, as plastic bullets were designed to be used in public order incidents, whereas tasers are never to be used for those purposes according to operational guidance.

Secondly, the Applicant lived in an area of Belfast where a notorious feud was ongoing. This caused violence and disorder on nearby streets. However, this again was insufficient to make the child a victim: tasers are not going to be used in incidents of public disorder and no evidence indicated any circumstances in which the child might be in the vicinity of the deployment of a taser.

Thirdly, it was argued that the Applicant was a victim by being a member of a group, namely children, which was vulnerable in relation to the use of tasers, given the current state of medical knowledge. This argument was also rejected: no factual situation had been suggested which raised any material risk that the child would be exposed to the use of a taser.

As a consequence, she was not a victim and had no standing to bring the human rights challenge.

Judicial Review Standing

The narrow nature of human rights standing in is contrast to the requirements of standing for judicial review, which have been relaxed in the past couple of decades. Traditionally, to bring a judicial review challenge, an Applicant had to show a “sufficient interest” in the decision to be reviewed, a test with a statutory basis in section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (formerly the Supreme Court Act 1981).

One landmark case which helped establish the possibility of public interest challenges to administrative decisions was R v Inspectorate of Pullution Ex p Greenpeace Ltd (No 2), R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries  and Food Ex p Greenpeace Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 329. The environmental movement Greenpeace was permitted to challenge a decision regarding the disposal of radioactive waste. At first instance, Otton J was influenced in allowing the challenge by Greenpeace’s nature as a body with relevant experience and real concern for the environment. The fact that its supporters living in the region affected by the decision, 2,500 in number, may not have an effective way of bringing their concerns into a judicial forum if the challenge by Greenpeace was barred was also a factor.  Further, it had been consulted as part of the consultation process leading to the decision.

Similar points were made in the decision of Rose LJ and Scott Baker J in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p World Development Movement [1995] 1 WLR 386, in which the World Development Movement was permitted to challenge a decision not to give assurance that the UK would provide no further funds for a hydro-electric power station outside the jurisdiction. The Court was persuaded to permit the challenge due to factors including  the likely absence of any other responsible challenger, the significance of the issue in question, the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought and the prominent role of the World Development Movement in advising on overseas aid.

Despite the Applicant not having standing, the court went on to consider whether in fact the introduction of tasers was rational and human rights compliant. In short, it was:

it is of significance that the human rights advisors retained by the Board were satisfied that the deployment and operational guidance and training were in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. The reasons advanced in relation to less lethal technology are clearly significant and although I accept that a reasonable decision maker might have made a different decision I am entirely satisfied that the decision to deploy tasers on a pilot basis was well within the range of rational decisions that was available to the Chief Constable. I conclude, therefore, that the decision to deploy in the circumstances did not constitute a breach of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.


The Courts continue to construe human rights standing narrowly, but this is consistent with the interpretation taken by the European Court of Human Rights, which will not hear claims which relate to abstract, hypothetical violations. In short, is not enough to care deeply about an issue, one must also be directly affected by a public authority’s decision in order to bring a claim under human rights law.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

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




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: