We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
UK Human Rights Blog - 1 Crown Office Row
Search Results for: puberty blockers consent/page/25/Freedom of information - right of access) [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC) (30 March 2015)
A short examination of whether the policy endorsed by the Labour Party as part of its pledge to support social justice can be justified in law or is a flagrant contravention of human rights. This article was first published in Counsel magazine.
It didn’t take long for some rather well-known lawyers to point out there may be a flaw in this plan. Lord Lester QC of Herne Hill in a letter to the Times that weekend pithily explained that as long ago as 1982, he and David Pannick had advised the school governing bodies that ‘Labour’s plan would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and its first protocol. Our opinion was published. No one disputed our advice and the policy was dropped.’ He expressed surprise about the plan being reignited and continued to be of the view that the plan would violate the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’).
Please welcome our new rounder upper, Sarina Kidd, a student on the GDL course at City University. Sarina joins Daniel Isenberg (our other rounder upper) and replaces Sam Murrant, who has moved on to pastures new after producing a fantastic run of human rights roundups. We wish him all the best and welcome Sarina on to the team – Adam Wagner
Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular smorgasbord of human rights news. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.
In the News
The Human Rights Act and Strasbourg
The debate continues over the suggestion that a future Conservative government would repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention.
Earlier this week Lady Hale, the UK’s most senior female judge, warned that her fellow judges would ‘regret’ a decision to repeal the HRA and that such a repeal would allow Parliament to pass laws incompatible with the ECHR.
The German Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz) (literally: Law on the improvement of law enforcement in social networks and known as ‘NetzDG’) has attracted much media attention, e.g. here and here, since fully entering into force on 1 January 2018. This was sparked to a significant extent by a few high profile deletions, including a tweet from the responsible Minister for Justice.
This contribution will give an overview of the NetzDG and explain how some of the criticisms are overstated and partially misguided. While the NetzDG is unlikely to resolve all challenges surrounding social media and freedom of expression, and undoubtedly presents a certain risk of stifling expression online, I believe it is nonetheless a significant step in the right direction. Rather than undermine freedom of expression, it promises to contribute to more inclusive debates by giving the loud and radical voices less prominence. In any case, it appears reasonable to let this regulatory experiment play out and observe whether fears over a ‘chilling effect’ on free expression are borne out by the evidence. A review of the law and its effects are is planned after an initial three year operation period, which should deliver ample data and regulatory experience while limiting the scope for potential harm.
These latter “snooping” proposals echo the ill-fated Communications Data Bill 2008, proposed by the Labour Government. After cross-party condemnation and criticism from the Information Commissioner’s Office and others, that Bill was withdrawn, with Home Office officials sent back to the drawing board.
After meeting similar condemnation in the press and online this week, and reservations expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister; it appears we can expect a draft Communications Data Bill to be resurrected in the Queen’s Speech.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(2) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 of the EU Charter corresponds to Art.9 ECHR and is subject to the limitations set out in 9(2). This means, in effect, that where Member States are adopting Directives prohibiting discrimination or implementing EU working time rules, they are bound to respect the religious beliefs and activities of their citizens. This also authorises the slaughter of animals without pre stunning to satisfy the demands of Halaal consumers despite the provisions of Directive 93/104/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter. The right to freedom of religion is also associated with the particularly highly protected EU right for individual to move across borders to join religious groups, preach etc.
Art.9 covers the sphere of private, personal beliefs and religious creeds. The Strasbourg authorities emphasise the democratic importance of an open forum of beliefs and opinions; atheists and agnostics may therefore claim the protection of this right (Kokkinakis v Greece (1993)17 EHRR 397).
The Strasbourg Court has accepted the following views and positions as beliefs under Art.9 :
(1) Veganism: United Kingdom Application No.00018187/91 (1993) Unreported.
(2) Scientology: Sweden Application No.0007805/77 (1979) 16 DR 68.
(3) Kosher diet: United Kingdom Application No.0008231/78 65 DR 245.
(4) Jehovah’s Witness: Kokkinakis v Greece (1993).
The right to freedom of conscience was argued in the right to die cases R v DPP ex parte Pretty and Pretty v UK following Sanles v. Spain [2001] EHRLR 348. The argument in both cases was that one’s own freedom to choose the manner and timing of one’s death should not be restricted by legislation fuelled by religious sensitivities. The argument was rejected in Strasbourg: see Pretty (2) for a critique of this element of the judgment. In general, positions taken in relation to politics and ideology do not qualify for Article 9 protection. There is no right, for example, under Article 9 to conscientious objection: Application No.0007705/76 (1977) 9 DR 196. Art.9 only protects actions and gestures that are intimately connected with a creed or belief. In Arrowsmith v United Kingdom (1978) 19 DR 5 the Commission rejected a complaint that the prosecution of the applicant for handing out leaflets to soldiers urging them not to serve in Northern Ireland breached her rights under Article 9. This was a specific action and not a general expression of her pacifist ideals. However the explicit exclusion of non-theistic belief systems by the Court may have to be reviewed in the light of the current inflamed debate about the impact of religion on various freedoms, such as the freedom to marry according to one’s choice, and of course the general freedom of expression.
There is some scepticism about an express right to respect for religion in a largely secular society and recent cases upholding the right to religious practices have attracted strong criticism. When the High Court ruled in May 2011 that a Muslim prisoner could not be disciplined for refusing to give urine for a drugs test because he was in the midst of a voluntary fast the general view was that the courts were once again cravenly giving way to abusive reliance on human rights by unsavoury characters: see the comments on our report of the case.
Furthermore, the idea that freedom of speech must give way to religious sensitivities under the increasing cloud of offence is becoming a highly contentious issue, made more so by the tensions surrounding Islamic extremism and the murderous attacks in Europe of those deemed offensive to the religion.
Article 9 does not impose a positive obligation on the State to introduce legislation to criminalise blasphemy or, where blasphemy laws are present, there is no duty on public authorities to bring proceedings against publishers of works that offend the sensitivities of any individual or group: Choudhury v United Kingdom Application No.00017439/90 (1991). States which impose conscription will not therefore be in breach of Article 9 if they sanction such objections.
Churches and associations with religious and philosophical objects are capable of exercising Article 9 rights. Profit-making corporations on the other hand cannot rely on Article 9 rights. In Refah Partisi v Turkey (2003)the Court held that the dissolution of a political party that was held to desire to establish a theocracy was consistent with the ECHR on the grounds that theocracy flew in the face of the liberal and democratic principles of the Convention.
Article 9 does not require active facilitation of religious beliefs in the workplace (Stedman v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR CD 168, although the Strasbourg Court has adopted a more generous approach in Eweida and Others v United Kingdom (2013) by concluding that the applicant’s employer had breached her Article 9 rights by refusing to allow her to wear a crucifix. This was a minor victory however since the Court also decided that a policy requiring employees to serve all customers irrespective of sexual orientation was a legitimate restriction on religious freedom (this part of the case involved a Christian registrar disciplined for refusing to register same-sex couples and a second involving a marriage therapist dismissed for refusing to counsel same-sex couples). The Strasbourg Court is generally unsympathetic to individual claims for exemption on religious grounds to generally applicable laws; thus, in Pichon and Sajous v France (an inadmissibility ruling of 2001), the conviction of pharmacists who refused on religious grounds to supply contraceptives that had been lawfully prescribed was upheld on the basis of the need to take account of both health policy and the rights and freedoms of others. In Dahlab v Switzerland (2001) the Court upheld the refusal by the authorities to allow a teacher to wear a headscarf, on the basis that the state was entitled to seek to ensure the neutrality of the education system. Beyond the private sphere, therefore, states have a broad margin of discretion in deciding what religious actions and symbols to restrict.
Section 13 Human Rights Act 1998 provides that if a court’s determination of any question might affect the exercise by a religious organisation of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Art.9 , the court must have particular regard to the importance of that right. See Alison Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 7 BHRC 375 for judicial discussion of the practical effect of this section. However see comments by Laws LJ on the proposal to accord special treatment in the courts to claimants or defendants relying on supernatural backing for their behaviour: McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ B1 (29 April 2010)
The freedom of religion also includes a negative aspect, including the rigth not having to manifest one’s religion or beliefs. In the case of Sinan Isik v. Turkey the Strasbourg Court ruled that it was an interference with Art.9 to require a citizen to indicate his religion in his application for an ID card or formally ask for the religion box to be left empty. That in itself, in the Court’s view, violated the Convention. This presumably covers all forms of state-sanctioned identification documents or registers.
The Human Rights Act 1998 also provides that priests, ministers and officials of any church are excluded from liability under s.6 where they refuse to administer a marriage “contrary to [their] religious doctrines or convictions”.
One of the possibilities being considered by Lord Justice Leveson as he writes the Report for Part 1 of his Inquiry is whether there should be compulsory regulation of the print media. One, widely discussed possibility is a statutory framework which would require any publisher with turnover or readership above a set threshold to join a “regulatory body”: compulsory regulation for large publishers.
The purpose of such a provision would be to deal with the so-called “Desmond problem” – the anomaly of a system of regulation which does not cover all the large newspaper publishers. But an important freedom of expression question arises: is the compulsory regulation of the print media compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? This is not a question which has ever been considered by the Court of Human Rights and the answer may not be an entirely straightforward.
The Queen (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Limited (Respondent)) v East Sussex County Council (Appellant) and Newhaven Town Council (Interested Party) [2013] EWCA Civ 276 – read judgment
This is a tale of common law rights, open water swimming, and individual freedoms. It is about the flip side of codified human rights: the time-honoured principle, that that which is not specifically prohibited, is – or should be – permitted in English law.
Our current preoccupation with certain sorts of intolerance must not allow us to lose sight of another threat to our individual freedoms: the encroaching requirement that our use of wild spaces is subject to the permission of the public authority who happens to be vested with certain statutory power over the land in question. This ruling confirms, if it needed confirming, that “toleration” does not mean the same as “permission”. If we allow the one to collapse into the other, the inference will become widespread that use of such land is permissive by virtue of an implied licence, a licence which can be easily withdrawn at any time. Continue reading →
One of the most contentious proposals in the Consultation Paper on the transforming legal aid is the removal of client choice in criminal cases. Under the proposals contracts for the provision of legal aid will be awarded to a limited number of firms in an area. The areas are similar to the existing CPS areas. The Green Paper anticipates that there will be four or five such providers in each area. Thus the county of Kent, for example, will have four or five providers in an area currently served by fifty or so legal aid firms. Each area will have a limited number providers that will offer it is argued economies of scale.
In order to ensure that this arrangement is viable the providers will be effectively guaranteed work by stripping the citizen of the right to choose a legal aid lawyer in criminal cases. Under the new scheme every time a person needs advice they will be allocated mechanically by the Legal Aid Agency to one of the new providers. It may not be the same firm the person has used before. The citizen will therefore not be able to build up a relationship with a solicitor. From a human rights perspective this, of course, begs the question would the removal of choice be compatible with the ECHR?
The European Convention 1950 guarantees the right to a fair trial. Everyone knows that. At article 6.1 the Convention says:
Right to a fair trial
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….
What everyone does not know is what is a ‘civil right’. And in the present context – namely divorce of civil partnership dissolution – do you have a right to query the assertion of your spouse or civil partner that your marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down?
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 simplifies the divorce and civil partnership dissolution process by changing the law to make irretrievable breakdown – as now – the only ground for divorce or dissolution. But to prove that, there was no longer any need to establish one or more facts: adultery (marriage only), unreasonable behaviour or living apart for varying periods. One, or both, parties can file a statement of irretrievable breakdown. The procedure for this is likely – no commencement date has been confirmed – to be in force from 6 April 2022. All so far so civilised.
The appeal by Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust was allowed. Image: The Guardian
In Bell and A v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others[2021] EWCA Civ 1363 the Court of Appeal advised judges to avoid formulating policy in an area of social and moral complexity.
Ever since the Divisional Court restricted the medical treatment of children experiencing gender dysphoria at the end of last year (see R (on the application of Bell and A) v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others), discussed on this blog here), the decision has provoked heated debate. Some lamented the distress of young sufferers deprived of treatment. Others applauded limits they said would prevent irreparable harm. On 17 September 2021 the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, but the dispute will continue to rage both in and outside the Courts.
The first Claimant, Keira Bell, is a former patient of the Tavistock who was prescribed puberty blockers at 16 to delay the onset of female sexual characteristics. She transitioned to a male using cross-sex hormones, had a double mastectomy, and then changed her mind, regretting the “brash decision” she said would negatively affect the rest of her life. Her case – accepted by the Divisional Court — was that the “innovative” and “experimental” nature of the treatment, specifically the use of puberty blockers, made it unlikely a child could validly consent to it.
CG v Facebook Ireland & Another [2015] NIQB 11 (20 February 2015) – read judgment
The plaintiff was a former sex offender who had been identified on a Facebook page run by the second defendant called “Keep Our Kids Safe From Predators 2”. He had been released on licence and he was apprehensive about his safety upon his return to the community.
He resides with his father, who is disabled, and with his adult children one of whom is also disabled. He was particularly fearful of the reactions of others to his conduct in the light of the fact that his name had been published on the internet. I have posted on an earlier case where another former sex offender won an injunction against Facebook Ireland Limited in respect of the original KOKSFP, which was subsequently taken down (XY v Facebook Ireland Ltd[2012] NIQB 96). Continue reading →
In the case of Yildrim v Turkey the European Court of Human Rights decided that a Court order blocking access to “Google Sites” in Turkey was a violation of Article 10. The measure was not “prescribed by law” because it was not reasonably foreseeable or in accordance with the rule of law. The judgment is available only in French.
He owned and ran a website hosted by the Google Sites service, on which he published his academic work and his opinions on various matters. On 23 June 2009 the Denizli Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the blocking of an Internet site whose owner had been accused of insulting the memory of Atatürk. The order was issued as a preventive measure in the context of criminal proceedings against the site’s owner.
A majority of the Supreme Court has held that the retention by police of information on the Domestic Extremism Database about a 91 year-old activist’s presence at political protests was (1) in accordance with the law and (2) a proportionate interference with his right to a private life under Article 8(1) of the ECHR.
However, Lord Toulson’s dissent noted that the information was retained for many years after Mr Catt had attended these mainstream political events, and the police had concluded that he was not known to have acted violently. Accordingly, he thought its retention was unnecessary and disproportionate.
R (o.t.a Rob Evans) v. Attorney-General, Information Commissioner Interested Party, 12 March 2014 – read judgment
The Court of Appeal (reversing a strong court including the former Lord Chief Justice – see my previous post) has decided that correspondence between the Prince of Wales and various government departments should be released. A Guardian journalist had made a request under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations to see these documents. The Upper Tribunal had agreed that they should be disclosed.
At that point, the Attorney-General intervened and signed a certificate saying “no”.
The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) v Secretary of State for Justice, G4S and Serco plc, 6 February 2013 – read judgment
The Court of Appeal dismissed this claim by a children’s NGO for an order that the Secretary of State provide information to certain children to the effect that the SoS and his contractors had unlawfully used bodily restraint upon them whilst they were “trainees” in Secure Training Centres. The facts and Foskett J’s judgment under appeal was fully analysed by Rosalind English in her post, so I shall concentrate on the two points of wider interest:
1. is there a duty on the state to tell someone of their legal rights against the state?
2. should domestic human rights case law ever go wider than its Strasbourg equivalent?
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.
The German Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz) (literally: Law on the improvement of law enforcement in social networks and known as ‘NetzDG’) has attracted much media attention, e.g. 
Civil liberties and the coalition have been happily filling the political pages this week. The
One of the possibilities being considered by Lord Justice Leveson as he writes the Report for Part 1 of 
One of the most contentious proposals in the 
YILDIRIM v. TURKEY – 3111/10 – HEJUD [2012] ECHR 2074 – 
The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) v Secretary of State for Justice, G4S and Serco plc, 6 February 2013 –
Recent comments