Search Results for: right to die
21 February 2018 by Rosalind English
NT 1 & Anor v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 261 (QB) (15 February 2018) – read judgment
This was a Pre Trial Review of an application by the claimants to have details about an old criminal conviction and other information removed from Google and associated websites under the “right to be forgotten”. Each of the claimants sought orders prohibiting the defendant (Google) from continuing to return internet search reports which included information about the claimant which he claimed was inaccurate, stale, irrelevant, and thereby infringed his data protection and privacy rights. The “right to be forgotten” is, in this context, also referred to as “de-listing”. The two cases are due to be tried by Warby J at the end of February. In order to avoid an own goal at trial, where those very names and convictions would be made public, the parties sought to come up with forms of pseudonym or cipher that would protect them. One proposal was that
in the NT1 case a co-defendant of the claimant at his criminal trial in the late 1990s should be referred to as “Mr A”, and that certain offshore companies used by NT1 should be referred to as “Companies A and B”. There are also references to “Businesses A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H”. In the NT2 case, the claimant also had a co-defendant, and the proposal is to call him “Mr A”. This is not the same person as the “Mr A” in the NT1 case. “Company A” in the NT2 case is a cipher for “The business in which the claimant [NT2] previously had an interest.” It is not the same as Company A in the NT1 case. The Confidential schedule in the NT2 case also features “Companies F, G, H, I, J, K and H” which are all different from any of those that feature in the NT1 claim.
Warby J was unimpressed with this alphabet soup. He did not relish the prospect of preparing a judgment, or two judgments, using these ciphers.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
19 February 2012 by Guest Contributor
Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy [2012] EWCA Civ 83 – Read judgment
On 10th February 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld a Judge’s ruling that a Christian couple, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, had discriminated against Martin Hall and Steven Preddy on grounds of sexual orientation when they refused them a double-bedded room at their hotel near Penzance.
For many years, Mr and Mrs Bull had restricted the use of double-bedded rooms at the Chymorvah Private Hotel to married couples. As devout Christians they believed that monogamous heterosexual marriage was the form of partnership “uniquely intended for full sexual relations” and that sex outside of marriage – whether heterosexual or homosexual – was sinful. To permit such couples to share a double-bed would, they believed, be to participate in promoting the sin (single-bedded and twin bedded rooms were available to all).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
19 April 2011 by Adam Wagner
There is a scene in the film Milk in which Harvey Milk, a gay rights leader and politician, counsels his young protegé Cleve Jones on how to rally an angry crowd. Cleve has been reading a convoluted speech to little effect, when Milk steps in to show him how it’s done.”Lose the note cards next time”, he tells Cleve, “your job is to say into that bullhorn what they’re all feeling”.
Geoffrey Robertson QC has taken Harvey Milk’s advice in a recent article in the Daily Mail in support of a British Bill of Rights. We can be angry about European human rights judges and the European Convention, says Robertson, because “human rights can be delivered without Europe infringing the sovereignty of the British Parliament” through a British Bill of Rights. He feels the pain of the Euro-sceptic case.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
28 October 2010 by Rosalind English
Cadder (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 43 Read judgment
We posted earlier on the Supreme Court’s ruling that an accused person’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention are breached if the prosecution leads and relies on evidence of the accused’s interview by police, if a solicitor was not present for that interview. Indeed Lord Hope thought it “remarkable” that
until quite recently, nobody thought that there was anything wrong with this procedure. Ever since ..1980, the system of criminal justice in Scotland has proceeded on the basis that admissions made by a detainee without access to legal advice during his detention are admissible. Countless cases have gone through the courts, and decades have passed, without any challenge having been made to that assumption.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 June 2010 by Adam Wagner
Article 10 | Right to freedom of expression
Read posts on this Article
Article 10 of the Convention provides:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Perhaps unsurprisingly this provision is almost constantly in the news since it involves the core interests of the media, outraged by the development of the so-called “super-injunction” to prevent the reporting of “kiss-and-tell” stories in the celebrity sphere, the main source of profit for the printed press. The current headache for lawmakers and enforcers is how to regulate the dissemination of this kind of information on the internet, particularly social network sites such as Twitter. See our discussions on these issues here, here, here and here.
Although Article 10 guarantees the right to “receive information”, this Article does not require the State to provide access to information which is not already available (Leander v Sweden (1987)9 EHRR 433), although a relatively recent case suggests that the Strasbourg Court may be sympathetic to Article 10 challenges where a government has refused to provide information; in Matky v Czech Republic, application no. 19101/03, the Fifth Section of the Court suggested that an ecological NGO was entitled to access to information about nuclear power stations under Article 10. However this application was ultimately found to be manifestly ill-founded as declared the application manifestly ill-founded, as in the Court’s opinion the interference satisfied the requirements set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 2.
As we see, there are a number of permissible exceptions set out in this Article. Note that no measures in pursuit of these legitimate aims will be justified unless the interference with the individual’s freedom of expression has been “prescribed by law”, and the interfering measure is “proportionate” (see our discussion of these terms in the Article 8 section. Measures can be taken to limit freedom of expression in the interests of the following:
(1) National security, territorial integrity, public safety, the prevention of public disorder and crime ;
(2) The impartiality of the judiciary;
(3) The protection of health and morals;
(4) The protection of the reputation and rights of others
(5) The licensing of broadcasting enterprises.
Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998 provides that special regard is to be had to the right of freedom of expression in any case where it is in issue, and the public interest in disclosure of material which has journalistic, literary or artistic merit is to be considered. See Cream Holdings and Imutran v Uncaged Campaigns Limited [2001] EMLR 563 for Section 12 in application.
No interim order may be made that would infringe free speech rights without the respondent being present unless the applicant is able to furnish “compelling reasons” as to why the respondent should not be notified. The full impact of this section in injunction hearings was considered by the Court of Appeal in Douglas and Zeta Jones v Hello! Magazine, 8 May 2005 .
It is important to remember when considering the scope of Article 10 that Article 16 of the Convention also incorporated with the Human Rights Act provides:
Nothing in Articles Article 10, Article 11, and Article 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activities of aliens.
The usefulness of this provision should not be forgotten and it could in theory be used by the government to buttress the measures it wishes to take to combat incitement to arms, religious hatred etc.
Article 16 expressly authorises restrictions on the political activities of aliens even though they interfere with freedom of expression under Article 10 and other freedoms under the Convention.
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 June 2010 by Adam Wagner
Article 12 | Right to marry / found family
Read posts on this Article
Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
There are therefore two constituent rights, marriage and founding a family, which have been explored and developed in the case law. Because Article 8 has proved such a reliable source for claims relating to family, relationships and home the jurisprudence on Article 12 itself is fairly thin. However it has been invoked in challenges to the government’s efforts to prevent sham marriage as a way of evading immigration controls. The Strasbourg Court has recognised that countries are entitled to restrict the rights of third party-nationals to marry in such circumstances: O’Donoghue v United Kingdom, 2010.
According to Karen Reid, the Strasbourg court takes a conservative view of Article 12: “the right to marry guaranteed by Art.12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex, which interpretation is supported by reference to to the founding of a family” (A Practitioner’s Guide to The European Convention of Human Rights, Sweet & Maxwell 2015, 5th edition). In the relatively recent case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Application no. 30141/04, 25 June 2010, the Court observed that the choice of wording “men and women” instead of “everyone” meant that the Article must be regarded as deliberate and seen in the context of the 1950s as marriage in the traditional sense.
But in the UK the position is different. Until recently English law has permitted civil partnerships for same-sex couples but prevented them from marrying. But the campaign to allow civil partnerships to be registered in religious institutions and the legal challenge to UK law has led to the recognition of same-sex marriage, enshrined in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.
The “founding a family” limb of Article 12 does not create a right to access to reproductive technologies or adoption. This involves issues of resource allocation and costs which are usually outside the purview of the Convention, although there may be an argument based on the prohibition on discrimination under Article 14 if such treatment is arbitrarily allocated.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 February 2011 by Matthew Flinn
On 17 February the Home Secretary announced that the government was moving ahead with changes to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which would allow the registration of civil partnerships to take place in religious premises.
While welcomed by many, some have voiced concerns that permission will inevitably become coercion. They fear that religious organisations may face legal action if they refuse to facilitate civil partnership ceremonies, a claim the Government denies. But will they?
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
9 November 2015 by Rosalind English
Richardson v Facebook [2015] EWHC 3154 (2 November 2015) – read judgment
An action in defamation and under the right to privacy against Facebook has been dismissed in the High Court. The Facebook entity named as defendant did not “control” the publication so as to allow liability; and even if it did, no claim under the Human Rights Act could lie against FB as it could not be described as any sort of a public authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Act.
The claimant, acting as a litigant in person, sought damages in respect of the publication in 2013 and 2014 of a Facebook profile and a posting on the Google Blogger service. The Profile and the Blogpost each purported to have been created by the claimant, but she complained that each was a fake, created by an impostor. She claimed that each was defamatory of her, and infringed her right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
27 March 2025 by Tehreem Sultan
The Supreme Court in British Indian Ocean Territory ruled in December on an important issue concerning the detention of asylum seekers in Diego Garcia. While their cause has progressed (including in a settlement reached on behalf of many, and in this judgment).
Ms Justice Obi, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of the British Indian Ocean Territory, determined that the Claimants had been unlawfully detained since their arrival in October 2021.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
1 June 2010 by Adam Wagner
Protocol 1 Article 2 | Right to free and fair elections
Read posts on this Article
Article 1 Protocol 3 provides as follows:
The High Contracting Parties shall hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
This Article imposes obligations on States rather than creating rights for individuals. This provision includes the right to vote and the right of candidates to stand for election.
States are under an obligation not to impose any form of pressure as to the choice of candidates at elections: Moureaux v Ors (1983) DR 97.
Protocol 1 Article 3 does not require that every vote is given equal weight; different electoral systems all involve wasted votes and there is no obligation to introduce proportional representation.
Access to the media must not be discriminatory. However, a wide margin of appreciation applies under this Article and the Strasbourg authorities have been slow to strike down national rules relating to election coverage (Tete v France (1987) 54 DR 52).
So there is nothing controversial about the express terms of A1 31, however this Article has become something of a battleground for almost everything the Convention stands for, in the eyes of its opponents as well as its supporters. This is because the Strsabourg Court found, in Hirst v United Kingdom (2006) 42 EHRR 41, that the provision implies that all individuals have the right to vote, and that therefore the UK blanket ban a blanket ban on all prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment is unlawful. The standoff between the UK and Strasbourg on this matter is as yet unresolved. The reason the argument has become so heated is that it turns on a fundamental question at the base of human rights instruments such as the Convention: Is it the right of the democratically elected Parliament to decide who their electorate should be? See the numerous case reports, news pieces and discussions on the prisoner voting issue here, here and here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 August 2017 by Rosalind English
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC (Admin) 26 July 2017 – read judgment
Oliver Sanders and Amelia Walker acted for the Home Secretary in this case. They have nothing to do with the writing of this post.
The High Court has thrown out a number of challenges to the government’s efforts to prevent extremism on university platforms.
In 2015 the Home Office released guidance regarding its initiative to tackle extremism in universities under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, CTSA. The press release referred to 70 events on campuses featuring “hate speakers”. The claimant Dr Butt was among six named as “expressing views contrary to British values”.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 November 2015 by Gideon Barth
SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section [2015] EWCA Civ 1109
A child (SM) who was adopted in Algeria by a French couple living in the UK was refused an application for a right of entry as a family member. Having been overturned in the Upper Tribunal, the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. SM was not, the court held, a family member of Mr M. A keen human rights observer might think this was an apparent infringement of article 8 ECHR (the right to family life).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 May 2012 by Guest Contributor
This piece is in response to Rosalind English’s post on this blog arguing that in M.S. v United Kingdom the European Court extended to far the ambit of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects against torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment. This post argues that the European Court’s ruling is both a logical step in the jurisprudence and a welcome one for the protection of those with mental health problems in state detention.
M.S. v United Kingdom identifies a gap in the provision of crisis mental healthcare for those in state detention that has long been recognised by lawyers, campaigning organisations, carers, service users, the police and healthcare providers. The judgment is a welcome recognition of two things: first, that a prolonged and acute mental health crisis while in state detention can amount to degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3 ECHR. And second, that the state is responsible when delays in the provision of psychiatric care to those in detention cause someone with mental health problems to descend into a crisis that is degrading and undignified.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
29 July 2011 by Adam Wagner
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General Claimant – and – (1) MGN Limited Defendants (2) News Group Newspapers Limited – Read judgment
The High Court has found that the Daily Mirror and The Sun were in breach of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 Act) in relation to their reporting of the Jo Yeates murder case. The court was strongly critical of the “vilification” of a man who was arrested but quickly released without charge.
The proceedings were in relation to Christopher Jefferies, a school teacher who was arrested early on in the investigation. The court fined the Daily Mirror £50,000 and The Sun £18,000.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 October 2012 by Alasdair Henderson
NADA v. SWITZERLAND – 10593/08 – HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 – read judgment
How is a Member State of the ECHR supposed to react when the UN Security Council tells it to do one thing and the Convention requires it to do another? That is the interesting and important question which the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights was presented with, and dodged, in its recent decision in Nada v. Switzerland.
Mr Nada is an 82-year-old Italian-Egyptian financier and businessman, who in November 2001 found himself in the unfortunate position of having his name added to the international list of suspected funders and supporters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which is maintained by the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council. Mr Nada has consistently denied that he has any connection to al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, and in 2005 the Swiss Government closed an investigation after finding that the accusations against him were unsubstantiated. However, despite this Mr Nada remained on the list until September 2009. During the intervening 8 years the impact on Mr Nada’s health and his private and family life was severe, so he brought a claim against Switzerland for breach of his Article 8 rights, as well as breaches of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 3 (right not to be subjected to ill-treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 9 (right to freedom of religion).
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments