18 and 24 human rights Flashcards
Sunday v Times UK
Newspaper wanted to publish an article about the dangers of taking the thalidomide drug during pregnancy. ECtHR held an injunction stopping the publication of the article Waa in breach of A10 ECHR
Malone v UK
C charged with handling stolen goods. At trial, it emerged that police had tapped his phone and intercepted his mail. The ECtHR held this was a violation of A8 ECHR (right to private life and correspondence)
Bellinger v Bellinger
C, a transexual woman married a man. Under the matrimonial clauses act 1973, marriage was invalid if parties were the same sex. C demanded legal recognition of her marriage. HofL held the marriage was void, because at the time of the ceremony english law did not recognise gender change. So declaration of incompatibility between UK Matrimonial clauses 1973 and ECHR rights contained articles 8 and 12 was issued by HofL. Parliament passed gender recognition act 2004 to remove incompatibility.
R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for Home Department
Crime (sentences) act 1997 gave the Home Secretary power to set a murderer’s sentence, up to maximum life imprisonments. HofL declared this power to be incompatible with A6 ECHR. As a result, parliament amended the la in the criminal justice act 2003, giving judges the power to set sentence periods.
A v Secretary of State for Home Department
C’s were indefinitely detained under anti-terrorism legislation. C’s claimed this was contrary to A15 ECHR saying it was unnecessary and disproportionate. If was perfectly lawful for A15 ECHR to be relaxed or suspended in times of war or other public emergency. HofL held it was for government to decide if there was an emergence situation, not the claimants, but said powers were disproportionate, discriminatory and incompatible with articles 5 and 14 ECHR. The government responded by creating the prevention of Terrorism act 2005.
Commissioner of police for the metropolis v DSD, NBV
C’s were rape victims. Police had failed their article 3 ECHR duty to properly investigate. C’s were awarded damages.
Wainwright v UK
C, a prison visitor was subject to a strip search. HofL said there was no violation of either A8 ECHR (right to private and family life) or A3 (inhuman and degrading treatment). C appealed to ECtHR, where damages were awardees for breaches of A8 and A3.
Hirst v UK
Convicted prisoners in the UK were barred from voting in either parliamentary or local elections. On appeal to ECtHR, C’s complaint was upheld. It said a blanket ban on voting for prisoners was in breach of the right to vote, yet the UK continues to ignore ECtHR decision.
Reilly and Wilson
R&W challenged ‘back to work’ scheme introduced by the government using delegated legislation. It forced them to take unpaid work in order to avoid having their benefits removed. Both R&W had sufficient standing to bring judicial review case since both had been directly affected by the ‘back to work’ scheme. CofA held scheme was unlawful, declared it ultra vires and therefore void. The governmental to pay £130million in compensation. To avoid this, the government passed jobseekers (back to work schemes) act 2013, crushing the CofA judgement.
Rogers v Swindon NHS trust
Breast cancer patient was prescribed a non-approved drug called Herceptin. But, her NHS trust said her case wasn’t exceptional and refused to let her have it, despite providing it for other people in her area. Decision of the NHS trust was unreasonable and therefore substantive ultra vires.
Rees v UK
R, transexual wasn’t able to change birth certificate name. ECtHR held no violation of ECHR A8.
Cossey v UK
C, transexual could not change birth certificate gender. ECtHR held no violation of ECHR A8
Goodwin v UK
G, transexual could not change birth certificate gender and also couldn’t change Natl insurance details for pension purposes. ECtHR held there had been a violation of A8.
Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK
Appeal to ECtHR following Supreme Court decision in Brown that consent was no defence to sadomasochistic activity in consenting homosexuals. Appeal to ECtHR failed. Court agreed with the UK Supreme Court decision and said there had been no violation to A8 private life because cause raises serious public health issues.
