Administrative Law and Human Rights SBAQs Flashcards
Which of the following statements is correct in relation to Article 15 of the ECHR?
A. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State may derogate from part of the Convention as long as such derogation is proportionate.
B. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State may derogate from certain Articles of the Convention “in time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
C. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State may derogate from any of the Articles of the Convention “in time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
D. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State can derogate from certain Articles of the Convention because it is allowed “a margin of appreciation”.
Option B is correct
It is possible to derogate from some, but not all of the Articles of the Convention in time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Which of the following statements is WRONG in relation to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)?
A. The ECtHR may reinterpret the ECHR over time as it is a ‘living instrument’.
B. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for ensuring that the judgments of the ECtHR are complied with by the signatory states.
C. The decisions of the ECtHR have direct binding force in the signatory states.
D. Cases may be brought before the ECtHR either on an inter-state basis or by individual application.
Option C is correct (I think)
Decisions of the ECtHR are only binding as a matter of international law and have no direct binding force in domestic law.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court must award damages to the victim of an unlawful act.
B. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court may award damages to the victim of an unlawful act but only if that victim has suffered physical injury or monetary loss.
C. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court must award damages to the victim of an unlawful act if the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim.
D. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court may award damages to the victim of an unlawful act if the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim.
Option D is correct
Section 8 of the Human Rights Act enables a court to grant any relief or remedy within its powers. This will include the power to award damages, but such damages may be awarded only if necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim of an unlawful act. An award of damages under s 8 is discretionary.
Which one of the following statements is WRONG?
A. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to defend any person from unlawful violence.
B. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to prevent the destruction of property of historical, cultural or religious significance.
C. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.
D. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to lawfully quell a riot or insurrection.
Option B is correcr
Article 2(2) provides that deprivation of life which results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary will not contravene Article 2 if it is for the one of the reasons set out in A, C or D.
The Article makes no reference to the destruction of property of historical, cultural or religious significance.
Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Article 3 imposes a qualified duty on the state not to deport a person who would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.
B. Article 3 imposes an absolute duty on the state not to deport a person who would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.
C. Article 3 imposes no duty on the state not to deport a person who would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.
D. Article 3 does not apply to deportation cases if the person to be deported is a suspected terrorist.
Option B is correct
There are no circumstances in which a state could deport an individual and not be in breach of Article 3, if there is a real risk that the individual would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state (Chahal v United Kingdom).
Which one of the following statements is correct?
A. Compulsory military service amounts to forced or compulsory labour.
B. Servitude is when someone is owned by another person.
C. Work done by convicted prisoners as part of their sentence does not amount to forced or compulsory labour.
D. An individual can be subject to forced labour even if they are not exploited.
There might be a mistake in the question but I don’t think any of these are correct
compulsory military service is not forced labour and neither is work done by convicted prisoners as part of their sentence. It is an essential element of forced labour that an individual is exploited. Slavery is when someone is owned by another; servitude includes an obligation for the serf to live on the property of another.
Standing at a bus stop, a man who is carrying a heavy rucksack is watched by armed security officers who have been instructed that he is a terrorist about to blow up a bus. As the bus pulls up, the security officers shout to stop the man from boarding bus but he ignores them. The security officers shout for a second time and, when ignored again, fire shots into the man who dies instantly. On checking the man’s body, they discover that he is wearing earphones and his rucksack is full of University library books.
The man’s parents believe that the government has breached their son’s Article 2 ECHR right to life. Are they able to take the government to court?
A. No, because the security officers acted reasonably in the circumstances. They believed that he was taking a bomb onto the bus and he failed to follow two orders to stop.
B. No, because only a person who is directly affected by the action of a public authority may claim a breach of their human rights.
C. No, because only the Crown Prosecution Service can decide to indict on a murder charge and are unlikely to do so since it was a matter of national security.
D. Yes, because a breach of Article 2 results in the death of the victim who cannot then take the matter to court personally. Next of kin, the parents here, can launch a challenge.
E. Yes, because they can write immediately to the European Court of Human Rights and ask for prosecution of the UK government for breaching their son’s Article 2 right to life.
The correct answer is D
Although only a directly affected victim can claim a breach of rights, an exception is made for Article 2 where the victim is dead. The next of kin may do so in his place.
A is wrong because it describes a defence to any such action and not whether the action may be taken in the first place.
B is wrong because the victim of a breach of Article2 rights is dead. It would be unfair if no challenge could be made by anyone else.
C is wrong because the parents do have the option to take the matter to court. The Crown Prosecution Service does, however, have the right to indict as well if they choose to do so.
E is wrong, because although the parents do have the right to approach the European Court of Human Rights directly, they cannot do so immediately. They must exhaust domestic remedies first.
An Egyptian citizen fled to the UK when he discovered that he was wanted in Egypt for taking part in a political demonstration. Whilst in the UK he was convicted of armed robbery. The UK government now wishes to deport him. The Egyptian citizen has evidence to show that if returned to Egypt he will be arrested and tortured for his part in the political demonstration and there is a real risk that he would be executed.
What is the Egyptian citizen’s legal position with respect to rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’)?
A. He will be unable to rely on his rights under the ECHR as he is a citizen of a country which is not a signatory to that treaty.
B. He will be able to rely on his rights under Article 2 ECHR as his life is at real risk and Article 3 ECHR as he will be tortured if returned to Egypt.
C. He will be unable to rely on his rights under the ECHR as he has been convicted of a serious offence.
D. He will be able to rely on Article 2 alone because anything less than a real risk of death would not be a defence to deportation for such a serious offence.
E. He will be able to rely on Article 3 alone as it is not certain that he would be executed.
B is the correct answer - the Egyptian citizen will be able to rely on his rights under Article 2 ECHR as his life is at real risk and Article 3 ECHR as he will be tortured if returned to Egypt.
A and C are wrong as protections within the ECHR apply to all people within the jurisdiction of the UK, regardless of their nationality and whatever their circumstances.
D is wrong as Article 3 could also be relied on in these circumstances (Soering v UK)
E is wrong as it is enough that there is a ‘real risk’ of the death penalty – it does not need to be certain.
A country which is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) has asked the UK Government to extradite a woman living in the UK to stand trial for murder in that country. The woman holds the nationality of the country requesting her extradition, but not of any other country. The Secretary of State has ordered the woman’s extradition and the woman has appealed to the High Court against the extradition order. During the hearing she produces evidence that she could face the death penalty if extradited and the High Court accepts the woman’s evidence.
Which of the following best explains whether the High Court would uphold the extradition order?
A. It would not uphold the order because the Convention prohibits extradition to non-signatory countries.
B. It would not uphold the order because extraditing a person to stand trial for an offence which could result in the imposition of the death penalty would violate that person’s Convention rights.
C. It would not uphold the order because extraditing a person to stand trial for an offence which could result in the imposition of the death penalty fails to strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community.
D. It would uphold the order because it is not certain that the death penalty would be imposed on the woman if she was extradited.
E. It would uphold the order because the Convention only protects the rights of people who hold the nationality of a state that has signed the Convention.
B is correct
Extraditing a person to a country where they could face the penalty would breach Article 2 (right to life) and probably also Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) (Soering and Article 1 of the 13th Protocol (abolition of the death penalty).
Option A is wrong because the Convention does not prohibit extradition to non-signatory countries.
Option C is wrong as the right to life and prohibition of torture are absolute rights and, unlike qualified rights, do not involve a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the interest of the community.
Option D is wrong as it is sufficient to engage Articles 2 and 3 if there is a possibility of the death penalty being imposed.
Option E is wrong as the Convention covers nationals of non-signatory states resident in signatory states.
In response to a spate of terrorist bombings in the UK, Parliament passes an Act of Parliament which grants emergency powers to the Minister for Anti-Terrorism allowing him to take ‘such steps as are deemed necessary’ to deal with the emergency. The security services have detained a suspect who they are sure knows the identity of the bombers. They ask the Minister to authorise enhanced interrogation of the suspect to include sleep deprivation and the holding of stress positions. Acting under his statutory powers the Minister authorises the use of enhanced interrogation.
Will the Minister be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’)?
A. No, because the terrorist situation amounts to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and so the UK can derogate from the ECHR.
B. No, because he has statutory authority for his actions.
C. Yes, because Article 15 only allows derogation from the ECHR where this is strictly necessary which it would not be on the facts.
D. Yes, because it is not possible to derogate from Article 3 and the enhanced interrogation techniques would amount to torture.
E. Yes, because it is not possible to derogate from Article 3 and the enhanced interrogation techniques would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
The correct answer is E
– the enhanced interrogation techniques would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (Ireland v UK). It is not possible to derogate from Article 3.
Although the terrorist situation is likely to amount to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, no derogation is possible from Article 3, so A is wrong.
The fact that the Minister has statutory authority for his actions will not prevent him from being in breach of the ECHR, so B is wrong.
The UK may be able to argue that the action it took is ‘strictly necessary’, but it is unnecessary to decide this, since no derogation is possible, so C is wrong.
The enhanced interrogation techniques will not amount to torture so D is wrong (Ireland v UK).
12 months ago a French national was arrested and charged with a terrorism offence in England. He claims that, whilst in detention, he suffered inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of the security services. He brings a claim for breach of his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’).
Will any claim the French national brings to the ECtHR be ruled admissible?
A. No, the claim will be ruled inadmissible because any proceedings will need to be brought by France as he is a French national.
B. No, the claim will be ruled inadmissible because any proceedings must be brought within four months of the decision being complained of.
C. No, the claim will be ruled inadmissible because he will first need to bring a claim before the UK courts.
D. Yes, the claim will be ruled admissible because the UK has breached an absolute right under Article 3 of the ECHR.
E. Yes, the claim will be ruled admissible because he is a victim of a breach of his rights under Article 3 ECHR.
C is correct
An individual must exhaust all domestic remedies before they can bring a claim to the ECtHR, so it will be clear that the claim will be inadmissible from the outset.
Option A is wrong as, although France may be able to bring a claim in these circumstances, this does not prevent an individual petition.
Option B is wrong as, although any claim must be brought within four months, the time limit will run from the final court decision within the UK, not the original decision.
Option D is wrong as, even if the UK has breached an absolute right, the French national must follow the correct procedure or the claim will be inadmissible.
Similarly, option E is wrong. Although the French national may be a victim, his claim will be inadmissible unless he first exhausts his domestic remedies.
A woman has been told that she needs to undertake jury service. She is allocated to a complex trial and so will be away from work for several months. Although she will receive expenses and can claim a small amount for loss of earnings from the court, this does not compensate for her loss of wages which are far higher. She claims that this breaches her rights under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).
Which of the following best represents the legal position under Article 4 ECHR?
A. There is no breach of Article 4 ECHR as the jury service does not amount to slavery.
B. There is a breach of Article 4 ECHR as the jury service will amount to forced or compulsory labour.
C. There is no breach of Article 4 as, although jury service amounts to forced or compulsory labour, this is a proportionate interference by the state with her Article 4 rights.
D. There is no breach of Article 4 ECHR as the jury service will not amount to forced or compulsory labour as it forms part of normal civic obligations.
E. There is no breach of Article 4 as the level of hardship caused by the jury service is insufficient to amount to forced or compulsory labour.
The correct answer is D. Work which forms part of normal civic obligations does not constitute forced or compulsory labour (Article 4(3) ECHR). Jury service would be part of normal civic obligations.
A is wrong as Article 4 is wider than slavery and also covers forced and compulsory labour.
B is wrong as there are some forms of compulsory work or service which are expressly stated not to amount to ‘forced or compulsory labour’ within Article 4, including normal civic obligations.
C is wrong as Article 4 is an absolute right and so cannot be interfered with, even where this is proportionate.
E is wrong as, although the level of hardship here may be insufficient to amount to forced or compulsory labour, this is debateable. Jury service is clearly a ‘normal civic obligation’ and so D represents the better explanation of the legal position.
A man is shot and killed by the police. His mother was dissatisfied with the investigation into the death that followed. She brought a claim for breach of Article 2 ECHR, but her claim failed before the UK courts. She then applied to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) and her claim was heard by a Chamber of judges who gave judgment in her favour last week.
Which of the following statements is correct in relation to the decision of the ECtHR?
A. The decision of the ECtHR is binding on the UK.
B. The mother will be able to enforce the decision of the ECtHR in the UK courts.
C. The ECtHR will ensure that the UK complies with its ruling.
D. The decision of the Chamber of judges is final and the UK government can take no further action in relation to it in the ECtHR.
E. The decision of the ECtHR will be binding on future cases brought before the ECtHR.
The correct answer is A.
Judgments of the ECtHR are binding on the UK as a matter of international law.
Option B is wrong as, although decisions of the ECtHR are binding in international law, they have no direct binding force in domestic law.
Option C is wrong as the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for ensuring compliance rather than the court.
Option D is wrong as the UK will be able to ask for the case to be heard before the Grand Chamber for up to three months after the decision has been made by the Chamber of judges.
Option E is wrong as the ECtHR does not operate a system of binding precedent. The ECHR is a ‘living instrument’ so that the ECtHR can reinterpret its provisions over time.
Which of the following is NOT a requirement under Article 5 of the ECHR?
A. The detained person must be brought before a court promptly.
B. The detained person must be allowed to inform relatives of their whereabouts within a reasonable time.
C. The detained person must be able to challenge the legality of their detention.
D. The detained person has a right to compensation for any breach of Article 5.
B is not a requirement under article 5 of the ECHR
Answers A,C and D are all requirements set out in Article 5, but these requirements do not include that the detained person must be able to inform their relatives.
Jane is bringing a claim for breach of contract against KitchenKraft as she claims the units they supplied were defective.
Is the following statement true or false?
Article 6 provides that Jane must have a fair hearing.
The statement is true
A breach of contract claim will involve ‘civil rights and obligations’ and so Jane will be entitled under Article 6 to a fair hearing.
Which of the following statements is INCORRECT?
A. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the press and public may be excluded from all or part of a trial in the interests of public order.
B. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the press and public may be excluded from all or part of a trial in the interests of the economic well-being of the country.
C. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the press and public may be excluded from all or part of a trial in the interests of juveniles.
D. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the press and public may be excluded from all or part of a trial in the interests of national security.
Answer B is incorrect
Article 6(1) allows a court to exclude the press and public from all or part of a trial for several reasons, which include the interests public order, juveniles or national security. It contains no reference to the economic well-being of the country.
Article 6 of the ECHR states that an individual charged with a criminal offence is entitled to free legal assistance in which of the following circumstances?
A. If the individual has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance and he may lose his liberty if convicted.
B. If the individual has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance and the interests of justice so require.
C. If the individual is to be tried before the Crown Court.
D. If the individual is not in gainful employment.
Answer B is correct
An individual must be provided with free legal assistance if he does not have sufficient means to pay for this, and the interests of justice so require.
Mo has been charged with a strict liability offence. He argues that he did not intend to commit the offence and that to convict him would breach Article 6 ECHR. Which of the following statements is true?
A. It would breach Article 6 to convict Mo of a strict liability offence.
B. It would not breach Article 6 to convict Mo of a strict liability offence provided the offence was serious.
C. It would not breach Article 6 to convict Mo of a strict liability offence provided that Mo had received legal advice and representation.
D. It would not breach Article 6 to convict Mo of a strict liability offence provided that this was reasonable.
Answer D is correct
Strict liability offences do not automatically breach Article 6 and the presumption of innocence. However, such offences must be reasonable (Salabiaku v France).
Contempt of Court may be either civil contempt or criminal contempt.
Is the following statement true or false:
It is an example of civil contempt of court to publish an article which interferes with the course of justice.
The statement is false
It is contempt of court to publish an article which interferes with the course of justice, but this is a criminal offence not a civil matter.
The Caged Bird Act 2010 (fictitious) states that it is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £1000 to keep a bird in a cage. Two months ago Jay was charged with an offence of keeping a bird in a cage. A month ago the fine for an offence under the Caged Bird Act was increased to £5000. Jay appears in court today, is convicted and receives a fine of £2500.
Is the following statement true or false:
The fine Jay receives breaches Article 7 ECHR
The Statement is true
Jay would be receiving a heavier penalty than was applicable at the time he committed the offence two months ago (when he could only have received a maximum fine of £1000). This breaches Article 7.
A robbery takes place. The police wish to interview a man who they know has witnessed the robbery and may be able to identify the participants. The man is unwilling to answer police questions, but is told that he must come to the police station or he will be arrested. The police escort the man to the station where he is briefly questioned before being escorted to the visitors’ lounge. He is given refreshments and told he cannot leave until the police have finished questioning him. He is interviewed seven hours later. He tells the police everything he knows and is then released. The man applies to court claiming his right to liberty and security under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been breached.
Which of the following statements best explains whether a court will find that the man’s right to liberty under Article 5 ECHR has been breached?
A. The court will find that the man was not deprived of his liberty as he was not placed in a police cell at any time.
B. The court will find that the man was not deprived of his liberty as he was detained at the police station for less than 24 hours.
C. The court will find that the man was not deprived of his liberty as the actions of the police were lawful and proportionate.
D.The court is likely to find that the man has been deprived of his liberty and this deprivation was not within the limitations permitted under Article 5.
E. The court is likely to find that the man has been deprived of his liberty but this deprivation was within the limitations permitted under Article 5.
The correct answer is D
The court is likely to find that the man has been deprived of his liberty as he has been coerced into going to the police station and held there for a significant period of time.
The detention does not fall within any of the six limitations in Article 5(1) since he has not been convicted of an offence; has not been arrested on suspicion of an offence, to prevent him committing an offence or to comply with a court order; is not a minor or mentally ill and being detained for protection and the case has nothing to do with asylum deportation, or extradition – so E is wrong.
A is wrong as it is not necessary for someone to be placed in a cell to be deprived of their liberty (Guzzardi).
There is no strict definition of ‘deprivation of liberty’ so that, although duration will be taken into account, there is no rule that it needs to be for at least 24 hours (Austin v UK) so B is wrong.
C is wrong as the actions of the police are not lawful as the man was not detained under due process of law.
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to security and liberty of the person. However, Article 5 states that people can be lawfully deprived of their liberty in certain circumstances.
Which of the following is NOT a lawful reason for the deprivation of liberty under Article 5(1) of the ECHR?
A. The lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court.
B. The lawful arrest or detention of a person for the purpose of bringing them before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence.
C. The lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court.
D. The lawful detention of a person for the purpose of ensuring they have necessary medical treatment which they have refused to have.
E. The lawful detention of a person in order to deport them.
Option D is the correct answer
Answers A, B, C and E are listed in Article 5(1) as lawful limitations on the right to liberty.
Article 5(1)(e) does permit the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, but there is no wider requirement which permits detention for the purpose of necessary medical treatment which the person has refused to have.
A young woman has been murdered. The police suspect her stepfather may be involved in her murder and he is arrested and taken to the police station for questioning. Several national newspapers publish articles vilifying the young woman’s stepfather and stating that the police had ‘got their man’. When questioned at a news conference the police commented ‘this is a complex case and we wouldn’t anticipate that any trial would take place for at least six months’. The Attorney General is contemplating taking proceedings for contempt of court against the national newspapers.
Would the Attorney General be able to commence proceedings for contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981?
A. Yes, because proceedings are active as the stepfather is under police investigation.
B. Yes, because proceedings are active as the stepfather has been arrested.
C. No, because proceedings are not active as the date of trial is at least six months away and so potential jurors will not remember the contents of the article.
D. No, because proceedings are not active as the stepfather has not been charged with a criminal offence.
E. No, because proceedings are not active as the case has not been set down for trial and the date of the trial has not been fixed.
B is the correct answer.
The proceedings are criminal proceedings (for murder) and so they will become active on arrest (s2(3) and schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act), rather than the commencement of the police investigation (A is wrong) or charge (D is wrong).
C is wrong as the length of time before trial may be relevant to whether the article caused a ‘substantial risk’ of prejudice under s2(2) Contempt of Court Act, but not to whether proceedings are active.
E is wrong as these are the time limits for civil proceedings.
The police receive an anonymous tip-off that Bert is a member of an armed gang which recently stole a valuable Picasso painting. At noon on Tuesday PC Jones sees Bert walking towards his home and arrests him. At the police station the custody sergeant tells Bert that he is being detained without charge as this is necessary to obtain evidence of the offence by questioning him. Bert is interviewed and makes no comment to all questions asked by the police. He is then placed in a cell. The police spend the day investigating the armed robbery but do not interview Bert further. On Wednesday morning the custody sergeant authorises Bert’s continued detention. It is now Thursday.
Which of the following statements best represents whether Bert is lawfully detained by the police?
A. Bert is being detained unlawfully as the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the theft of the painting.
B. Bert is being detained unlawfully as he has been detained for more than 24 hours.
C. Bert is being detained unlawfully as he has been detained for over 24 hours without this being authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.
D. Bert is being detained lawfully as the offence is an indictable one and the investigation is being carried out diligently and expeditiously.
E. Bert is being detained lawfully as the maximum length of detention is 96 hours when the offence is an indictable one.
The correct answer is C
Detention for over 24 hours (up to 36 hours) must be authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. A custody sergeant is not of sufficient rank.
A is wrong as, although it may be debateable whether the police have a reasonable suspicion, they may have, and so this is not the best answer.
B is wrong as suspects can be detained for over 24 hours provided that certain conditions are fulfilled.
D is wrong as, although the offence is an indictable one and it may be being investigated diligently and expeditiously, this is uncertain and, in any event, the correct authorisation has not been given.
E is wrong as, although the maximum length of detention is 96 hours where certain conditions are fulfilled, including that the offence is an indictable one, this on its own is not sufficient.
A man is under arrest for suspected theft of jewellery. While he is at the police station the police search his girlfriend’s property using a search warrant. The search warrant has been obtained improperly and they have no power to carry out the search. During the search the police discover some jewellery which matches the description of the stolen property. The man is charged with theft of the jewellery.
Can the jewellery be given in evidence at the man’s trial?
A. No, because the search of the girlfriend’s property was unlawful.
B. No, because the jewellery was found on the girlfriend’s property rather than on the man’s property.
C. No, because to do so would mean that the man would not have a fair trial.
D. Yes, because it is irrelevant that the search warrant was obtained improperly.
E. Yes, because the jewellery is relevant evidence and there is no reason to question its reliability.
E is the correct answer
Evidence that is unlawfully obtained is still admissible provided that it is relevant to an issue and is not unreliable, so that the defendant will still have a fair trial (Khan v UK).
As the trial will be deemed to be fair, C is wrong.
Although the search of the property was unlawful, this alone will not mean the evidence is inadmissible so A is wrong.
B is wrong as it is irrelevant where the jewellery was found as long as it is relevant evidence.
D is wrong as it is not irrelevant that the evidence was obtained improperly, however this fact alone will not lead to such evidence being ruled inadmissible.
A woman has been arrested for theft. She is a drug addict and soon begins to suffer withdrawal symptoms and to feel very unwell. She tells this to the police who reply “well, if you admit you stole the goods, we can release you straightaway”. The woman confesses to the theft and is released. The police intend to use the woman’s confession at trial. The woman argues that this would breach her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Which of the following best reflects whether the woman’s confession will be excluded from the evidence given at trial?
A. The woman’s confession will not be excluded as it was freely given.
B. The woman’s confession will be excluded as she is a drug addict and therefore a vulnerable person.
C. The woman’s confession will not be excluded as the police have not acted oppressively.
D. The woman’s confession will be excluded as it is likely to be unreliable.
E. The woman’s confession may be excluded as it is likely to be unreliable.
The correct answer is D.
The confession will be excluded as it is likely to be unreliable as the woman is suffering withdrawal symptoms and has received an inducement to confess by being told she will be released (s76 PACE).
A is wrong as it is arguable whether the confession is ‘freely given’ and, even if it is, under the circumstances it is likely to be unreliable as explained above.
B is wrong as the crucial question is whether the confession is unreliable rather than whether the woman is a vulnerable person.
C is wrong as, under s76 PACE it is not necessary for the police to have acted oppressively.
E is wrong as the court is under a duty to exclude unreliable evidence, it does not have discretion.
A woman is arrested on suspicion of theft of a debit card. She was arrested after a passer-by reported to the police that a woman was acting suspiciously at a cashpoint machine. The card the woman had inserted into the cashpoint machine did not belong to the woman. At the police station the woman was offered legal advice but refused this and gave a ‘no comment’ interview. At court the woman explained that the card belonged to her friend who had asked her to withdraw some money for her. The police have evidence that the friend had reported the card as stolen, although had subsequently supported the woman’s story.
Will the court be able to draw adverse inferences from the woman’s failure to account for having the card in her possession when interviewed by the police?
A. Yes, because adverse inferences can be drawn from the woman failing to account for having the debit card in her possession when questioned by the police as theft is an indictable offence.
B. Yes, because adverse inferences can be drawn from the woman failing to account for having the debit card in her possession when questioned by the police as the police have other evidence which implicates her.
C. No, because adverse inferences cannot be drawn from an arrested person remaining silent when questioned about an offence by the police.
D. No, because adverse inferences cannot be drawn since the woman has a cogent explanation for having the card in her possession.
E. No, because adverse inferences cannot be drawn from the woman failing to account for having the debit card in her possession when questioned by the police as she had not received legal advice.
B is the correct answer
Adverse inferences can be drawn by the court when a defendant fails to account for an object in their possession when asked to do so by the police provided that this would not lead to them being convicted on the basis of this evidence alone (Murray v UK).
A is wrong because it is irrelevant that the offence is an indictable one.
C and D are wrong as adverse inferences can be drawn - the inference being that at the police station the woman did not have an innocent explanation as to why she had the debit card (and this was concocted (with the friend) at a later date).
Adverse inferences can be drawn where the defendant has not received legal advice, as long as she has been offered such advice, so E is wrong.
Flora is a committed ‘anti-vaxxer’ who has been arrested after violence broke out at a recent protest outside a vaccination clinic. She was subsequently charged with a serious public order offence and is due to be tried at Notown Crown Court next week. Gordon is the editor of Daybreak News, a national newspaper. Daybreak News has published a series of editorials criticising anti-vaxxers. Today, Daybreak News published an editorial which contained the following:
‘The desperate Anti-vaxxers have now turned to violence to further their cause. Flora Foy, a well-known Anti-Vaxxer is due on trial next week after participating in the violence at the Notown vaccination clinic. Daybreak readers, we call on you to do your duty and ensure that Flora is convicted so that she will hopefully spend some time in prison where she can contemplate the folly of her anti-vaxxer beliefs.’
Which of the following statements best explains Gordon’s potential liability if he is prosecuted for contempt of court?
A. Gordon can be found guilty of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 under the strict liability rule embodied in the Act as any contempt is unintentional.
B. Gordon can be found guilty of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 under the strict liability rule embodied in the Act as the Contempt of Court Act abolished common law contempt.
C. Gordon can be found guilty of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 under the strict liability rule and at common law for intentional contempt of court.
D. Gordon can be found guilty under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 as the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes intentional contempt of court a criminal offence.
E. Gordon can be found guilty of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and at common law for unintentional contempt of court.
The correct answer is C.
The article in Daybreak News appears to be an intentional attempt to influence potential jurors to find Flora guilty and thus interfere with the administration of justice which would be an offence at common law and A is wrong.
The article will create a ‘substantial risk of serious prejudice’ to the proceedings which are active (Flora has been arrested and charged). None of the defences in the Contempt of Court Act would apply and the risk of prejudice is not merely incidental to a general discussion of matters of public interest so s5 will not apply. The offence under the Contempt of Court Act has also been committed.
B is wrong as the Contempt of Court Act did not abolish the common law offence of intentional contempt.
D is wrong as the Contempt of Court Act makes unintentional contempt an offence, not intentional contempt, which is an offence at common law.
E is wrong for both common law contempt (which is intentional) and contempt under the Contempt of Court Act which covers unintentional contempt.
Internal guidelines allow local authorities to ‘take such action as they see fit’ to protect children fostered by them. Acting under these guidelines a local authority seizes the laptops of a couple who have been foster carers for the local authority for many years. The local authority finds that one of the couple has been regularly visiting pornography sites featuring adults only. They email the foster carers stating that they are no longer approved as carers and will not be used by the local authority in future.
Have the local authority breached the Article 8 ECHR rights of the foster couple?
A. No, because the local authority have acted to protect the rights of children who are vulnerable persons so the local authority action is proportionate.
B. Yes, because the pornography sites feature adults not children and so the local authority have acted in a disproportionate manner.
C. Yes, because the local authority are acting under internally published guidelines and so not ‘in accordance with the law’.
D. No, because the local authority action is prescribed by law, has a legitimate aim and seizing the computer is a proportionate way to protect children.
E.Yes, because the local authority action is prescribed by law and has a legitimate aim, however refusing to use the couple as foster carers in the future is disproportionate.
C is the correct answer.
The local authority internal guidelines are not accessible to the foster parents and, even if they were, are not sufficiently precise to enable the foster parents to regulate their conduct based on them. The seizure of their computers is thus not ‘prescribed by law’.
A is wrong because, although the children are vulnerable persons, that alone will not mean any action taken by the local authority will be proportionate. Seizing the computers is for a legitimate aim, but it is not prescribed by law, so D and E are wrong.
The local authority may have acted disproportionately, although this is not clear on the facts, so B is wrong.
A civil servant was dismissed by a government department because she refused to hide or to remove a necklace and charm she was wearing. The civil servant explained that the charm was symbolic and highly significant to her religion. The explanation was rejected as irrelevant, and the dismissal was confirmed on the ground that the necklace and charm detracted from the department’s professional image. She was told that she should work elsewhere if it was so important to her.
Has the government department acted in a way that is compatible with the civil servant’s right under Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights?
A. Yes, the department has every right to protect its professional image and to insist that the civil servant remove or hide the necklace.
B. No, the civil servant has the right to wear anything that allows her to manifest her religion at work despite the department’s opposition.
C. No, the department cannot prevent the civil servant wearing the religious jewellery because that would interfere with an absolute right.
D. No, although the department does have the right to protect its professional image, it must also take account of the civil servant’s right to manifest her religion.
E. Yes, the civil servant must always abide by the department’s policy regarding jewellery and should work elsewhere if this is a problem.
D is the correct answer because the civil servant has the right to manifest her religion. The department does have the right to protect its professional image but would need to balance this against the Article 9 right.
A is wrong because the department cannot insist that the civil servant remove or hide a piece of religious jewellery without good reason.
B is wrong because there are circumstances in which a department might insist that a civil servant cannot wear something which manifests that person’s religion e.g. for safety reasons.
C is wrong because Article 9 is not an absolute right. It is a qualified right which a public body can restrict in the public interest.
E is wrong because a civil servant does have an Article 9 right to manifest religion which may take the form of jewellery. This right should not be restricted unless there is good reason to do so. Here she should not need to change jobs.
An Act of Parliament established a Commission to decide where incinerators to dispose of household waste shall be built in England and Wales. A woman has objected to a decision made by the Commission approving the building of an incinerator 200 metres from her home. Her main ground of objection is that emissions will harm her and other people living nearby. Experts had produced evidence to the Commission that there were other suitable sites in the locality further away from people’s houses.
Which of the following best describes whether the building of the incinerator breaches any of the woman’s Convention rights?
A. The building of the incinerator does not engage any Convention rights as it is in the public interest.
B. Although the building of the incinerator engages the woman’s right to a private life, it is a proportionate interference in the public interest.
C. Although the building of the incinerator engages the woman’s right to a private life, it is prescribed by law and so cannot be challenged.
D. Although the building of the incinerator is in the public interest, it is a disproportionate interference with the woman’s right to a private life.
E. The building of the incinerator is not prescribed by law and is a disproportionate interference with the woman’s right to a private life.
D is correct.
The woman may be able to argue that her Article 8 right (right to a private life) is being breached; accordingly option A is wrong as Article 8 is engaged. However, Article 8 is a qualified right. The qualification has a legal basis here - the Act of Parliament; hence option E is wrong.
The legitimate aim(s) being pursued by the Act are likely to be the ‘economic well-being of the country’. However, the qualification must also be ‘necessary in a democratic society’.
Option C is therefore wrong because it incorrectly suggests that it is sufficient if the interference is prescribed by law.
As the qualification has a legal basis and the Act is pursuing a legitimate aim, it is necessary to apply the proportionality test. In other words, is the interference with the woman’s rights proportionate to the objective being achieved, or would any lesser interference be possible
In this case, it seems likely that there are more suitable sites for the incinerator, away from residential areas. Option B is therefore wrong because it states the interference is proportionate.
A man gave a speech in the town square holding a placard. One side of the placard read ‘Gay rights are immoral!’. The other side read ‘Stop homosexuality! Stop lesbianism!’ Several people were upset by this and the man was arrested and convicted of an offence of displaying writing that is abusive causing harassment, alarm or distress under s5 Public Order Act 1986. The man challenged his conviction in the UK on the basis that it breached his rights under Article 10 ECHR but was unsuccessful. He now plans to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)
Which of the following best describes the likely judgment and reasoning of the ECtHR?
A. The man’s challenge would not be successful, because although the conviction interfered with the man’s rights under Article 10 it was lawful as it was prescribed by law, for a legitimate aim and proportionate.
B. The man’s challenge would be successful, because although the man’s sign was insulting, Article 10 protects speech which is offensive or disturbing and so the conviction was not a proportionate interference with the man’s freedom of expression.
C. The man’s challenge would be unsuccessful, because although the conviction interfered with the man’s Article 10 rights the ECtHR gives states a wide margin of appreciation in this area.
D. The man’s challenge would be successful, because although the man’s sign was insulting it represented political free speech and so would be given a high degree of protection meaning that the conviction would breach the man’s article 10 rights.
E. The man’s challenge would be unsuccessful, because the placard undermined others in a way that was incompatible with the values underpinning the European Convention on Human Rights such as respect and non-discrimination.
The correct answer is E.
The ECtHR in the similar case of Norwood v UK stated that Article 10 would not protect views that were incompatible with the values that underpinned the European Convention on Human Rights, such as tolerance, respect and non-discrimination.
The man’s application is likely to be ruled inadmissible and so the ECtHR would not go on to consider whether any interference was prescribed by law, for a legitimate aim or proportionate, thus A is wrong as it is not the best answer.
Although Article 10 protects speech that is offensive and gives high protection to political speech, this protection is not unlimited and would not cover expression that undermines the values underpinning the ECHR, so B and D are wrong.
This is not an area where the ECtHR give a wide margin of appreciation to states so C is wrong.
A group campaigning for a law ensuring that people do not need to sell their homes to pay for care in their old age wishes to promote their campaign with an advertisement on primetime television. The broadcasting authority refuses to give permission for this on the basis that the advertisement is political. The campaigning group claims that such a refusal breaches its rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).
Would the campaign group be successful if they brought a legal challenge against the refusal of the broadcasting authority based on Article 10 ECHR?
A. No, any challenge based on Article 10 ECHR will be unsuccessful as Article 10 does not cover commercial television broadcasts.
B. Yes, a challenge based on Article 10 ECHR would be successful as regulation of broadcasting is not a legitimate aim under Article 10.
C. No, a challenge based on Article 10 ECHR would be unsuccessful as the ban is proportionate since alternative means of getting the campaigning group’s message across are available.
D. Yes, a challenge based on Article 10 ECHR would be successful, as a blanket ban on political advertisements is disproportionate.
E. Yes, a challenge based on Article 10 would be successful because freedom of political expression is crucial.
the correct answer is C. The ban on political advertising was held to be proportionate and not in breach of article 10 in the case of Animal Defenders v UK, so D and E are wrong.
Article 10 covers all expression, including commercial expression so A is wrong.
The ban protects the rights of others as it preserves the impartiality of broadcasting and protects the democratic process (Animal Defenders), so B is wrong.
A local authority plans to build a ring road which will pass very close to the offices of a company. The new road will improve travelling times and, as the office is close to the road, office rental prices will be at a premium. The company directors complain that the new road will cause pollution and noise. The company wishes to challenge the local authority’s plan on the basis that building the road would interfere with its rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights – protection of property (‘Article 1, First Protocol’).
Will the company’s challenge be successful?
A. No, the company’s challenge will be unsuccessful as Article 1, First Protocol does not apply to commercial property.
B. No, the company’s challenge will be unsuccessful as the company has not suffered financial loss.
C. No, the company’s challenge will be unsuccessful as the company will not be deprived of its property.
D. Yes, the company’s challenge will be successful as the local authority does not have a legitimate aim for building the ring road.
E. Yes, the company’s challenge will be successful as building the ring road would be a disproportionate interference with the company’s peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.
The correct answer is B as Article 1 of the First Protocol will only be engaged where the interference affects the financial value of property.
A is wrong as Article 1, First Protocol applies to any property or possessions.
C is wrong as Article 1, First Protocol applies where interference restricts the use – ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of property or possessions as well as when someone is deprived of their property.
D and E are wrong as the challenge will be unsuccessful. In addition, it is likely to be in the public interest for the ring road to be built (ie a legitimate aim exists) and there is nothing to suggest that the local authority have acted disproportionately.
A migrant woman recently arrived in the United Kingdom illegally. She applied for residence in the UK, but this was refused, and the Home Secretary has now ordered her removal from the UK to her country of origin. The woman suffers from an eating disorder for which she has received treatment whilst in the UK. The woman is concerned that, if she is returned to her country of origin, her eating disorder will worsen. Treatment for eating disorders is available in her country of origin although the standard of service is lower than that provided in the UK. The woman wishes to challenge the Home Secretary’s decision on the basis that it violates her right to respect for her private life.
Is the woman likely to be successful in her challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision?
A. No, because as she has entered the UK illegally the woman will not be able to rely on Article 8 ECHR.
B. No, because any violation of the woman’s rights would be minimal and so Article 8 will not be engaged.
C. No, because the issue involved is not the severance of family or social ties and so Article 8 will not be engaged.
D. Yes, because health consequences of removal come within Article 8 and the woman’s health would be adversely affected by being returned to her country of origin.
E. Yes, because, although extradition of the woman would be in pursuit of a legitimate aim, returning the woman to her country of origin would be disproportionate given that she has an eating disorder.
The correct answer is B.
Article 8 may be engaged when the main issue is the consequence for physical or mental health of removal and is not restricted to severance of family or social ties so C is wrong.
However, the threshold for establishing this is high and the woman would need to show that the violation of her rights would be flagrant (R(Razghar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department), so D and E are wrong.
Anyone within the UK can rely on their rights under the ECHR, including those who have entered illegally, so A is wrong.
A man employed as a shop assistant in a clothing shop has a small fish symbol tattooed on to his hand. The fish symbol is a Christian symbol. The clothing shop’s employment policy permits shop assistants to have small tattoos that are visible to customers but prohibits tattoos which have religious significance as it wants to adopt a secular image. The shop has taken disciplinary action against the man. The UK courts have upheld the lawfulness of the disciplinary action, so the man now wants to take action against the UK Government before the European Court of Human Rights.
Can the man argue that the disciplinary action breaches his Convention rights?
A. Yes, because the shop’s refusal to allow him to display a small tattoo means that the state has permitted a disproportionate interference with his right to manifest his religion.
B. Yes, because the shop’s refusal to allow him to display a small tattoo means that the state has permitted an interference with his absolute right to manifest his religion.
C. Yes, because the shop’s refusal to allow him to display a small tattoo means that the state has permitted an interference with his absolute right to freedom of religion.
D. No, because the shop has treated all religious symbols equally, there is no interference with the man’s freedom to manifest his religion.
E. No, because the shop’s refusal to allow him to display a small tattoo is a proportionate interference with the man’s freedom to manifest his religion.
A is correct.
Based on the case of Eweida, it seems improbable that a small discreet religious symbol would detract from the image that the shop wants to project. It is therefore a disproportionate interference with the man’s qualified right to manifest his religious belief.
Option B is wrong because the right to manifest a religious belief is a qualified right, not an absolute right. Option C is wrong because having a tattoo comes within the scope of manifesting religious belief, a qualified right, rather than holding a religious belief, an absolute right.
Option D is wrong because treating all religions the same does not mean that the right to manifest one’s religion fails to be engaged.
Option E is wrong as the interference with the man’s right to manifest his religion seems to go further than necessary to maintain the shop’s image.
Is the following statement true or false?
A young man suffering from an eating disorder is forced to have medical treatment against his wishes. This will engage his rights under Article 8.
The statement is true
Article 8 covers a wide range of issues, including a right to bodily integrity.
Clodagh Brown is a receptionist for the East Blankshire Secular Society (‘EBSS’). Clodagh wants to wear a crucifix badge to work to express her Christian faith. The CEO tells her she cannot wear this to work since ‘this is an organisation working towards a secular society. It would undermine our aims and offend visitors for the receptionist to visibly display a religious symbol’. Clodagh decides to bring a court case on the basis that this amounts to indirect discrimination and breaches her rights under Article 9 ECHR.
Assume that the court accepts that Clodagh’s Article 9 ECHR right has been engaged. When deciding the case the court will need to be satisfied that any interference with Article 9 is justified.
Which one of the following arguments EBSS could raise has the best chance of successfully persuading the court that the interference was justified?
A. An argument that it was up to the EBSS, as an employer, to decide its own policy on the wearing of religious symbols, unless that policy was so unreasonable that no reasonable employer could adopt it.
B. An argument that the ban was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim recognised by the ECHR.
C. An argument that Clodagh’s Article 9 rights are less important than the rights of the EBSS and those visiting the EBSS.
D. An argument that allowing Clodagh to wear the crucifix would conflict with the aims of the EBSS.
The correct answer is B.
Article 9 is a qualified right which can be interfered with provided that this is prescribed by law, for a legitimate aim and proportionate.
Option A represents the irrationality test used in ‘domestic’ grounds for judicial review.
The arguments in C and D may be taken into account as part of the proportionality exercise, but are less likely than B to succeed if argued alone.
Which one of the following statements about section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) is CORRECT?
A. Under section 5, it is a criminal offence for someone to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or to display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
B. Under section 5, it is a criminal offence for someone to use offensive or abusive words or behaviour, or to display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is offensive or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
C. Under section 5, it is a criminal offence for someone to use racist or abusive words or behaviour, or to display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is racist or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
D. Under section 5, it is a criminal offence for someone to use offensive or racist words or behaviour, or to display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is offensive or racist within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
The correct answer is A. Under s 5 of the Public Order Act (1986), it is a criminal offence for someone to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or to display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
