Article 10 cases Flashcards
Müller v Switzerland (1988)
Müller displayed three paintings in an exhibition of contemporary art in Fribourg, which depicted fellatio, sodomy, and sex with animals.
The prosecutor brought investigation and charges to the exhibition due to the violent reaction over the paintings. The paintings were confiscated and applicants were fined.
The ECHR held that the imposition of a fine against a group of artists did not constitute a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
News Group v Switzerland (1983)
Writing graffiti on a wall was an expression for the purposes of Art 10
Barthold v Germany (1985)
A private vet surgeon gave an interview in which he was critical of the lack of emergency vet services at night in Hamburg when his practice provided such services.
Proceedings were successfully brought against the vet for breaching professional rules relating to advertising and publicity.
The ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 10.
By focusing on the fact that the applicant vet gained publicity for his practice, the German court had not recognised that the primary purpose of the interview was to address an important issue of concern.
The ban was disproportionate.
Steel v United Kingdom (1999)
Demonstrators were detained for breach of the peace.
The first and second applicants had attempted to disrupt, in the first case a grouse shoot, and in the second case the construction of a motorway. T
he third, fourth, and fifth applicants had handed out leaflets and held up banners at an arms fair.
The ECtHR held that Article 10 applied to the situation of all five applicants; although it found that there had been a breach of the Article only in respect of the third, fourth, and fifth defendants.
Handyside v UK (1979-80)
The applicant had published a ‘little red schoolbook’ which contained a 26 page section on sex, giving info with explicit language.
He was convicted under the Obscene Publications Act- it tended to deprave and corrupt its target audience, which was children.
Art 10: Freedom of expression– but in terms of determining whether the measure was proportionate in seeking to protect public morals- the Court afforded a wide margin of appreciation
Wingrove v UK (1996)
18-minute film of Saint Teresa moving in a motion reflecting intense erotic arousal with an actress playing her psyche and with an actor playing God
Held: it was shocking, but within Art 10.1- although the film Censor’s decision to not allow it to be given a certificate was a justified interference.
R v Radio Authority ex parte Bull [1997]
This involved advertising by Amnesty International aimed at promoting human rights, specifically in the context of Rwanda
Pro-Life Alliance v BBC [2003]
The Pro-Life Alliance produced a party election broadcast for the 2001 General Election which contained graphic images of abortion.
The BBC and other broadcasters refused to show it, on the grounds that it did not comply with the BBC’s producers’ guidelines and the ITC programme code regarding taste and decency.
The Alliance applied for judicial review of the decision not to broadcast.
The application was dismissed at first instance but the Alliance were successful in the Court of Appeal. The BBC appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that the BBC had indulged in unlawful censorship; the House of Lords, by a majority, found for the BBC and decided that the broadcaster had simply exercised the discretion it was allowed over these matters by the law.
Norwood v UK (2005)
The applicant displayed in his window a poster supplied by the British National Party, of which he was a member, representing the Twin Towers in flame.
The picture also had some words saying “Islam out of Britain- Protect the British People”
He was convicted of aggravated hostility towards a religious group.
Could not claim the protection of Art 10
Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v The Netherlands (1982)
Wanted all non-white people out of Holland.
Convicted of inciting racial hatred.
The alleged conviction breached Art 10.
Held; views not protected by Art 10 because, in effect, those views would contribute to the destruction of the rights and freedoms of others
Wille v Liechtenstein (1999)
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that threatening and effectively refusing to re-appoint a civil servant on account of his publicly expressed opinion was a violation of Article 10.
Laporte v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary[2007]
3 coaches from London carrying 120 anti-Iraq war protesters in March 2003.
Protesters had been planning to join thousands of people in a demonstration against the war at RAF Fairford, from which part of the US-led attack on Iraq had been launched two days before.
At least some of the protesters, including L, had purely peaceful intentions, but some items suggestive of violent intent were discovered by the Police on the coaches.
The coaches were returned to London under police escort, without any opportunity for all three of the passengers (who were designated speakers) to disembark preventing her from attending the protest and forcibly returning her to London.
Question on whether it was Prescribed by law?
Held: The Chief Constable’s actions were not prescribed by law.
They were not confined to the closely defined powers and duties created by Parliament, which were not supplemented by a general power to do whatever was reasonable in the circumstances.
Neither was there a power to act short of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace which is not sufficiently imminent to justify arrest. The duty to prevent breaches of the peace must be kept within proper bounds.
R (Miranda)vSecretary of State for the Home Department[2016]
A journalist’s spouse, M, was detained at Heathrow by the Metropolitan Police under Schedule 7, the Terrorism Act 2000.
This allows the questioning of a person at a port or airport about being connected in some way with terrorism.
M was carrying stolen security data supplied to his husband by Edward Snowden (a US security analyst who had disclosed the massive scale of US surveillance of its own citizens and the UK’s use of data obtained).
The Court of Appeal held that the questioning of M was lawful under UK domestic law.
It was a lawful and proportionate exercise of the power in Schedule 7.
However, the Court of Appeal also held that Schedule 7 itself did not meet the ‘prescribed by law’ requirement of Article 10(2), specifically in relation to claims by journalists that their rights to freedom of expression had been interfered with.
In the context of protecting journalistic material, the Court of Appeal held that Schedule 7 had insufficient safeguards.
R (Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014]
Iranian dissident politician – living in Paris
Sought entry to speak at Westminster on invitation by members of P
Excluded her– on the basis that her presence would damage diplomatic relations with Iran and lead to retaliation against British interests abroad
Damaging to national security
R v Shayler [2002]
S was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1989. He argued that compatibility with Article 10 requires a public interest defence.
This was rejected by the House of Lords- in particular because of the availability of internal complaint mechanisms available to civil servants.
