Article 8- Key cases Flashcards
Efficient knowledge and the key cases and how they link to the article
Douglas v Hello! LTD (2001)
(Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta jones)- In Douglas v. Hello! Ltd (2001), Hello! sued-
Held: the Court of Appeal held that the unauthorized publication of photographs from a private celebrity wedding violated the couple’s right to privacy but had to balance this with the magazines freedom of expression under Article 10.
Lustig-Prean and Becket v UK
Applicants released from Navy due to being homosexuals.
There was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. In this context, it suggests that the armed forces conducted investigations into the applicants’ sexual orientation, which is a breach of their privacy rights.
Hatton v UK (2001)
The applicants claimed that the government’s policy regarding night flights at Heathrow Airport interfered with their right to respect for private and family life, as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They argued that the noise and disruption from night flights negatively impacted their quality of life and privacy.
Held: by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13.
Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK (1997)
Police discovered video footage of sado-masochistic encounters involving the applicants and up to forty-four other homosexual men, leading to charges like assault and wounding for consensual activities over a decade that involved pain-infliction methods, but adhered to safety rules and did not cause medical issues, with the videos created solely for sexual gratification.
The applicants argued that their rights under Article 8 had been violated, asserting that their consensual actions occurred privately and did not cause any medical harm.
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously concluded that there was no violation of Article 8, asserting that the State determines the acceptable level of harm among consenting adults and justified the police’s seizure of the tapes based on the charges, while also questioning the privacy of the recordings due to the involvement of multiple participants and the applicants’ active role in their creation and distribution.
R (AR) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (2018)
D had been accused and acquitted of rape by jury. However, when he later applied to be a teacher/taxi driver, the police checks included the original allegation of rape.
The central issue was whether disclosing details about this charge infringed upon AR’s right to respect for his private and family life, as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision concluded that the disclosure was justified and proportionate. This means that the court believed the need to protect vulnerable individuals outweighed AR’s right to privacy in this instance.
R (Bridges) v South Wales Police (2019)
C challenged the South Wales Police use of automatic facial recognition (AFR), under articles 8(1) and 8(2), that on two occasions they had allegedly recorded his image.
Held: No Breach of Article 8- the AFR was for a limited time, for a specific purpose, covered a limited area and had led to the detection of criminals.
Gaughran v UK (2020)
G was convicted in 2008 for drunk driving and released in 2013. His photograph, fingerprints and a DNA sample were taken. The Police intended to indefinitely keep all G’s samples.
Held: The ECtHR felt that the police (the state) had overstepped its margin of appreciation of retaining evidence and, as such, its actions in keeping the samples was disproportionate interference with G’s rights under Article 8.
