Case Law Flashcards
R (Bradley) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (the Bradley case)
the court confirmed that public bodies are entitled to reject the findings of the Ombudsman, but only if they have ‘cogent reasons’ for doing so
- shows that whilst the ombudsman procedure is an example of political accountability, courts have some role in terms of policing conduct. In particular, where a public body rejects the findings of the ombudsman, the court will hold that they have acted unlawfully unless they have ‘cogent reasons’ for doing so.
- Suggests that the public bodies are not entirely free to ignore the Ombudsman’s recommendations, but neither are they legally bound to accept them.
ombudsmen
R (Equitable Members Action Group) v HM Treasury
The court can intervene if the public body acts irrationally in rejecting the recommendations.
- The court indicated that it would be harder to get the courts to force the government to accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations than to require them to accept her findings. The Court said that the decision to reject the Ombudsman’s recommendations was ‘not reviewable in the courts save on conventional rationality grounds’.
prince charles
R (Evans) v Attorney-General [2015] UKSC 21.; Evans v Information Commissioner [2012] UKUT 313 (AAC)
- Concerned an FOI request made by a journalist at the Guardian newspaper that the government disclose correspondence between Prince Charles and former government Ministers.
- Government refused to disclose the letters, but the Upper Tribunal—a judicial tribunal—held that the public interest favoured disclosure of the letters.
- Attorney-General then certified that the government would override the Upper Tribunal’s decision on the basis that it was entirely appropriate for the Heir to the throne to enter into correspondence with government Ministers. Furthermore, such correspondence should be confidential.
- The requestor then sought judicial review of the government’s decision to exercise the ministerial veto on the ground, amongst others, that the government did not have the power to overrule a judicial decision.
- Constitutional principle, it was argued, required the FOIA to be interpreted restrictively because of the importance of the rule of law.
- Memos eventually made public
the troubles
The Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 245
- Sunday Times had published articles revealing that the UK government had suppressed a report criticizing its handling of Northern Ireland affairs.
- Gov sought an injunction to prevent further publication of the articles, which the courts granted.
- Sunday Times then brought the case to the ECtHR, arguing that the injunction violated its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- ECtHR agreed, ruling that the injunction was a disproportionate interference with the newspaper’s freedom of expression.
- Emphasized the importance of press freedom in a democratic society, especially when reporting on matters of public interest such as government conduct.
MS v Sweden (1997) 3 BHRC 248
- MS, was the mother of a child born out of wedlock. She sought to establish contact with her child, who had been placed in foster care by Swedish authorities.
- MS claimed that Sweden’s actions violated her right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.
- ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 8. It emphasized the importance of maintaining meaningful contact between parents and their children, especially in cases where children are placed in care
- Underscores the significance of the right to family life and the duty of states to support and facilitate family reunification
Lawless v Ireland (No 3) (1979-80) 1 EHRR 15, para 28
- Lawless, who was arrested and detained without trial by the Irish authorities under the provisions of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 during a state of emergency in Ireland.
- Lawless was not charged or brought before a court during his detention, which lasted for several years.
- ECtHR ruled that Lawless’s detention without trial amounted to a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.
- Significant case that contributed to the development of jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, particularly in contexts involving emergency measures and detention without trial
Greek case (1969) 12 Yearbook of the ECHR 1
- dealt with issues related to the imposition of martial law and the suspension of certain human rights protections during a period of political unrest in Greece in the 1960s.
- Case raised questions about the legality and justification of these measures under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Court emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to legal requirements for derogating from human rights obligations during a public emergency.
- Highlighted the Court’s role in scrutinizing state actions during emergencies to ensure compliance with human rights standards, particularly concerning the right to life, liberty, and fair trial.
Aksoy v Turkey (1997) 23 EHRR 553, para 68
- European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) addressed the issue of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Para 68 of the judgment emphasizes that under Article 3 of the ECHR, states have an absolute obligation not to engage in torture or subject individuals to inhuman or degrading treatment, regardless of the circumstances.
- This means that there can be no exceptions or justifications for such treatment, even during times of public emergency or conflict.
The ECtHR’s ruling reaffirms the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR, underscoring the fundamental importance of respecting human dignity and integrity in all circumstances.
A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Belmarsh) [2004] UKHL 56
Has the state gone beyond what is required?
Interference with basic rights must be closely examined
Unlimited detention of foreign nationals was disproportionate and discriminatory
Mehmet Hasan Altan v Turkey no. 13237/17
- ECtHR addressed issues concerning freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Mehmet Hasan Altan, a prominent Turkish journalist and academic, lodged an application with the ECtHR after being convicted of various offenses, including attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.
- ECtHR found multiple violations of Altan’s rights under the ECHR
- underscores the importance of upholding fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, particularly in contexts where there are allegations of political persecution or attempts to stifle dissent
covid
BP v Surrey County Council & Anor[2020] EWCOP 17
- 83 year old deaf man suffering from Alzheimer’s disease restricted from seeing his family and friends due to Covid-19
- Hayden J: Article 15 of the ECHR is engaged, and the UK is entitled to derogate from article 5 (right to liberty and security), based on risk of COVID and the particular risk of elderly individuals
- This might be true, but the UK Government has not informed the Secretary General under Article 15(3)
- Further, judges do not have the power to derogate on behalf of the UK Government
Contempt of Court Act 1981
Enacted in an attempt to recast English law in terms consistent with the Convention. The Act contains a number of features that seek to safeguard free speech by ensuring that liability does not exceed that which is permitted by Art 10
- The Act establishes a ‘strict liability’ rule,72 meaning that there is no fault requirement as such. But liability can only arise in the first place if the ‘double hurdle’ is satisfied: risk that the course of justice will be prejudiced must be ‘substantial’ and even if there is a substantial risk of prejudice, liability will only arise if that risk is of ‘serious’ prejudice
Sunday Times v UK (1979–80) 2 EHRR 245
ECtHR held, that English law did not strike that balance acceptably. The House of Lords had upheld an injunction preventing publication of a newspaper article on the ground that publication would have constituted contempt of court.
- Article concerned a drug issued to pregnant women which caused birth defects.
- Article intended to encourage manufacture to agree to generous out-of-court settlement
- Court concluded that the public importance of the matter in the Sunday Times case and the fact that a trial was unlikely to take place in the short to medium term meant the injunction was not ‘necessary’
- ECtHR ruled in favor of the Sunday Times, finding that the government’s attempt to prevent publication violated the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Prejudicial publications: the ‘double hurdle’.Qs
MGN v Attorney-General [1997] EMLR 284, 290–1
The High Court said that the following questions should be considered when determining whether such a risk arises:
- How likely is it that the publication will come to the attention of a potential juror?
- What would be the impact of the article on the average reader?
- What is likely to be the residual impact on a juror at the time of the trial?
- The content of the information of the publication
Prejudicial publications: ‘active’ proceedings
In Scotland HM Advocate v Beggs (No 2)83 and in England in R v Harwood
View adopted that the strict liability rule bites upon all relevant online material as soon as proceedings become active
CoC Act 1981
Attorney-General v English [1983] 1 AC 116
- Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 says that when a publication constitutes ‘a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest’
- Section 5 was successfully invoked by a defendant who had published an article alleging, in condemnatory terms, that a practice had developed whereby doctors allowed or caused severely disabled newborn babies to die.
- Law Lords rejected the suggestion that s 5 allowed the newspaper to go no further than abstract discussion of the morality of the alleged practice
Disclosure of sources in court
X Ltd v Morgan Grampia (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1.
HoL held that a journalist should be required to identify his source in order that a company could identify the disloyal employee who had leaked sensitive and commercially damaging information. It was held that this would fall within the ‘interests of justice’ exception under s 10.
Later ruled by ECtHR in Goodwin that ordering disclosure in such circumstances constituted a breach of the Convention
Disclosure of sources in court
Goodwin v UK
ECtHr ruled that ordering disclosure in such circumstances constituted a breach of the Convention
parliament
Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [102]
Parliament must act compatibly with requirements of rule of law and unwritten constitution
trade union
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the ‘GCHQ’ case)[1985] AC 374
- The UK government, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued an order under the royal prerogative to ban employees at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) from belonging to a trade union. This order was issued without parliamentary approval.
- HoL ruled against the government, holding that the executive’s action to ban union membership at GCHQ was unlawful.
- Court found that the royal prerogative could not be used to modify or abolish contractual rights of employees without parliamentary authorization.
- Lord Diplock: “Judicial Review provides the means by which judicialcontrol of administrative action is exercised”
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696
LordTempleman: “Judicial review [is] a remedy invented by the judges to restrain the excess or abuse of power”
R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] AC 1787
- Issue revolved around the disclosure of letters written by the Prince of Wales to government ministers.
- Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General acted unlawfully by blocking the release of these letters, stating that the public interest in transparency outweighed any potential harm to the prince’s ability to carry out his constitutional role impartially.
- Significant implications for the transparency of the British monarchy’s interactions with government officials
- It is “fundamental to the rule of law that decisions and actions of the executive are… reviewable by the court…” (Lord Neuberger, [52]. c.f. “the rule of law is of the first importance. But it is integral to the rule of law that the courts give effect Parliamentary intention…”(LordHughes, [154]
Miller (No.2) [2019] UKSC41
The cases:
- Miller v PM (2019); Cherry & Othrs v Lord Advocate (2019)
- UKSC hearing September 2019: 11 justices heard the case en banc(five is usual)
Political context:
- Brexit – outcome of 2016 referendum on leaving the EU
- Challenges of framing exit agreement – repeatedly rejected byParliament (and challenged in court
- Several extensions to exit day
- New Prime Minister, with new approach
- Prorogation order – 28 August 2019
Outcome:
Was the matter justiciable?
YES – the courts can rule on the extent of prerogative powers
By the standard set out at [50], was prorogation unlawful?
YES – effect was to frustrate role of Parliament, and no justificationwas given
What remedy?
Prorogation null and of no effect: Parliament has not beenprorogued
Pham v Secretary of State for theHome Office [2015] UKSC 19; Keyu v Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment[2015] UKS 69
Emerging common law ground?
Proportionality: available in relation to Convention rights and EU law; now possibly a standalone common law ground
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Limits on discretion
- no unfettered discretion
Bernard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2QB 18;(NB Carltona principle that civil servants act in the name of the Minister)
Limits on discretion
- Must not delegate discretion
- In Bernard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18, the court considered the issue of delegating discretion.
- Involved a scheme where dockworkers were selected for employment by the National Dock Labour Board.
- The Board had discretion in selecting workers but delegated this discretion to local managers.
- Held that while discretion could be delegated, it must be exercised within the limits of the authority given. If discretion is exercised improperly or unfairly, the decision can be challenged in court.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995]AC 513
Limits of discretion
- cannot refuse to exercise discretion
- revolved around the Secretary of State’s refusal to exercise discretion regarding a matter within their authority. The Fire Brigades Union challenged this refusal.
- House of Lords ruled that where a statute grants discretionary power to a public authority, the authority must exercise that discretion reasonably and not abuse it.
- Secretary of State was found to have acted unreasonably in refusing to exercise discretion, thus the decision was quashed.
R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60
Limits on discretion
- Must exercise discretion in the public interest
Judicial Review: illegality
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 924 HL
Facts:
- Set price of milk + differential for transport costs
- South-west region: price too low to cover transport
At issue: nature and extent of the Ministers discretion/duty
Minister-
Duty: consider a complaint fairly
Discretion: unfettered – refer complaint or not, as he may think fit
Appellants-
Duty: refer every genuine complaint
Discretion: not unfettered
Plus: Misdirected in law or took into account irrelevant considerations
Outcome:
Intention of Parliament = discretion used to promote the policy and objects of Act
Policy and objects = determined by construing the Act as a whole
Construction = always a matter of law for the court
(Lord Reid, p.1030)
+
Minister acted unlawfully by:
- refusal to consider the relevant matter
- misdirecting himself in point of law
- taking into account some wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration
- Not taking into account a relevant consideration
(Lord Upjohn, p.1058)
= 2 related principles: purpose and relevance
economic development
R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement [1995]:
Statutory purpose = “promoting development”
Interpreted by court to mean = “sound economic development”
On the facts court found project was “unsound”
Decision was made for improper purpose and based on irrelevant considerations
For a critique, see: Irvine, Human Rights, Constitutional Law and the Development of the English Legal System (Oxford, 2003)
Wednesbury
- Sunday Entertainment Act 1932, s.1(1):
- Granting of licences “subject to any conditions as the authority think fit to impose”
- Imposed condition: no children under 15 should be to Sunday performances
- Claim: condition was unreasonable
- Outcome: not unreasonable, not unlawful
A v Secretary of State (Belmarsh) [2004] UKHL 56, [37]-[42]
- The case involved the indefinite detention of nine foreign prisoners in the UK prison ‘Belmarsh’ without trial under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 200112.
- These individuals were threatened with deportation on the basis that there was evidence they posed a national security threat
House of Lords held that the provisions under which detainees were being held at Belmarsh prison (section 23) were incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights
However, the Home Secretary was not required to release the prisoners
The provision had the effect of discriminating between foreign nationals and nationals of the state
As a result, the Lords made a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998
de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69, 80
Addressed the issue of whether a public authority could be liable for misfeasance in public office.
- Involved allegations that a public official had acted maliciously and dishonestly in denying the claimant’s application for a lease of land.
- The Privy Council held that in order to establish liability for misfeasance in public office, it was necessary to prove that the defendant had acted with malice, meaning that they had deliberately done something they knew to be wrong or had acted with reckless indifference to whether their actions were wrong or not.
The Court clarified that malice in this context did not require personal spite or ill-will, but rather a conscious wrongdoing. Therefore, the claimant had to demonstrate that the public official had acted in a manner inconsistent with the duties of their office and with the intent to injure the claimant
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2)[2013] UKSC 38
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2)[2013] UKSC 38The approach … can be summarised by saying that it is necessary to determine
(1) whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right,
(2) whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective,
(3) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective, and
(4) The question is whether the significance of the measure’s impact on the rights of the individuals it affects, when compared to the importance of the objective it serves and the extent to which the measure contributes to achieving that objective, is greater than the importance of the objective itself.
Magna Carta 1215
Magna Carta’s significance lies in its foundational role in shaping modern concepts of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from excessive government power. Its principles have endured through centuries, influencing legal systems and political thought globally.
Human Rights Law
R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept. ex p. Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 (before Human Rights Act 1998)
- Case involved the denial of access to an inmate’s legal correspondence.
- The Lords ruled that where a statute confers discretionary power, the exercise of that power is subject to judicial review. It was held that the Secretary of State’s decision was reviewable and must be exercised reasonably.
- Underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny over administrative decisions even before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect, emphasizing the principle of legality.
Human Rights Law
R v SSHD ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 131-132
“[M]uch of the Convention reflects the common law…That is why the United Kingdom government felt able in 1950 to accede tothe Convention without domestic legislative change. So the adoption of the text as part of domestic law is unlikely to involve radical change in our notions of fundamental human rights.” Lord Hoffman
HEROIN
R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 3
No retrospective effect
- Defendant, Lambert, was charged with possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. She was a registered drug addict who had been receiving prescribed heroin.
- However, she was not informed of the specific quantity of heroin she was entitled to possess under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
- Lambert argued that she could not be convicted of possession with intent to supply because she did not know that her possession exceeded the prescribed limit.
HoL held that ignorance of the law was not a defense.
Established that individuals are presumed to know the law, including statutory limits on possession of controlled substances.
Therefore, Lambert’s lack of knowledge of the prescribed limit did not absolve her from criminal liability.
greengrocer
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002]EWHC 195 [62]
Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of the UK Parliament
- Notion of a ‘constitutional statute’
- Issue revolved around the conflict between EU law and UK law, particularly regarding the metrication of goods sold in pounds and ounces. Thoburn, a greengrocer, was prosecuted by the Sunderland City Council for selling goods in imperial measures contrary to EU regulations that mandated metric measures.
- Court held that the Weights and Measures Act 1985 retained its constitutional status, and it could not be impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation, including the European Communities Act 1972. This principle was termed “the metric martyrs” doctrine.
- Court ruled that Parliament could only impliedly repeal or amend statutes of constitutional importance through express language.
Human Right Law
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
- Case revolved around the interpretation of the term “spouse”, to only include married couples, or if it could be interpreted more broadly to include same-sex partners who were in a long-term committed relationship akin to marriage, in the Rent Act 1977.
- Ghaidan, had lived with his male partner, Mr. Godin-Mendoza, in a flat that Mr. Godin-Mendoza had rented under a protected tenancy.
- When Godin-Mendoza died, Ghaidan sought to succeed the tenancy as his surviving spouse.
HoL held that the term “spouse” could be interpreted in a way that includes same-sex partners in committed relationships, under the principle of reading legislation in a way that is compatible with human rights.
The court relied on the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), to interpret the legislation in a manner that avoids discrimination against same-sex couples
extradition
R (Anderson) v Sec of State for Home Dept [2002] UKHL 46
- Anderson, who was a British national facing extradition to the United States on criminal charges related to the fraudulent sale of software.
- A argued that his extradition would violate his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 8 which protects the right to respect for private and family life.
House of Lords held that extradition decisions should consider whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the individual’s rights under Article 8, balancing these against the public interest in extradition.
This decision established a precedent for considering human rights in extradition proceedings in the UK.
trans
Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21
- Bellinger sought a decree of nullity of her marriage to Michael Bellinger on the grounds that Michael was born a biological male but underwent gender reassignment surgery and was legally recognized as a female.
- Elizabeth argued that their marriage was void because it was between two individuals of the same biological sex, which was prohibited under the Marriage Act 1949
While the House of Lords ruled against Elizabeth Bellinger’s request for legal recognition of her gender identity for marriage purposes, they alsorecognized that the existing law was incompatible with human rights principles and issued a declaration of incompatibility.
This decision paved the way for legislative reform to address the legal recognition of gender identity within the context of marriage.
sterilisation
Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust[2017] EWCA Civ 1916
- S underwent sterilization procedure performed by NHS. Unexpectedly became pregnant and gave birth to child with severe disabilities. S claimed NHS failed to sufficiently inform her of the risks and sought damages for raising the child
- Court of Appeal held that the Trust had breached its duty of care and S entitled to damages.
- CoA made a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998.
- Found that the existing law failed to provide an adequate remedy for the violation of Mrs. Smith’s right to respect for her private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
encrypted files
Miranda v Sec of State for Home Dept [2016] EWCA Civ 6
- M was detained at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
- M was carrying encrypted files containing documents leaked by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor.
- During his detention, electronic devices were seized and examined by authorities
Court of Appeal ruled that Miranda’s detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful, as it served a legitimate purpose in safeguarding national security. However, Court found that the examination of Miranda’s electronic devices exceeded what was necessary and proportionate, infringing his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.
So, issued a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, stating that certain provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This declaration highlighted the conflict between domestic legislation and human rights obligations, prompting Parliament to consider amendments to bring the legislation in line with human rights standards.
Strasbourg
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26[20]
Courts and tribunals must take into account any judgments, etc from theEuropean Court of Human Rights when determining a question that isconnected with a Convention Right (s.2(1))
‘While…[ECtHR] case law is not strictly binding, it has been held thatcourts should, in the absence of some special circumstances, follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. […]The dutyof national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as itevolves over time: no more, but certainly no less.’
hearsay
R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, Lord Phillips [11]
- Involved the trial of two individuals for murder. The prosecution relied on hearsay evidence, which is typically not admissible in court due to its potential unreliability.
- However, the prosecution argued that the evidence fell within certain exceptions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The outcome of the case was that the Supreme Court held that the use of hearsay evidence in the trial did not violate the defendants’ rights to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court found that the procedures used to admit and assess the hearsay evidence were fair and did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial. Therefore, the convictions were upheld, affirming the decision of the lower court.
Deviation from section 2 of the Human Righst Act 1998
church wall
Aston Cantlow & Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37
- HoL examined the definition of a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998.
- The case involved a dispute over liability for repairs to a church wall that had collapsed onto a neighboring property.
- The outcome of the case was significant in clarifying the definition of a public authority.
- The House of Lords held that a body could be considered a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act if it performed functions of a public nature, even if it was not directly funded by the government.
- In this case, the Parochial Church Council was deemed a public authority because it performed functions that were closely connected to the state, such as maintaining a place of worship that served the public.
- Therefore, the ruling expanded the scope of what constitutes a public authority under the Human Rights Act, highlighting that entities carrying out functions of a public nature, regardless of their funding source, could be subject to the Act’s provisions
car accident
McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28
Existing law must be read in a manner compatible with such rights
UKSC addressed issue of whether a claimant who has settled a personal injury claim can subsequently pursue a claim for deceit against the defendant based on the same facts.
Involved a husband and wife, where the husband had been injured in a car accident and had settled his personal injury claim with the insurance company of the driver responsible.
Later, the husband discovered that his wife had deliberately misled him about the severity of his injuries during the settlement negotiations.
Ruled that the husband could pursue a claim for deceit against his wife, despite having settled the personal injury claim.
Husband was entitled to seek damages from his wife for deceit based on her fraudulent misrepresentation, even though he had settled his personal injury claim with the insurer.
Freedom of EXpr.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex. p. Simms[2000]
- Involved a prisoner, Simms, who was denied permission to be interviewed by a journalist.
- Simms argued that this denial breached his rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects freedom of expression.
House of Lords held that the denial of access to journalists constituted a violation of Simms’ rights under Article 10 of the ECHR.
They emphasized the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and the role of the media in facilitating public debate and accountability.
Lords ruled that any restrictions on prisoners’ communication with the media must be justified and proportionate, taking into account the interests of both the prisoner and the wider public.
This case established the principle that prisoners retain certain rights to freedom of expression, including the right to communicate with journalists, subject to legitimate restrictions necessary for the maintenance of prison security and order.
FoE: book
Handyside v The UK (1979)
- European Court of Human Rights considered whether the United Kingdom violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression.
- The case involved the seizure and destruction of a book by UK customs authorities, claiming it contained obscene material.
- Applicant, Handyside, argued that this action violated his right to freedom of expression.
- Ruled that while states have the right to limit freedom of expression to protect morals, the interference in this case was not necessary in a democratic society
- Judgment affirmed the importance of freedom of expression and set a precedent for balancing this right against other societal interests, such as the protection of morals, in a democratic society.
FoE: gulf war
Müller and Others v Switzerland (1991) 13 EHRR212
- Addressed the issue of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The case involved individuals who were convicted of violating Swiss neutrality laws by participating in anti-war demonstrations during the Gulf War.
- Applicants argued that their convictions violated their right to a fair trial because the trial judge had made prejudicial remarks during the proceedings.
- They also claimed that the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the highest court in Switzerland, failed to adequately review these complaints.
- The ECtHR ruled that Switzerland had violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and effective review mechanisms in safeguarding this fundamental right
FoE
Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407, para.46
Concerned an Austrian journalist who was convicted for defamation due to an article criticizing a political party. The Court held that the journalist’s conviction violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Questioning politicians suitability for office
Protection of opinions and value judgements
“… a careful distinction needs to be made between facts and value judgements.The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgements is no susceptible of truth…[requiring proof of these judgements] is impossible… and infringes freedom of opinion.”
Importance of a Free Press
“These principles are of particular importance as far as the press is concerned. Whilst the press must not overstep the bounds set, inter alia,for the ‘protection of the reputation of others’, it is nevertheless incumbent on them to impart information and ideas on political issues…Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public has a right to receive them… Freedom of the press furthermore affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders.”
