Cases for HRA Flashcards
Cases where HRA protects freedom of expression
Ex Parte Simms 1999 - Prison blanket ban on giving verbal interviews - Appealed by prisoners - Court sided with prisoners, decision overturned
Significance: Introduces principle of legality - HRA cannot be interfered d with by using ambiguous wording.
Bowman v United Kingdom 1998 - Leaflets handed out by Mrs Bowman. Charges pressed as she spent over the £5 limit on passing out information to electors. ECtHR ruled that this was a violation of her freedom of expression.
Significance: Statute law has to abide by ECHR
Cases where HRA fails to protect freedom of expression
R (on the application of Miranda) v Secretary of state for the Home Department 2016 - Mr Miranda stopped and searched under Terror act 2007 (Suspicion as his wife is a journalist who previously leaked classified government documents). He filed a complaint stating the search was unlawful. Court agreed on it being unlawful but stated that national security > his freedom of expression
Significance: Limit on HRA (National Security)
DPP v Collins 2006 - Collins said racial slurs and had overall negative views on immigration policies over the phone. He was charged under the communications act 2003 for gross misconduct over the phone. He was acquitted but the DPP appealed the decision. The court ruled in favour of the DPP.
Cases where the HRA protect the freedom of assembly
DPP v Jones and others 1999 - Peaceful protest outside of Stonehenge. No obstruction of highways and no harmful protests going on. Wiltshire chief obtained a court order to trespass Jones and the 40 other people. This was appealed and accepted - Court stated that neither the appellant or anyone in his group was being violent or obstructing the highway - Upheld freedom of assembly
Significance: This ruling emphasized the importance of public rights exercised in public places.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others 2021- The appellants participated in a demonstration protesting the defence and Security International weapons fair at the Excel Centre. They were charged with obstructing the highway. The district judge acquitted them at trial. Case was taken up to Supreme Court which sided with the district judge, protecting the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.
Significance: It is made expressly clear that article 10 and 11 rights are capable of giving rise to a lawful excuse of a statute law.
Cases where the HRA fails to protect freedom of assembly
DPP v Jones 2006 - Charged with charged with, inter alia, causing criminal damage and aggravated trespass after They broke into a defence manufacturer’s property and caused damage to a Hawk aircraft. They tried to claim they were doing it for a greater good and invoked their freedom of assembly right. Court rejected their defence
Significance: Crime prevention > HRA
