HRA Principles and Preliminaries Key Cases

Question 1

Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote PCC v Wallbank: facts

Answer 1

• church council attempted to enforce obligation to contribute towards church repairs against a lay rector
• lay rector is someone with obligation to maintain church - usually because own land next to church

Question 2

Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote PCC v Wallbank: principle

Answer 2

considered distinction between “core” public authority, “functional” public authority and “hybrid” public authority

Question 3

Gillan & Quinton v UK: facts

Answer 3

• police stop and search powers under Terrorism Act 2000 held to have been used in breach of Article 8

Question 4

Gillan & Quinton v UK: principle

Answer 4

• further clarified the “prescribed by law” test: a power should not be so broadly defined as to allow it to be applied arbitrarily

Question 5

Klass v Germany: facts

Answer 5

• group of individuals opposed to process by which Germany could carry out interceptions of citizens’ phones

Question 6

Klass v Germany: principle

Answer 6

• established definition of a “victim” for purpose of Article 34 ECHR
• law relates to all Germans and therefore fell within class of victim

Question 7

Sunday Times v UK: facts

Answer 7

• High Court granted injunction at AG’s request to prevent ST publishing details about the “Thalidomide children” lawsuits
• AG had argued it would prejudice trial and so be contempt of court
• ST argued before ECtHR that rules on contempt of court were unclear
• court agreed and held that interference with Article 10 right to freedom of expression was not justified

Question 8

Sunday Times v UK: principle

Answer 8

• by clarifying domestic law and establishing the “prescribed by law” test for purposes of ECtHr, case highlighted importance of clarity in law in order for Rule of Law-based society to function properly

Question 9

Al-Jedda v UK: facts

Answer 9

• UK citizen arrested by US soldiers in Iraq and placed in Basra prison (run by British forces) for several years
• during his internment he was deprived of his british citizenship
• after release he sought to challenge removal of his citizenship but failed, and then progressed to challenge his detention as a violation of his human rights

Question 10

Al-Jedda v UK: principle

Answer 10

• military bases and occupied territories (as in Al-Skeini) are within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of Article 1
• UK has a duty under Article 1 to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of the Convention”
• this duty had been breached and a compensation order was made

Question 11

Al-Saadoon & Ors v SoS for Defence: facts

Answer 11

• concerned various test cases from over 2000 Iraqis claiming human rights violations against them during occupation of Iraq
• claimed that these fell under UK jurisdiction as a result of Article 1 ECHR, examples:
  a. Mr Khalaf’s death in petrol queue managed by British troops
  b. Mr Taleb’s death after failing to stop at a crossroads and being shot by British troops
  c. Mr Karim’s death during raid on his house by British troops
• individuals who were first detained and then killed fell under jurisdiction but individuals who were simply killed would not (e.g. Mr Awdeh’s death by swerving British Army truck did not qualify)
• court stated ECtHR would have to resolve this apparent illogicality

Question 12

Al-Saadoon & Ors v SoS for Defence: principle

Answer 12

• for purposes of Article 1 ECHR, if a state’s agent has authority and control over an individual within the state’s jurisdiction, then Article 1 necessarily covers use of lethal force against individual
• follows Al-Skeini, but Lloyd Jones LJ did not think effect of Al-Skeini was to establish principle of extra-territorial jurisdiction under Article 1
• although court agreed it is possible for individual who is not detained but in occupied territory to be under state’s jurisdiction, this is a question of fact and degree as to level of authority and control state exercise

Question 13

Al-Skeini v UK: facts

Answer 13

• claims brought under ECHR in respect of deaths caused by British soldiers during their military operations in Iraq
• argued that there was no jurisdiction under the Convention for acts which took place abroad
• appeal brought to ECtHR against HoL decision that duty of investigation did not apply in foreign territories outside of Army bases
• Grand Chamber held deaths of civilians caused by British military had to be investigated to satisfy UK’s obligations under ECHR

Question 14

Al-Skeini v UK: principle

Answer 14

1. Article 1 ECHR, although not explicitly adopted by HRA, applies to UK human rights claims
2. places under UK control, such as areas under military occupation, count as within jurisdiction for purposes of ECHR. UK had “control and authority” over areas of Southern Iraq and had obligations to its citizens

Question 15

Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council: facts

Answer 15

• dispute over whether licence agreements in respect of council properties had become tenancies
• courts explored extent to which article 8 ECHR supports someone with no legal or equitable rights to remain in occupation of premises

Question 16

Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council: principle

Answer 16

• where ECtHR has decided case in way that conflicts with decision of senior domestic court, the domestic court’s decision should be preferred
• national authorities are given “margin of appreciation”
• ECtHR understands that national authorities are in a better position to apply legal principles in domestic context

Question 17

Poplar Housing and Regenerated Community Association v Donoghue: facts

Answer 17

• Poplar Housing (social housing provider) had taken over local authority housing and were providing similar services to those previously offered by council
• tenant threatened with eviction argued that Poplar was public body and that its actions impinged on her rights under s6 HRA

Question 18

Poplar Housing and Regenerated Community Association v Donoghue: principle

Answer 18

• Poplar were “enmeshed” with local authority and were acting in public sphere, so were deemed to be hybrid public authority

Question 19

R (Alconbury Developments) v SoS for Environment: facts

Answer 19

• review brought against SoS decision on planning matters where he had also been in consultations formulating planning policy

Question 20

R (Alconbury Developments) v SoS for Environment: principle

Answer 20

• in a democracy, where judicial review is available the courts have different oversight and control over administrative decisions to ensure compliance with Article 6(1)
• government minister may be both a policy maker and decision taker
• it is not necessary for minister to act impartially when making his decisions based on his/her policy, but all acts must be lawful

Question 21

R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire: facts

Answer 21

• charity providing care home accommodation redeveloped care home to turn it into high dependency unit
• rendered it unsuitable for some existing residents
• brought an action claiming breach of Article 8 ECHR right to home
• first issue was whether charity was public body

Question 22

R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire: principle

Answer 22

1. Hybrid public authorities will usually be bodies exercising statutory powers
2. care home in this case was not enmeshed with local authority or fulfilling its functions, so was not deemed to be hybrid public authority

Question 23

R v Special Adjudicator (ex parte Ullah): facts

Answer 23

• Ullah attempted to rely on ECHR to prevent being deported to Pakistan, where he said he would be unable to practise his religion
• court found that he could practise, they left open possibility that the case might have been decided differently had there been clear evidence of a denial of his right to practise his religion

Question 24

R v Special Adjudicator (ex parte Ullah): principle

Answer 24

• states have a right to control entry to their borders subject to their treaty obligations
• the “duty of national courts is to keep pace with Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time”
• domestic courts should provide as much protection as is available under the ECHR but are not required to provide more protection

Question 25

R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust: facts

Answer 25

• housing association evicted one of its tenants for being in arrears on rent payments
• tenant sought judicial review, claiming eviction would interfere with her human rights
• housing association claimed that it was not a public body

Question 26

R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust: principle

Answer 26

• where some of the actions a body performs are public, it may be considered a public body
• housing association was partly state funded, and was a hybrid public body and subject to judicial review but here there was no breach of human rights

Question 27

YL v Birmingham City Council: facts

Answer 27

• Court were asked to decide whether private care home was acting as a public authority

Question 28

YL v Birmingham City Council: principle

Answer 28

• private care home in this case was not carrying out actions of “public nature” pursuant to s6(3) HRA