HRA Principles and Prelims Flashcards
Al-Jedda v UK
Ratio: Military bases are within jurisdiction for purposes of Article 1 ECHR.
Al-Saadoon and Ors v SoS Defence
Ratio: For the purposes of Article 1 ECHR, if a state’s agent has authority and control over an individual within the state’s jurisdiction, Art 1 includes the use of lethal force against that individual.
Facts: Concerned test cases brought by Iraqis concerning violations during the occupation of Iraq.
Al-Skeini v UK
Ratio: 1. Article 1 ECHR applies to UK Human Rights claims. 2. Places under military control will count as within UK jurisdiction for purpose of HR claims
Facts: Appeal brought to the ECtHR against HoL decision the the duty of investigation did not apply in foreign territories outside army bases.
Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote PCC v Wallbank
Ratio: 1. Set out factors to be considered when determining whether something is a core public body: special powers, democratic accountability, public funding, obligation to act in public interest, statutory constitution. 2. Set out factors to consider when determining whether something is a functional public authority. Consider the extent to which the function in question is: publicly funded, exercising statutory power, taking place of government or local authority or providing a public service.
Gilllian and Quinton v UK
Ratio: For something to be prescribed by law, a power should not be so broadly prescribed that it could be applied arbitrarily.
Facts: Police stop and search powers under Terrorism Act 2000 were held to have been used in breach of Art 8.
Lambeth LBC v Kay
Ratio: Where the ECtHR decides a case in a way which conflicts with the decision of a senior domestic court, the domestic decision should be preferred due to the ‘margin of appreciation’ principle.
Facts: concerned a dispute over whether licence agreements in respect of council properties had become tenancies.
Klass v Germany
Ratio: A victim, for the purpose of Art 34 ECHR is someone who is ‘directly affected’ by the violation of a convention right.
Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association v Donoghue
Ratio: Poplar were considered so ‘enmeshed’ with the local authority and were acting the public sphere, so were deemed a hybrid public authority.
Facts: Poplar was a housing association - had taken over local authority housing and was providing housing to residents in the same way the council had been doing.
R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v SoS for the Environment
Ratio: Although case law of the ECtHR is not binding, domestic courts should follow any clear and consistent jurisprudence unless there are special circumstances.
R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire
Ratio: 1. Hybrid public authorities will usually be bodies exercising statutory powers. 2. Care Homes are not public authorities.
Facts: Care home for elderly being re-furbished and so residents had to leave. They sought to review this decision but it was held that the care home was not enmeshed with the local authority.
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
Ratio: ‘It is the duty of national courts to keep pace with Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less’.
Facts: Ullah attempted to rely on ECHR to prevent being deported to a country with known human rights abuses.
R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust
Ratio: 1. If any of the functions a body performs are public it will be a hybrid public authority. 2. Only if the specific action in question is a public one will the body be potentially liable.
Sunday Times v UK
Ratio: Prescribed by law test: 1. Valid legal basis 2. Accessible 3. Clear and predictable
YL v Birmingham City COuncil
Ratio: Private care homes are not public authorities.
