Human Rights Flashcards
Sunday times v UK
Facts- Newspaper wanted to publish a article on the dangers of taking a certain drug during pregnancy.
Ratio- ECtHR held an injunction to stop the publication of the article was in breach of A.10 ECHR
Malone v UK
Facts- C charged with handling stolen goods. At trial, it was found that the police tapped him phone and intercepted him email.
Ratio- ECtHR held this was a violation of A.8 ECHR.
Bellinger v bellinger
Facts- C, a transsexual woman married a man. Under the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973, marriage was invalid if parties were same sex. C demanded legal recognition of her marriage.
Ratio- H of L held the marriage was void, because at the time of the ceremony, English law did not recognise gender change. So declaration of incompatibility between UK Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973 & ECHR rights contained in Articles (A.) 8 & 12 was issued by H of L. Parliament passed Gender Recognition Act 2004 to remove the incompatibility.
R (Anderson) v Sec of State for Home Department 2002 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 gave the Home Secretary power to set a murderer’s sentence, up to maximum of life imprisonment H of L declared this power to be incompatible with A.6 ECHR. As a result, Parliament amended the law in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, giving judges the power to set sentence periods.
.
A v Sec of State for Home Department 2005
C’s were indefinitely detained under anti-terrorism legislation. C’s claimed this was contrary to A.15 ECHR saying it was unnecessary & disproportionate. It was perfectly lawful for A.15 ECHR to be relaxed or suspended in times of war or other public emergency. H of L held it was for government to decide if there was an emergency situation, (not C’s), but said powers were disproportionate, discriminatory & incompatible with A. 5 & A.14 ECHR. The Government responded by creating Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v DSD, NBV 2015
C’s were rape V’s. Police had failed in their A.3 ECHR duty to properly investigate C’s were awarded damages (compensation).
Wainwright v UK 2007
C, a prison visitor, was subjected to a strip search. H of L held there was no violation of either A.8 ECHR (right to privacy & family life), or A.3 (inhuman & degrading treatment). C appealed to ECtHR, where damages were awarded for breaches of A.8 & A.3
Hirst v UK 2005
Convicted prisoners in the UK were barred from voting in either parliamentary or local elections On appeal to ECtHR, C’s complaint was upheld. It said a blanket ban on voting for prisoners was in breach of the right to vote, yet the UK continues to ignore ECtHR decision.
