Human Rights Flashcards
Sunday Times v UK
Facts : Newspaper wanted to publish an article about the dangers of taking the thalidomide drug during pregnancy.
Ratio : ECtHR held an injunction stopping 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 emerged that police had tapped his phone & intercepted his mail.
Ratio : ECtHR held this was a violation of A.8 ECHR (right to private life & correspondence).
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
Facts : Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 gave the Home Secretary power to set a murderer’s sentence, up to maximum of life imprisonment
Ratio : 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
Facts : C’s were indefinitely detained under anti-terrorism legislation. C’s claimed this was contrary to A.15 ECHR saying it was unnecessary & disproportionate.
Ratio : 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
Facts : C’s were rape V’s. Police had failed in their A.3 ECHR duty to properly investigate.
Ratio : C’s were awarded damages (compensation).
Wainwright v UK 2007
Facts : C, a prison visitor, was subjected to a strip search.
Ratio : 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
Facts : Convicted prisoners in the UK were barred from voting in either parliamentary or local elections
Ratio : 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.
