Human Rights - Chapter 18 Flashcards
Sunday times v UK 1984
Facts- Newspaper wanted to publish an article about the dangers of taking thalidomide during drug pregnancy
Ratio- ECtHR held an injunction stopping the publication of the article was in breach of A.10 ECHR
Malone v UK 1984
FACTS:- C charged with handling stolen goods. At trial, it emerged that police had tapped his phone and intercepted his mail
RATIO:- ECtHR held this was a violation of A.8 ECHR (right to private life and correspondence)
Bellinger v bellinger 2003
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 Ar 8 & 12 was issued by the HOL. Parliament then passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to remove the incompatibility.
R (Anderson) v Sec of State for Home department (2002)
FACTS:- Sentences Act (1997) gave the Home Secretary power to set a murderers sentence, up to maximum life imprisonment.
RATIO:- H of L declared this power to be incompatible with A.6 of 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)
FACTS:- C’s were indefinitely detained under anti-terrorism legislation. C’s claimed this was contrary to A.15 ECHR saying it was unnecessary and 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 Gov. to decide if there was an emergency situation. (Not the claimants), but said powers were disproportionate, discriminatory and incompatible with A.5 & 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 damaged (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 (private and family life) of A.3 (inhumane and degrading treatment treatment). C’s appealed to ECtHR, where damages were awarded on 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 the ECtHR.
