mirror principle

Question 1

what is mirror principle?

Answer 1

Alconbury [2001] UKHL 23, where it was stated (per Lord Slynn, at [26]) that the United Kingdom’s courts should, ‘[absent] special circumstances … follow any clear and constant jurisprudence’ of Strasbourg. the sentiment suggested that where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provided a clear direction of travel, this bound the hands of domestic courts. From here it is no great leap to say that we should mirror the position of the ECtHR.

Question 2

Ullah v special adjudicator 2004

Answer 2

• “keep pace…no more, but certainly no less”
• the meaning of the Convention should be uniform throughout the states party to it.
• The duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less. - This was subsequently interpreted as an expectation that s.2 of HRA 1998 required uks undedtsanding of human rights mirror ECHR juisprudence

Question 3

home secretary v Af 2009

Answer 3

• Restrictions imposed by the Mirror Principle ‘prefer our own view’ but ‘bound by the Convention’
• Others have accepted the ‘mirror principle’ only begrudgingly, viewing it as compelling the United Kingdom to travel in a direction it does not wish to go

Question 4

r v horncastle 2009

Answer 4

might not always have to be followed, lord Phillips [11]
- There will, however, be rare occasions where the domestic court has concerns as to whether a decision of the Strasbourg court sufficiently appreciates or accommodates particular aspects of our domestic process. In such circumstances it is open to the domestic court to decline to follow the Strasbourg decision, giving reasons for adopting this course.