The Human Rights Act (2)

Question 1

what does the HRA say on obligation on public authority

Answer 1

Section 6 HRA 98 - acts of public authorities

1) unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right
2) subsection (1) does not apply if (a) the result fo one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently

Question 2

what does public authority include

Answer 2

section 6(3)

(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either house of parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in parliament

Question 3

what does horizontal mean

Answer 3

between individuals

Question 4

what does vertical mean

Answer 4

between states

Question 5

Does section 6 provide for horizontal effect of convention rights?

Answer 5

No it does not provide

Question 6

what does section 6 essentially provide

Answer 6

‘public authorities’ are bound to act compatibly with those rights and such ‘authorities’ include private bodies performing ‘functions of a public nature’.

Question 7

what did the HL say in the case of Aston Cantlow v Wallbank and Another

Answer 7

Section 6 HRA 98 draws a distinction between core public authorities and hybrid authorities. the dividing line between hybrid public authorities and bodies which are not public authorities at all is a fine one
also said
‘public authority’ for the purposes of s6 HRA 98 could either be a core public authority or a hybrid

Question 8

what are core authorities

Answer 8

Those bodies, whether national or local, through which the state performs its functions of administering and protecting its citizens. All the acts of a core authority must be compatible with convention rights.

Question 9

what are hybrid public authorities

Answer 9

Excerises both public functions and non-public functions, is not absolutely disabled from having convention rights. A hybrid authority is not a public authority in respect of an act of a private nature

Question 10

What does Baroness Hale of Richmond say in the case of YL v Birmingham City Council

Answer 10

‘public authority’ is nowhere exhaustively defined - however, in relation to any particular act, s6(5) provides that “a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private”. …
“core” public authorities, which are wholly “public” in their nature, have to ac compatibly with the convention in everything they do.
OTher bodies, only certain of whose functions are “of a public nature” have to act compatibly with the convention…
The law is easy to state but difficult to apply in individual cases

Question 11

What were the problems that derived from the case YL v Birmingham City Council

Answer 11

a) treating private care homes as ‘public authorities’ within s6 HRA would involve superimposing statutory terms in contracts between home/resident/local authority
b) it would create anomalies - self-paying residents would not be regarded as being subjects of ‘functions of a public nature’ and consequently, unlike residents in other rooms, would not have the protection for their homes…

Question 12

What did the CA hold in the case of R v London and Quadrant housing trust

Answer 12

… it being conceded that certain of the landlord’s functions were public functions… the relevant question for determination was whether the act of terminating the tenancy was a private act… it was necessary to consider whether the act was in pursuance of, or at least connected with, performance of functions of a public nature;

Question 13

what does elias LJ say in the case of R v London and Quadrant housing trust

Answer 13

none of these factors taken in isolation would suffice to make the functions of the provision of housing public functions… satisfied they establish sufficient public flavour…
Follows that the act of terminating the tenancy of Mrs Wraver did not constitute an act of a private nature, and was in principle subject to human rights considerations

Question 14

what does Elias LJ say in the idea of all tenants in the case of R v London and Quadrant housing trust

Answer 14

does not follow, that all tenants of the trust will receive the same protection… human rights principles will not apply to those tenants of the trust who are not housed in social housing at all…
it is not obvious why the tenant should be in any different position to tenants in the private sector where human rights principles are inapplicable

Question 15

What happened in the case of A v UK

Answer 15

A (aged 9) had been beaten with a garden cane… A’s stepfather, was charged with assault… stepfather raised the defence available that A’s beating represented reasonable chastisement…
f was acquitted and A applied to the ECHR , his treatment constituted a violation of the ECHR art 3

Question 16

What did the ECtHR hold in the case of A v UK

Answer 16

to fall within the scope of Art3, ill treatment had to attain a certain level of severity an assessment depended on particular circumstances e.g duration, physical and mental effects, victims age, sex etc - in this instant case, ill-treatment was of sufficient severity to fall under article 3…

Question 17

Did the ECtHR think the UK government should be held responsible for the treatment A received in the case of A v UK?

Answer 17

ECtHR said Article 1 read with Artile 3, demanded that contracting states adopt measures to ensure the protection of those within their jurisdiction and prevent them from suffering torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, with children and the vulnerable deserving particular protection in the form of effective deterrence

Question 18

So what essentially was the final outcome of the case of Av UK

Answer 18

ECtHR held - F’s acquittal, demonstrated that English law as it stood failed to provide adequate protection for children, and the Government’s failure in this respect constituted a violation of Article 3 ECHR

Question 19

what did the case of regina (ullah) v Special adjudicator say

Answer 19

open for members o provide for rights more generous than those guaranteed by the convention, but such provision should not be the product of interpretation of the convention by national courts… The duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less’.