topic 9 Flashcards
s and others
Ran for a very long time
Cut across all governments
Started off when the labour government introduced the HRA
9 Afghan men hijacked an aircraft to escape the Taliban
They flew the aircraft to the UK
The aircraft landed at Stansted airport after various stopovers
Argued they had the right to remain in the uk
Were convicted of hijacking and false imprisonment (keeping the people on the plane on the plane)
Sentenced to 5 years in prison
Convictions were quashed because of misdirection’s to the jury
Adjudicators said returning them to Afghanistan would breach their human rights
Ruled unlawful under immigration act to restrict the mens leave to remain in the uk and it was ordered that they should be granted discretionary leave to remain and should be able to live and work in the uk
Challenged by the then home secretary without sucess
Elan-Cane
- seeking a gender neutral passport
- rights engaged under art 8 of european convention and she should be entitiled to a passport with the gender marked as x
- reached uk court challenging the passport agency for refusing her to have a passport without a gender noted
- If the Human Rights Act were to be interpreted as giving judges the right to find breaches of Convention rights even where the European Court would hold that United Kingdom law was in conformity with the Convention, there would be a substantial expansion of the constitutional powers of the judiciary at the expense of Parliamen
- Conclusion – not something the judges could order - couldnt say she should be allowed a gender neutral passport
- Would be going beyond what the European court of human rights would say
- Went to echr to argue it there having exhausted all options in uk -
cases suggesting judges go to far so should repeal hra
s and others
elan cane
Leigh & others
After sarah Everard’s death was a call for a vigil in london called reclaim these streets
They were told they couldnt have a vigil to highlight the risk for women’s safety as London was under tier 4 lockdown restrictions 2021, could only meet in groups with up to 30 people
Met police said claimants werent allowed to as it broke covid rules – prohibition on gatherings and n exception on the right to protest
Claimants canceled the vigil
People still met – criticism of police for handcuffing women and them being taken
Reached the court – was looking to see if the decision of the police was proportionate or went too far
High court said they the police acted unlawfully when making decisions leading to the cancelling of the protest
Court were reinforcing the importance of freedom of expression and assembly
But interesting as there was a public emergency hence the restrictions
Police could argue against a protest because the law prohibited gathering of groups
Was disproportionate still despite this
Police tried to appeal court refused it – said there was no arguable basis for claiming the high court decision was wrong
conservative 2015 manifesto
The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of
Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK
actual bill of rights 2022-2023 as introduced section 2
(2) In particular, this Act clarifies and re-balances the relationship
between courts 5 in the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human
Rights and Parliament by ensuring—
(a) that it is the Supreme Court (and not the European Court of
Human 10 Rights) that determines the meaning and effect of Convention rights for the purposes of domestic law
(b) that courts are no longer required to read and give effect to legislation, so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights
clause 1 of the actual bill of rights 2022-2023 as introduced section 3
(3) It is affirmed that judgments, decisions and interim measures of the European 20 Court of Human Rights—
(a) are not part of domestic law, and
(b) do not affect the right of Parliament to legislate
Clause 3 of the bill interpretation of the convention rights part 3
A court determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right—
(a) may not adopt an interpretation of the right that expands the protection conferred by the right unless the court has no reasonable doubt that the European Court of Human Rights would adopt that interpretationf the case were before it;
(b) 30 subject to paragraph (a), may adopt an interpretation of the right that diverges from Strasbourg jurisprudence.
tonay balir in s and others
‘an abuse of common sense’
