Human Rights Flashcards
Simms (2000)
Principle of legality - Parliament can only restrict rights where they accept the political costs and use clear and unambiguous words.
Sunday Times v UK
Sunday Times wished to write about the thalidomide problems, it was held that to prevent them from doing so would breach Article 10 of the ECHR.
Soering v UK
S was being extradited to America where he would be likely to face the death penalty. The extradition would breach Article 3 due to the death row phenomenon (mental problems caused by waiting to be executed for years).
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004)
Spouses could succeed to tenancy of deceased spouse, legislation referred to “a person living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband” - could not be read in a way which would allow for homosexual couples. The rule would conflict with Article 8, but it couldn’t be rectified by using Article 3, as this is limited to situations where there is ambiguity as to the meaning of the statute. They cannot adopt an interpretation contrary to a fundamental feature of the legislation.
R (Anderson) v SSHD
Under legislation at the time, tariffs for life sentences were set by the Home sec, there was no independent tribunal - held that the question of this rule’s compatibility with Article 8 wasn’t one which the courts should decide.
Bellinger v Bellinger
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 gave parties not being respectively male and female as a reason for a non valid marriage, this rule was challenged by a post operative transsexual, the domestic court could follow a previous ECHR decision, there was no valid marriage, the rule needed to be changed but it could only be done by Parliament.
A and Others v SSHD (Belmarsh Detainees)
Derogation made to the Human Rights Act after 9/11 allowing for foreign nationals suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely without charge. Held that the derogation was allowed, but it had to be proportionate, and it was not. It interfered with Article 5 and was discriminatory in relation to Article 14.
Smith v Scott
Consideration by Scottish court as to the legality of ban against prisoners voting, in Hirst v UK the ECHR held that the ban violated the convention, the Scottish court made a declaration of incompatibility.
R (Chester) v SS for Justice
Issue of prisoners voting was before Parliament anyway, court decided making a further declaration of incompatibility would be pointless.
Campbell v MGN Ltd
Photos of the claimant had been published in the newspapers, she claimed her Article 8 rights had been breached. Court couldn’t apply Article 8 against MGN as it wasn’t a public body, but held that since the Human Rights Act common law rights have developed to include the values of the convention, so the common law tort of breach of confidence had developed to cover Article 8. However - this decision was exceptional and hasn’t been applied since.
Alconbury (2001)
In the absence of special circumstances, courts should follow clear ECHR jurisprudence, if they do not the case could go to the ECHR who would follow their own decision anyway.
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
Confirmed Alconbury, said the ECHR gave the correct interpretation of convention rights, domestic courts should keep pace with the ECHR, courts shouldn’t interpret the convention in a way which would give less rights than the ECHR.
AF (No 3) v SSHD
To not follow a ECHR decision would breach international obligations.
R (Quila) v SSHD
Departed from ECHR due to no consistent precedent
R v Horncastle
UK court declined to follow ECHR precedent due to the ECHR not always understanding the subtleties of the UK legal system.
