Art 8 - Right to Private + Family Life

Question 1

What is Art 8

Answer 1

• Qualified, civil/political, 1st gen, emerging
• Broad right = everyone has right (Reck v UK)
• Balance competing interests
• 8(1) = everyone has right to respect for private + family life, home + corrospondence
• Aim = protect against arb state interference
• Respect = not interefere + protect (Sheffield + Horsham v UK)
• Everyone
  –> MS citizen (Klass v Germany)
  –> Business (Niemietz v Germany)
  –> Ltd companies

Question 2

Private life

Answer 2

• Scope = gender, physical + physiological identity, personal data, name, image, reputation
• Private life (Pretty v UK)
• Sexual identity/gender (Dudgeon v UK, Goodwin v UK, AB v SS Justice, BB v UK, ADJ v UK)
• Sex life (wide margin)
  –> Laskey/Jaggard/Brown
• Reproductive right (Evans v UK)
• Media/celebrity/press
  –> Douglas v Hello, Campbell v MGN, PSJ v News Group Newspapers
• Medical records
  –> MS v Sweden, Axon v SS Health, Roche v UK
• DNA/police records
  –> S+Marper v UK, Gaughess v UK, Bridges v S.Wales Police, R v CC Greater Manchester

Question 3

Family life

Answer 3

• Scope = marriage, relationships, children, care/adoption, break ups (migration)
• Family
  –> Based on bio+social (Kroon v Netherlands)
  –> Close family ties (Lebbink v Netherlands)
• Care proceedings
  –> Gaskin v UK, Johansen v Norway
• Immigration + asylum
  –> Not apply to shams
  –> Not extend to relationships w/ foreigners
  –> Can maintain relationship overseas (Agyarko + Ikuga v Home Dept)

Question 4

Home life

Answer 4

• Right to enjoy home w/out interference (state cannot interfere w/out good reason)
• Living article (pollution)
• Not include duty to provide home/acc
• Right to not be evicted
  –> Lawful traveller sites (Connors v UK, Price v Leeds City Council)
  –> Not private disputes (McDonald v McDonald)
  –> Can include work from home (Niemietz v Germany)
• Peaceful enjoyment of home
  –> Exposure to noise/ pollution (Hatton v UK)

Question 5

Corrospondence

Answer 5

• Scope = all forms of communication
• Personal corro allowed at work (Barbulescu v Romania)
• Bulk surveillance (Big Brother Watch + oth v UK)

Question 6

8(2) limitations

Answer 6

• In accordance with law
  –> Malone v Laskey
• Necessary in demo society
  –> Responds to pressing social need
• Proportionate
  –> Aim justifies interference
  –> Interference connected to aim
  –> Not arb/unfair/irr
  –> Minimal interference (not severe as to outweigh)
• For legit aim
  –> National security (Klass v Germany
  –> Public safety/econ
  –> Crime/disorder
  –> Health/morals (Brown/Dudeon v UK)
  –> Oth rights/freedoms (Smith+Grady v UK, Buckley v UK, Gillow v UK)
• Breach = burden of proof on state
• Margin of appt = leeway for moral issues (Handyside v UK, Rees v UK)

Question 7

UK privacy laws

Answer 7

• Breach of confidence (Wainwright, Campbell, Chappell v UK)
• Defamation
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Data Protection Act 1998
• RIPA 2000/IPA 2016