Human Rights Unit 1 Flashcards
A solicitor is considering a potential claim against a public authority for a number of potential breaches of human rights within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights as set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Which of the following statements best describes the position on the absolute rights contained in the Convention?
A. The absolute rights contained in the Convention include: the right to life; the right to liberty and security of the person and the right to respect for private and family life.
B. The absolute rights contained in the Convention include: the right to life; the right to freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment; and the right to freedom from slavery.
C. The absolute rights contained in the Convention include: the right to freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment; the right to liberty and security of the person and the right to freedom of expression.
D. The absolute rights contained in the Convention include: the right to life; the right to liberty and security of the person; and the right to freedom of expression.
E. The absolute rights contained in the Convention include: the right to life; the right to a fair trial; and the right for respect for private and family life
Correct answer is B
B is the only set of rights in the options which lists only absolute rights, i.e. Article 2 (the right to life); Article 3 (the right to freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 4 (the right to freedom from slavery).
The other options are all wrong as they do not encapsulate the correct set of absolute rights.
Which one of the following combinations of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights consists only of ‘qualified’ rights?
A. Articles 3 and 4
B. Articles 2, 5 and 6
C. Articles 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11
D. Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11
Correct answer is D
Articles 8-11 are all qualified rights which means that the state can interfere with them provided that the interference is prescribed by law; for a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society.
Articles 3 and 4 are absolute. Article 5 is limited. Articles 2 and 6 have been variously described as absolute and limited, but never as qualified.
Which of the following statements is correct in relation to Article 15 of the ECHR?
A. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State may derogate from part of the Convention as long as such derogation is proportionate.
B. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State may derogate from certain Articles of the Convention “in time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
C. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State may derogate from any of the Articles of the Convention “in time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
D. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a State can derogate from certain Articles of the Convention because it is allowed “a margin of appreciation”.
Correct answer is B
It is possible to derogate from some, but not all of the Articles of the Convention in time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Which of the following statements is WRONG in relation to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)?
A. The ECtHR may reinterpret the ECHR over time as it is a ‘living instrument’.
B. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for ensuring that the judgments of the ECtHR are complied with by the signatory states.
C. The decisions of the ECtHR have direct binding force in the signatory states.
D. Cases may be brought before the ECtHR either on an inter-state basis or by individual application
Correct answer is C.
Decisions of the ECtHR are only binding as a matter of international law and have no direct binding force in domestic law.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court must award damages to the victim of an unlawful act.
B. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court may award damages to the victim of an unlawful act but only if that victim has suffered physical injury or monetary loss.
C. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court must award damages to the victim of an unlawful act if the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim.
D. Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, a court may award damages to the victim of an unlawful act if the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim.
Correct answer is D
Section 8 of the Human Rights Act enables a court to grant any relief or remedy within its powers. This will include the power to award damages, but such damages may be awarded only if necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim of an unlawful act. An award of damages under s 8 is discretionary.
The Supreme Court is a public authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.
A. True
B. False
TRUE
This statement is true. Although s 6 does not provide a full definition of the meaning of the term ‘public authority’, it does state that a court or tribunal will be such a body. The Supreme Court clearly falls within this.
Which one of the following statements is WRONG?
A. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to defend any person from unlawful violence.
B. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to prevent the destruction of property of historical, cultural or religious significance.
C. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.
D. Deprivation of life will not be in breach of Article 2 if it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary to lawfully quell a riot or insurrection
Correct answer is B
Article 2(2) provides that deprivation of life which results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary will not contravene Article 2 if it is for the one of the reasons set out in A, C or D. The Article makes no reference to the destruction of property of historical, cultural or religious significance.
Which of the following statements is correct?
A. Article 3 imposes a qualified duty on the state not to deport a person who would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.
B. Article 3 imposes an absolute duty on the state not to deport a person who would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.
C. Article 3 imposes no duty on the state not to deport a person who would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.
D. Article 3 does not apply to deportation cases if the person to be deported is a suspected terrorist
Correct answer is B
There are no circumstances in which a state could deport an individual and not be in breach of Article 3, if there is a real risk that the individual would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state (Chahal v United Kingdom).
Which one of the following statements is correct?
A. Compulsory military service amounts to forced or compulsory labour.
B. Servitude is when someone is owned by another person.
C. Work done by convicted prisoners as part of their sentence does not amount to forced or compulsory labour.
D. An individual can be subject to forced labour even if they are not exploited
C is correct
That’s right, compulsory military service is not forced labour and neither is work done by convicted prisoners as part of their sentence. It is an essential element of forced labour that an individual is exploited. Slavery is when someone is owned by another; servitude includes an obligation for the serf to live on the property of another
The absolute rights in the ECHR are set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4.
A. True
B. False
FALSE
Articles 2, 3 and 4 are all absolute rights, but they are not the only absolute rights contained in the ECHR. Other absolute rights include the right to marry (Article 12) and the right to free elections by secret ballot (Article 3 of the First Protocol).
Standing at a bus stop, a man who is carrying a heavy rucksack is watched by armed security officers who have been instructed that he is a terrorist about to blow up a bus. As the bus pulls up, the security officers shout to stop the man from boarding bus but he ignores them. The security officers shout for a second time and, when ignored again, fire shots into the man who dies instantly. On checking the man’s body, they discover that he is wearing earphones and his rucksack is full of University library books.
The man’s parents believe that the government has breached their son’s Article 2 ECHR right to life. Are they able to take the government to court?
A. No, because the security officers acted reasonably in the circumstances. They believed that he was taking a bomb onto the bus and he failed to follow two orders to stop.
B. No, because only a person who is directly affected by the action of a public authority may claim a breach of their human rights.
C. No, because only the Crown Prosecution Service can decide to indict on a murder charge and are unlikely to do so since it was a matter of national security.
D. Yes, because a breach of Article 2 results in the death of the victim who cannot then take the matter to court personally. Next of kin, the parents here, can launch a challenge.
E. Yes, because they can write immediately to the European Court of Human Rights and ask for prosecution of the UK government for breaching their son’s Article 2 right to life.
Correct answer is D
D is the correct answer here because, although only a directly affected victim can claim a breach of rights, an exception is made for Article 2 where the victim is dead. The next of kin may do so in his place.
A is wrong because it describes a defence to any such action and not whether the action may be taken in the first place.
B is wrong because the victim of a breach of Article2 rights is dead. It would be unfair if no challenge could be made by anyone else.
C is wrong because the parents do have the option to take the matter to court. The Crown Prosecution Service does, however, have the right to indict as well if they choose to do so.
E is wrong, because although the parents do have the right to approach the European Court of Human Rights directly, they cannot do so immediately. They must exhaust domestic remedies first.
An Egyptian citizen fled to the UK when he discovered that he was wanted in Egypt for taking part in a political demonstration. Whilst in the UK he was convicted of armed robbery. The UK government now wishes to deport him. The Egyptian citizen has evidence to show that if returned to Egypt he will be arrested and tortured for his part in the political demonstration and there is a real risk that he would be executed.
What is the Egyptian citizen’s legal position with respect to rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’)?
A. He will be unable to rely on his rights under the ECHR as he is a citizen of a country which is not a signatory to that treaty.
B. He will be able to rely on his rights under Article 2 ECHR as his life is at real risk and Article 3 ECHR as he will be tortured if returned to Egypt.
C. He will be unable to rely on his rights under the ECHR as he has been convicted of a serious offence.
D. He will be able to rely on Article 2 alone because anything less than a real risk of death would not be a defence to deportation for such a serious offence.
E. He will be able to rely on Article 3 alone as it is not certain that he would be executed.
Correct answer is B
B is the correct answer - the Egyptian citizen will be able to rely on his rights under Article 2 ECHR as his life is at real risk and Article 3 ECHR as he will be tortured if returned to Egypt.
A and C are wrong as protections within the ECHR apply to all people within the jurisdiction of the UK, regardless of their nationality and whatever their circumstances.
D is wrong as Article 3 could also be relied on in these circumstances (Soering v UK)
E is wrong as it is enough that there is a ‘real risk’ of the death penalty – it does not need to be certain.
The rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have been divided into three types, absolute, limited and qualified. This has mostly been done through cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights, although absolute rights are defined within the ECHR itself. Amongst the qualified rights is Article 10 which protects freedom of expression.
Which of the following statements best defines a qualified right?
A. A State may restrict the right in order to protect the public interest.
B. A State can interfere with the right in precisely defined ways.
C. A State can ignore the right if it wishes to do so.
D. A State can never interfere with a qualified right.
E. A State can change the meaning of the right should it choose to do so
Correct answer is A
A is correct because qualified rights can be restricted if the public interest prevails.
B is wrong because it describes a limited right in that it can be restricted in clearly defined and finite situations.
C is wrong because signatories to the ECHR are obliged to respect rights.
D is wrong because it describes an absolute right which is one which cannot be interfered with under any circumstance.
E is wrong because it is the European Court of Human Rights that determines the meaning of rights.
A country which is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) has asked the UK Government to extradite a woman living in the UK to stand trial for murder in that country. The woman holds the nationality of the country requesting her extradition, but not of any other country. The Secretary of State has ordered the woman’s extradition and the woman has appealed to the High Court against the extradition order. During the hearing she produces evidence that she could face the death penalty if extradited and the High Court accepts the woman’s evidence.
Which of the following best explains whether the High Court would uphold the extradition order?
A. It would not uphold the order because the Convention prohibits extradition to non-signatory countries.
B. It would not uphold the order because extraditing a person to stand trial for an offence which could result in the imposition of the death penalty would violate that person’s Convention rights.
C. It would not uphold the order because extraditing a person to stand trial for an offence which could result in the imposition of the death penalty fails to strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community.
D. It would uphold the order because it is not certain that the death penalty would be imposed on the woman if she was extradited.
E. It would uphold the order because the Convention only protects the rights of people who hold the nationality of a state that has signed the Convention.
Correct answer is B
Extraditing a person to a country where they could face the penalty would breach Article 2 (right to life) and probably also Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) (Soering and Article 1 of the 13th Protocol (abolition of the death penalty).
Option A is wrong because the Convention does not prohibit extradition to non-signatory countries.
Option C is wrong as the right to life and prohibition of torture are absolute rights and, unlike qualified rights, do not involve a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the interest of the community.
Option D is wrong as it is sufficient to engage Articles 2 and 3 if there is a possibility of the death penalty being imposed.
Option E is wrong as the Convention covers nationals of non-signatory states resident in signatory states.
In response to a spate of terrorist bombings in the UK, Parliament passes an Act of Parliament which grants emergency powers to the Minister for Anti-Terrorism allowing him to take ‘such steps as are deemed necessary’ to deal with the emergency. The security services have detained a suspect who they are sure knows the identity of the bombers. They ask the Minister to authorise enhanced interrogation of the suspect to include sleep deprivation and the holding of stress positions. Acting under his statutory powers the Minister authorises the use of enhanced interrogation.
Will the Minister be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’)?
A. No, because the terrorist situation amounts to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and so the UK can derogate from the ECHR.
B. No, because he has statutory authority for his actions.
C. Yes, because Article 15 only allows derogation from the ECHR where this is strictly necessary which it would not be on the facts.
D. Yes, because it is not possible to derogate from Article 3 and the enhanced interrogation techniques would amount to torture.
E. Yes, because it is not possible to derogate from Article 3 and the enhanced interrogation techniques would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Correct answer is E
the enhanced interrogation techniques would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (Ireland v UK). It is not possible to derogate from Article 3.
Although the terrorist situation is likely to amount to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, no derogation is possible from Article 3, so A is wrong.
The fact that the Minister has statutory authority for his actions will not prevent him from being in breach of the ECHR, so B is wrong.
The UK may be able to argue that the action it took is ‘strictly necessary’, but it is unnecessary to decide this, since no derogation is possible, so C is wrong.
The enhanced interrogation techniques will not amount to torture so D is wrong (Ireland v UK)
