Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Art. 8 &10 (Preliminaries (Standing (ss 7(7) & 7(1) HRA 1998 (Art…

- - - - Art 34 ECHR
        
        Any person, NGO or group claiming to be a victim (i.e. with legal personality)
        
        Victim = directly affected by actual/potential breach (Klass v Germany)
  - - - Core
        
        Central gov departments
        
        local authorities
        
        Police
        
        HMRC
        
        White Paper, 'Rights Brought Home'
        
        Aston Cantlow
        
        Possession of special powers
        
        Democratic accountability
        
        Public funding
        
        An obligation to act only in the public interest
        
        Statutory constitution
      - Hybrid
        
        Public function
        
        Aston Cantlow
        
        Extent to which function carried out is publicly funded
        
        Exercising statutory power
        
        Taking place of central government or local authorities
- - - - Physical, mental and moral integrity (Costello-Roberts v UK)
        
        Personal identity (Von Hannover v Germany)
        
        Positive obligation in some cases (Osman v UK)
        
        Wide ambit (R (Purdy) v DPP)
      - Sexual Orientation
        
        Prohibition on homosexual conduct (Dudgeon v UK; ADT v UK)
      - Gender recognition
        
        Impeding rights of trans (Bellinger v Bellinger)
        
        Personal identity (S and Marper v UK)
        
        Data retention (R (C) v SoS for Work and Pensions; R (T) v CC Greater Manchester; R (Catt) v MPC; R (H) v A City Council)
      - Searches of the person
        
        Terrorism Act (Gillan and Quinton v UK)
        
        Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (R (Roberts) v MPC)
      - State surveillance
        
        Retention of photos of peaceful protester (R (Wood) v MPC)
        
        Listening devices (Khan v UK)
        
        Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
    - - Family wider than traditional family unit
        
        Not limited to marital relationships (Kroon v Netherlands)
      - Separating family members e.g. by deportation or refusing entry
        
        Does not impose general obligation to accept non-national spouses for residence (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UK)
        
        Denial of marriage visas to under 21s (Quila v SoS for Home Department)
        
        Deportation (Hesham Ali v SoS for HD; R (Johnson) v SoS for HD; R (Kiarie) v SoS for HD)
      - Parenthood (Evans v UK)
        
        Even for prisoners (Dickson v UK)
        
        But no right to sex (Aliev v Ukraine; Kalashnikov v Russia; ELH v PBH v UK)
    - - Moving exceptionally vulnerable individuals (R (Coughlan) v N and E Devon Health Authority)
      - In special cases eviction can violate (Harrow LBC v Qazi; Manchester CC v Pinnock)
      - Entitled to be free of quality effecting interferences (Hatton v UK)
    - - Prisoner's correspondence should only be opened if reasonable cause to believe illicit enclosure (Cambpbell v UK)
        
        Particular protection to correspondence with solicitor (R (Daly) v SoS for HD)
        
        Have few fundamental rights left so they become even more important (Lord Bingham)
- - - - Sunday Times v UK test
        
        Accessible
        
        Clear
        
        Gillan & Quinton v UK extension
        
        Law sufficient narrowly prescribed to prevent abuse of power
    - - National security
        
        Observer and Guardian v UK
        
        Terrorism (Brind v SoS for HD; Brind v UK)
        
        vs Journalism (R (Miranda) v SoS for HD)
      - Public safety
      - Economic well-being of country
      - Prevention of disorder or crime
        
        R (Laporte) v CC of Gloucestershire; R (Gallestequi) v Westminster CC
      - Protection of health or morals
        
        Health (Open Door Counselling v Ireland)
        
        Morality (Handyside v UK; Muller v Switzerland)
      - Protection of rights or freedom of others
        
        Direct/personal offence to others (Lingens v Austria)
        
        Morality and blasphemy (Wingrove v UK; Lemon v UK; Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria)
    - - Proportionality (Smith & Grady v UK; S and Marper v UK; Quila v SoS for HD)
- - - - Political opinion (Bowman v UK)
        
        Often given stronger protection
      - Journalistic freedom (Goodwin v UK)
        
        Sources (X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian; Goodwin v UK; Financial Times & Others v UK; Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd)
      - Artistic expression (Muller v Switzerland; Wingrove v UK)
      - Commercial information (Colman v UK)
      - 'Freedom of speech is lifeblood of democracy' (ex p Simms per Lord Steyn)
      - "Applies to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population" (Handyside v UK [printed work])
      - Radio and TV (Pro-life Alliance v BBC)
      - Actions/behaviour (Percy v DPP)
    - - Medical (Open door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd v Ireland)
      - Public inquiries/accountability (ex p Wagstaff)
      - No general right of 'freedom of information' (Positive obligation) (R (Persey) v SoS for Environment)