HUMAN RIGHTS CASES AND LEGISLATION
Human Rights Act 1998
Ireland v United Kingdom- Interstate case- rare
Soering v United Kingdom (19890) 11 EHRR 439- Individual Petition- German
national charged with murder of his girlfriend’s parents in Virginia. He was
arrested in the UK and the US sought extradition. He argued extradition
breaches his article 3.
HELD: Death row would be a breach of Article 3, so he would not be put to
death when sentenced. He’s still in prison.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE- ARTICLES 5,6,7
Limited Right
Starrs v Ruxton 2000 JC 208- Temporary sheriff abolition as was affecting Article
6(1). Claimed they were not independent nor impartial as to how they were
appointed- Lord Advocate would appoint annually but was part of the
executive so seen as more risky judgements and taking sides.
HELD: Arrangements were held inconsistent with the security of the position
needed to guarantee the judge's independence. Legislation, in this case, is the
Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014- which addresses inefficiencies. Appeal
Court dealt with this case.
Napier v Scottish Ministers 2005 CSIH- a prisoner in HMP Barlinnie, was
awarded £2,000 in compensation when he took the Scottish prison service to
the court in relation to the practice of inmates at Scottish prisons having to slop
out. The prisoner was held in poor conditions sharing a cell with another
inmate which led to a severe eczema outbreak as well as psychological
damage. He claimed this was a breach of Articles 3 and 8.
HELD: Sought damages. Even though the conditions were not satisfactory, the
breach of Articles 3 and 8 was denied.
Search of individuals with view to arrest- Article 5
THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE- ARTICLE 8
Qualified Right
Kaur v Lord Advocate 1980 SC 319- The mother of 3 British-Born children was
in the UK illegally so was deported. She claimed it breached her Article 8.
, HELD: ECHR was not part of Scots law as Parliament had not passed legislation
giving effect to the treaty.
Khan v United Kingdom, (2010) 50 E.H.R.R. 47- Heroin smuggling. s.3(5)(a) of
the Immigration Act 1971- says a person not a British citizen can be deported if
the Secretary of State deem the deportation to be conducive to the public
good.
HELD: Deportation would be a breach of Article 8. He had a family living in the
UK, and the Court held it would be disproportionate to deport him. The
interference with his Art. 8 rights was not justified under art 8.2.
M v State Hospital Board [2017] UKSC 31- ban on smoking in State Hospitals
was challenged based on article 8.
HELD: Mr McCann’s Article 8 right to privacy has been interfered with, the
smoking ban is within Article 8. The question was whether this was lawful. the
decision to ban was not “in accordance with law” as the Board failed to address
the necessary legal requirements in relation to the part of the ban relating to
the prohibition of possession, searches, and confiscation of tobacco products.
But for this illegality, the decision would not have been contrary to Article 8.
The Board did not act disproportionately in imposing the comprehensive
smoking ban when it did. The smoking ban in prisons and mental health
hospitals is now in force.
Right to Privacy- Surveillance. The privacy of an individual may be breached by
being watched, by a person in a public or private capacity.
Martin v McGuiness, 2003 SLT 1424- sought damages for injuries in a road
accident as well as a declaration that the acts of private investigators were
unlawful and a breach of Article 8. Also sought to exclude evidence from any
proof on the basis that it would infringe Article 6(1) rights.
HELD: No right to privacy as such in Scots law, so could not rely on Article 8.
Norris v UK
HELD: unsuccessful.
Surveillance by public authorities is regulated by three statutes:
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Human Rights Act 1998
Ireland v United Kingdom- Interstate case- rare
Soering v United Kingdom (19890) 11 EHRR 439- Individual Petition- German
national charged with murder of his girlfriend’s parents in Virginia. He was
arrested in the UK and the US sought extradition. He argued extradition
breaches his article 3.
HELD: Death row would be a breach of Article 3, so he would not be put to
death when sentenced. He’s still in prison.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE- ARTICLES 5,6,7
Limited Right
Starrs v Ruxton 2000 JC 208- Temporary sheriff abolition as was affecting Article
6(1). Claimed they were not independent nor impartial as to how they were
appointed- Lord Advocate would appoint annually but was part of the
executive so seen as more risky judgements and taking sides.
HELD: Arrangements were held inconsistent with the security of the position
needed to guarantee the judge's independence. Legislation, in this case, is the
Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014- which addresses inefficiencies. Appeal
Court dealt with this case.
Napier v Scottish Ministers 2005 CSIH- a prisoner in HMP Barlinnie, was
awarded £2,000 in compensation when he took the Scottish prison service to
the court in relation to the practice of inmates at Scottish prisons having to slop
out. The prisoner was held in poor conditions sharing a cell with another
inmate which led to a severe eczema outbreak as well as psychological
damage. He claimed this was a breach of Articles 3 and 8.
HELD: Sought damages. Even though the conditions were not satisfactory, the
breach of Articles 3 and 8 was denied.
Search of individuals with view to arrest- Article 5
THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE- ARTICLE 8
Qualified Right
Kaur v Lord Advocate 1980 SC 319- The mother of 3 British-Born children was
in the UK illegally so was deported. She claimed it breached her Article 8.
, HELD: ECHR was not part of Scots law as Parliament had not passed legislation
giving effect to the treaty.
Khan v United Kingdom, (2010) 50 E.H.R.R. 47- Heroin smuggling. s.3(5)(a) of
the Immigration Act 1971- says a person not a British citizen can be deported if
the Secretary of State deem the deportation to be conducive to the public
good.
HELD: Deportation would be a breach of Article 8. He had a family living in the
UK, and the Court held it would be disproportionate to deport him. The
interference with his Art. 8 rights was not justified under art 8.2.
M v State Hospital Board [2017] UKSC 31- ban on smoking in State Hospitals
was challenged based on article 8.
HELD: Mr McCann’s Article 8 right to privacy has been interfered with, the
smoking ban is within Article 8. The question was whether this was lawful. the
decision to ban was not “in accordance with law” as the Board failed to address
the necessary legal requirements in relation to the part of the ban relating to
the prohibition of possession, searches, and confiscation of tobacco products.
But for this illegality, the decision would not have been contrary to Article 8.
The Board did not act disproportionately in imposing the comprehensive
smoking ban when it did. The smoking ban in prisons and mental health
hospitals is now in force.
Right to Privacy- Surveillance. The privacy of an individual may be breached by
being watched, by a person in a public or private capacity.
Martin v McGuiness, 2003 SLT 1424- sought damages for injuries in a road
accident as well as a declaration that the acts of private investigators were
unlawful and a breach of Article 8. Also sought to exclude evidence from any
proof on the basis that it would infringe Article 6(1) rights.
HELD: No right to privacy as such in Scots law, so could not rely on Article 8.
Norris v UK
HELD: unsuccessful.
Surveillance by public authorities is regulated by three statutes:
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
