Case Comment: The Legality of ‘Kettling’ after Austin

This case comment considers the European Court of Human Rights decision of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 14. Austin claimed, unsuccessfully, that police kettling at a public protest in London amounted to a violation of her right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This case comment suggests that the court took an unexpected and unorthodox approach to the issue of ‘deprivation’ within Article 5. This decision may come to undermine the protections afforded by Article 5 and extend the current exceptions to Article 5 to an indefinite range of situations.     

Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom: Sensible Dialogue or a Bad Case of Strasbourg Jitters?

In Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom a majority of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK's statutory broadcasting ban on political advertisements under the Communications Act 2003 did not breach the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment departs from the Court's established case law and, it is argued, raises several issues of concern both with regard to freedom of expression, and for human rights adjudication more generally. In particular, the Court's use of a doctrine of ‘general measures’ led it to place a great deal of reliance on the quality and quantity of legislative debate that preceded the UK ban, rather than its actual impact upon the applicant.     

Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK Law: Implications for education

This article focuses on the UK government's proposal to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, and the consequences of incorporation for the individual in the context of education. The first part of the article explores the mechanisms proposed for bringing about incorporation, and stresses in particular the importance attached by the government to upholding the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. In this context it emphasises the government's decision to deny to the British courts the capacity to strike down legislative provisions as being incompatible with Convention rights. The second part of the article goes on to explore (highly selectively) a number of key areas in which incorporation of the ECHR has the potential to enhance individual rights in the field of education, including parental choice of school, collective worship and religious education, and aspects of the secular curriculum. The discussion emphasises strongly the likely significance of the UK government's reservation to the second sentence of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Broadly, the conclusion drawn is that the incorporation of the Convention will have only a very marginal impact on the reality of individual rights to education.     

EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation

After the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights the EU will become subject to legally binding judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and participate in statutory bodies of the Council of Europe (Parliamentary Assembly; Committee of Ministers) when they act under the Convention. Convention rights and their interpretation by the ECtHR will be directly enforceable against the EU institutions and against Member States when acting within the scope of EU law. This will vest the ECHR with additional force in a number of Member States, including Germany and the UK. All Member States will further be subject to additional constraints when acting under the Convention system. The article considers the reasons for, and consequences of the EU's primus inter pares position under the Convention and within the Council of Europe, and the likely practical effect of the EU's accession for its Member States.     

Pre-Trial Defence Rights and the Fair Use of Eyewitness Identification Procedures

This paper sets out the normative basis of a claim to procedural rights concerning the fair use of eyewitness identification procedures. It is argued that there are two aspects to suspects' procedural rights. The first aims to secure an opportunity for the suspect to participate in procedures where doing so might result in exculpatory evidence (a participatory right). The second is the state's obligation to take reasonable measures to prevent wrongful conviction on the basis of mistaken identification by providing the suspect with a satisfactory degree of procedural accuracy (a protective right). This normative analysis provides the basis of a claim that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a suspect with similar rights. The final part of the paper considers whether domestic procedure is compatible with these putative rights, and whether it could be said to provide an effective remedy if they were to be breached.     

Human Rights Watch v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Victim Status,Extraterritoriality and the Search for Principled Reasoning

In Human Rights Watch v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that the relevant standard of ‘victim status’ that applies in secret surveillance cases consists in a potential risk of being subjected to surveillance and that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply to the surveillance of individuals who reside outside of the UK. This note argues that the Tribunal's finding regarding the victim status of the applicants was sound but that the underlying reasoning was not. It concludes that the Tribunal's finding on extraterritoriality is unsatisfactory and that its engagement with the European Court of Human Rights case law on the matter lacked depth. Finally, the note considers the defects of the Human Rights Watch case, and the case law on extraterritoriality more generally, against the backdrop of the place of principled reasoning in human rights adjudication.     

Redfearn v UK: Political Association and Dismissal

In Redfearn v UK the European Court of Human Rights examined the question whether dismissal for membership of a political party is compatible with freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court endorsed a strong commitment to multi‐party democracy and protection of employees against the domination of the employers. This note discusses the judgment and its implications for UK law, looking at three key issues: first, whether the law of unfair dismissal provides effective protection against action that poses a threat to the enjoyment of Convention rights; second, the grounds under which an employer may justify the lawfulness of a dismissal that interferes with a Convention right; third, the available remedies against the employer when there is a breach of a Convention right.     

A study of section 3 of the Maltese Official Secrets Act,its Canadian and British counterparts and its effects on freedom of expression

This article answers the question whether s 3(1) of the Maltese Official Secrets Act breaches freedom of expression as contained in art 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and s 41 of the Constitution of Malta. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights is briefly analysed in the light of obtaining case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 3(1) of the Maltese Official Secrets Act – which finds counterparts in several Commonwealth criminal law statutes – is subsequently studied by reference to United Kingdom and Canadian case law. A freedom of expression impact assessment of s 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act is carried out with the ensuing conclusion being that only s 3(1)(c) of the Maltese Official Secrets Act might, in certain circumstances, constitute a breach of art 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and s 41 of the Constitution of Malta.     

欧洲人权法院对质询问规则的转变及启示-以“卡瓦贾诉英国案”为主线的考察

由《欧洲人权公约》第6条第3款d项之规定所形成的对质询问规则，在欧洲人权法院审理“卡瓦贾诉英国”一案之后发生了根本性的变化，即从“唯一或决定性规则”转变为了以“三步审查规则”为内容的“卡瓦贾检验标准”。导致这一变化的原因，不仅源于英国法的影响，也有欧洲人权法院对公正标准的调校以及应对案件激增的考虑。而以该案为主线的考察对我国无疑也有着积极的借鉴意义。     

The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Criminal Suspect

In In re JR38, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a 14 year‐old boy who argued that the dissemination of his image, taken whilst he was participating in sectarian rioting, to local newspapers, violated his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Court was divided on whether or not the measures taken by the police engaged the applicant's Article 8(1) rights at all. This case raises fundamental questions as to the scope of private life in the context of criminal investigations, and the place of the European Court of Human Rights’ ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test in determining whether Article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged. This case comment subjects the majority's interpretation of Article 8(1) to critical scrutiny, concluding that this interpretation may unduly restrict the scope of Article 8 protection for those subject to criminal investigations.     

O'Keeffe v Ireland: The Liability of States for Failure to Provide an Effective System for the Detection and Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse in Education

In O'Keeffe v Ireland, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that Ireland failed to protect the applicant from sexual abuse suffered as a child in an Irish National School in 1973 and violated her rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This note argues that the decision is important in expanding the Court's jurisprudence regarding positive obligations under Article 3 to child sexual abuse in a non‐state setting where there was no knowledge of a ‘real and immediate’ risk to the applicant. It also argues that the case raises concerns about the Court's methodology for the historical application of the Convention and about the interaction of Article 3 positive obligations with vicarious liability in common law tort regimes.     

Unravelling Osman

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom , decided in October 1998, has proved very controversial. Its implications for the UK law of negligence appear to be immense. Not the least of the complexities associated with the decision is the widespread perception that the reasoning of the Court is extremely difficult to understand, indeed, that it is at times contradictory. This article subjects the Osman judgment to close analysis. It explains the Court's approach to Article 6(1) by reference to the way in which the Strasbourg court has over many years developed its case law on this provision. The article includes an overview of the way in which, so far, the decision has been deployed in UK law. The author suggests that, whatever about the actual result of the case, the reasoning of the European Court in Osman is deeply flawed, and that the UK judiciary should be mindful of this fact when considering its deployment in domestic law.     

The future of claims to resist removal by non-nationals suffering from HIV/AIDS

The focus of this article is to consider the difficulties facing non-nationals suffering HIV/AIDS to resist removal to their countries of origin where there is no or inadequate medical treatment. The link between HIV/AIDS and migration will be explored illustrating the vulnerability of displaced people to the virus. The current UK legal position for those attempting to resist removal in such circumstances will be explored. The article will explore two potential avenues that may prevent removal of non-nationals with HIV/AIDS to countries with limited access to the necessary treatment. In the first instance consideration of Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will be made with particular emphasis on mother and child claims. The second argument will examine the potential for refugee claims under Article 1A (2) Refugee Convention 1951 where an applicant may be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution because of membership to a particular social group. The authors will particularly emphasise the argument that in certain countries sufferers will experience ostracism and victimisation where its severity may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and persecution under the Refugee Convention. Vanessa Bettinson and Dr Alwyn Jones, senior lecturers, De Montfort University. The authors would like to thank Professor Tony Barnett at London School of Economics for his useful and invaluable thoughts and comments. We would also like to thank our colleague Gavin Dingwall and the students in our 2006/07 Immigration and Refugee Law seminars for their very helpful feedback.     

The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law

The evolution of the European human rights regime is often described as the development of an integrated order with the European Convention of Human Rights as its governing 'constitutional instrument'. It is argued that the regime is better regarded as pluralist - characterised by a heterarchical relationship between its constituent parts that is ultimately defined politically and not legally. The emergence and workings of this pluralist order are traced through the interaction of the European Court of Human Rights with domestic courts in the European Union. These cases not only show conflicts over questions of ultimate supremacy but also significant convergence and harmony in practice. The analysis of the factors leading to this convergence indicates that central characteristics of pluralism – incrementalism and the openness of ultimate authority – have contributed significantly to the generally smooth evolution of the European human rights regime. This suggests a broader appeal of pluralist models as alternatives to constitutionalism in the construction of postnational authority and law.     

A Foetal Right to Life? The Case of Vo v France

This article examines the scope of application of Article 2of the European Convention on Human Rights, to the unborn foetus.The focus of the articles is on the case of Vo v France, and,in particular, on the jurisprudence of the European Court ofHuman Rights on a state's obligation to protect life in respectof both voluntary and involuntary, negligent terminations ofpregnancies. The last part of the article reviews abortion lawsin Europe and the US and suggests that a gradualist moral perspectiveon the status of the embryo could justify the imposition ofcriminal penalties for foetal death caused by violent conductagainst a pregnant woman without prejudice to the rights ofthe woman.     

How to control interception-does the UK strike the right balance?

This Article critically analyses the regime for intercepting the content of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the light of the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Kennedy v the UK. It looks at the safeguards for privacy protection provided such as the requirement for a warrant and the roles of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Interception of Communications Commissioner and whether these safeguards are compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.     

The University of Barchester,Coketown University,Ipswich Cathedral Choir School,Gas Street Comprehensive School and the European Convention on Human Rights: A link?

This article focuses on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and especially Article 6 entitled Right to a Fair and Public Hearing , all now fully incorporated into the UK via the Human Rights Act (HRA, 1997). This article discusses the implications for UK education institutions and the potential conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visitor in English chartered universities and colleges. Also discussed are UK schools, colleges and universities as 'public authorities' and 'emanations of the state', the creation of a Higher Education Ombudsman as a 'Super-Visitor' or 'HERO' (Higher Education Regulatory Office), the impact of HRA and ECHR less dramatic for schools than for universities (or at least for the Visitor function within them), and finally the coming three decades of legal uncertainty and fees for lawyers.     

A Behavioural Understanding of Privacy and its Implications for Privacy Law

This article draws upon social interaction theory (the work of Irwin Altman) to develop a theory of the right to privacy, which reflects the way that privacy is experienced. This theory states that the right to privacy is a right to respect for barriers, and that an invasion of privacy occurs when a privacy barrier is penetrated. The first part of the paper establishes the position of the author's theory in the existing scholarship. The second part of the paper expands upon the theory to explain the nature of privacy barriers and the way that the author's theory manages a number of specific privacy issues, including threats to privacy, attempted invasions of privacy, unforeseeable interferences with privacy and waiving the right to privacy. The final part of the paper demonstrates the impact that this approach to privacy could have upon judicial reasoning, in particular Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.     

Workplace Monitoring and the Right to Private Life at Work

In Barbulescu v Romania, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the application of the Article 8 right to private life in the workplace, and the extent of the state's positive obligations to protect the right against workplace monitoring. The decision establishes that there is an irreducible core to the right to private life at work that does not depend on an employee's reasonable expectations of privacy, and sets out clear principles for striking a fair balance between Article 8 and the employer's interests in the context of workplace monitoring. This article considers the nature of states’ positive obligation to protect human rights at work, the scope of the right to private life, and the impact of the decision on domestic law of unfair dismissal.     

Inhuman and Degrading Punishment,Dignity, and the Limits of Retribution

The recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Vinter and others v United Kingdom provides a much needed clarification of the parameters of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as it applies to whole life orders of imprisonment under mandatory life sentences – essentially, life imprisonment without parole. The Grand Chamber's judgment refines Strasbourg doctrine on life imprisonment and the prospect of release and illuminates key principles concerning inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the ECHR. This article considers the judgment's profound significance in relation to both human rights and penology.