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.     

Regulating surrogacy--a contravention of human rights?

On the 2nd of October 2000, The Human Rights Act 1998 came into full force, signalling the incorporation of The European Convention on Human Rights into U.K. law. Areas of law believed to be inconsistent with the Convention may now be challenged in both The European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts. This article considers whether existing laws on the regulation of access to infertility services, in particular surrogacy, will be deemed incompatible with the ECHR. Human rights as enshrined within Articles 8 and 12 will be examined in light of recent suggestions that there may arise legal challenges by those who have had access to reproductive services restricted or denied. It will be shown that, although existing and potential future controls may arguably infringe these rights, it is nevertheless unlikely that they will be held to be in contravention of The Human Rights Act 1998.     

An Equality and Human Rights Commission Worthy of the Name

The Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force on 2 October 2000, enabling the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be relied on directly in our domestic courts.¹ The Act lacked provision for a Human Rights Commission to advise and assist alleged victims in bringing proceedings for breaches of Convention rights, to research, intervene in court proceedings, and promote a culture of human rights, although such a Commission had been created for Northern Ireland. A White Paper has now been issued outlining plans for a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. This paper considers the future role and potential impact of the Commission and highlights opportunities that have been missed since October 2000 in its absence. We focus on its human rights aspects and summarize key conditions for the new Commission's success.     

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the individual's right to treatment

The right to demand treatment--even when life-saving--is not recognised by English common law. The courts have consistently stated that they do not have the jurisdiction to order a doctor to perform a particular treatment. This article considers whether the impending Human Rights Act 1998 can be interpreted so as to allow this right. While a general right to treatment is discussed the argument focuses on life-saving treatment. As an illustration, the David Glass case will be analysed and the impact of the Human Rights Act will be examined by considering how the judgment might have differed had the Act been in force.     

Implications of the Human Rights Act (1998) for schools

The Human Rights Act 1998 finally came into operation on 2 October 2000 for all jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into the UKs domestic laws, means that it will be unlawful for public authorities, which includes the DfEE and LEAs, to act in a way which is incompatible with the fundamental human rights set out in the Convention (found in Schedule 1 to the HRA). Bodies such as schools and their governing bodies, whose functions are of a public nature, are also covered by the legislation. The articles of the Act which have a particular relevance for schools and education are identified. It is probable that pupils and their legal advisers will invoke the Act in disputes over a wide range of educational issues, for example, bullying, exclusions and suspensions. Some of these issues are examined and where possible existing European human rights case law is cited. It is likely that the HRA will create interesting legal challenges involving schools and education, some of which cannot be anticipated at the moment, and that the Act will cause changes to education laws and schools regulatory procedures .     

The negligence of prison authorities and the protection of prisoner’s rights

This article looks at the potential for legal action brought by prisoners (and their dependants) who have suffered from the alleged neglect of the prison authorities. The article will examine the case law in this area to assess the success of prisoners’ negligence claims and whether such claims are unduly fettered by judicial attitudes and other more practical issues such as the difficulty in establishing a breach of duty. In particular the article will consider whether the law and its application has been, or should be, modified in the light of new obligations imposed on public authorities, including the courts, by the Human Rights Act 1998 and by the developing case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Convention rights such as the right to life and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment.     

The judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom: a public choice analysis

The Human Rights Act 1998 unprecedentedly enabled the senior courts in the United Kingdom to review parliamentary enactments for compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. This article seeks to analyze within the framework of public choice economics two phenomena arising from this development that are counterintuitive: What made Parliament voluntarily invite the judiciary to monitor its acts? Why has Parliament consistently complied with rulings of the Judicial House of Lords that challenged primary legislation over the last 10 years? It argues that the Act was designed in a way that fulfilled the electoral commitments of the enacting majority by supplying promised policies to its constituencies, while minimizing agency costs and information problems in favor of Parliament’s corporate interests. Significantly, the Act left intact the veto powers of Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. As such, it disincentivized the Judicial House of Lords to risk costly overturns of its rulings by Parliament for straying too far from the range of the ideal policy positions spanned by Parliament and Strasbourg. Drawing from the empirical evidence of the past decade, it will be shown that in nearly all cases the Law Lords have either upheld the compatibility of challenged statutes, reaffirmed parliamentary preferences, or followed the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.     

The Tide in Favour of Equality: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and England and Wales

The tide in favour of legal equality for gay and lesbian individualsand couples continues to roll forward on both sides of the Atlantic.In Canada, the federal Parliament recently passed legislation(the Civil Marriage Act) (CMA) that extends the legal capacityto marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples throughout thecountry. This change in the law was driven not by the executiveand legislative branches of government but by the courts, interpretingand applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (theCharter). On the other side of the Atlantic, in England andWales, the Westminster Parliament in 2004 passed legislation(the Civil Partnership Act) (CPA) that will enable same-sexcouples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships,and to access most of the legal rights and responsibilitiesoffered to married couples. However, unlike the Canadian legislation,civil marriages between same-sex couples will still not be legallyrecognized. This article considers whether the English courtswill also facilitate the legal recognition of same-sex civilmarriage, like their Canadian counterparts. The author concludesthat, in light of recent case law, there is an increasinglystrong argument that the opposite-sex marriage requirement inEngland and Wales violates Article 14 (the equality provision)of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which isincorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. However,the author also concludes that there are a number of reasonsto be cautious that a positive result would flow, at this point,from a domestic court challenge to the opposite-sex marriagerequirement.     

The Human Rights Act and Legal Culture: The Judiciary and the Legal Profession

The purpose of this article is to consider the effect the United Kingdom’s currently prevailing legal culture is likely to have on the realization of cultural change presaged by the Human Rights Act. The article is in five parts. The first two address the preliminary questions: what is meant by ‘legal culture’ for these purposes, and what type of ‘human rights culture’ does the Human Rights Act envisage? The answers define the scope of the remainder of the article’s inquiry into the ways in which the Act itself and the culture of the United Kingdom legal profession and judiciary are likely to interact. The third part of the article identifies some examples of the sorts of culturally specific aspects of current legal practice which are likely to operate as serious practical constraints on the emergence of a human rights culture worthy of the name, before the fourth part considers what sorts of cultural changes will be required of judges and lawyers for the presaged cultural transformation to come about. Finally, the article asks whether there is any reason to believe that courts and lawyers can find from within their present culture the resources to bring about the necessary shift.     

Standing and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

On 7 June 2018, the UK Supreme Court held that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) did not have standing under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (NIA) and Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to challenge the legality of abortion law in Northern Ireland. This case note argues that while a literal reading of the NIA exposes its inconsistencies, a purposive reading of both the NIA and HRA indicates that the NIHRC should have had standing. The note seeks to highlight the unique democratic function of the NIHRC in a consociational setting in protecting rights that are not represented along ethno‐national lines. It also considers the negative ramifications that the judgment will have on women who have been victims of the legislative regime and seek to challenge the compatibility of Northern Irish abortion law with the HRA in the future.     

Problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 and How to Remedy Them: Is a Bill of Rights the Answer?

Recently there has been much discussion of the prospect of replacing, or supplementing, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a British bill of rights. The Government, opposition Conservative Party and others have published detailed plans and research reports. Whilst there has been some limited examination of the alleged failures of the HRA in providing effective legal protection for human rights, the debate has not been accompanied by a thorough examination of these types of problems with the HRA, free from political criticisms. Drawing on research concerning aspects of the HRA carried out over the past ten years, it is possible to identify concrete problems which have prevented the HRA from meeting the objectives originally set for it. But given the limitations of the present debate, future plans do not adequately address many of these problems making it uncertain how effective any new bill of rights will actually be.     

Unblocking the Digital Economy Act 2010; human rights issues in the UK

Through an example of a study utilizing the case-law research method, this paper critically assesses whether taking into account both the findings of Mr La Rue (the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights) as well as some Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) case-law, website blocking could be implemented in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, with Article 10. Drawing upon, inter alia, Ofcom site blocking review, sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA), section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), and some independent expert evidence, this paper's major argument is that in view of the CJEU SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog, the UK government's decision to repeal the website blocking provisions of the DEA appears appropriate. The paper examines the findings of Fox v BT. It contrasts such findings with the CJEU's case-law and in light of the incompatibility of any website blocking measure with the cumulative three-part test set out in the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights discusses a number of implications. It concludes that given that the implementation of content blocking systems, such as Cleanfeed is likely to result in general monitoring being carried out; the UK government could possibly be in breach of EU law, namely, Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31.     

"Chartering" the limits of involuntary psychiatric treatment in Victoria: interpreting the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) in the age of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)

The Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) allows for individuals with a serious mental illness to be treated on an involuntary basis either in a psychiatric hospital (on an involuntary treatment order) or in the community (on a community treatment order). The Act also establishes the Mental Health Review Board with the authority to review these orders within eight weeks of those orders being made and at least once every 12 months thereafter. This article analyses a recent decision of the board, Re Appeal of 09-085 [2009] VMHRB 1, in which the appellant challenged a decision of a psychiatrist to extend his community treatment order for a further 12 months. The appellant argued that aspects of his involuntary treatment under the Act amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment and therefore breached his right to freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment under s 10(b) of Victoria's recently enacted Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). Thus, the board was asked to consider whether the definition of "treatment" under the Act was compatible with the rights and freedoms enacted by the Charter. This was the first time that a Victorian court or tribunal had considered the impact of the Charter on involuntary psychiatric treatment. The decision was also a prelude to the Victorian Government's announcement that it would comprehensively review its mental health legislation, now the oldest in Australia. As this case highlights, in determining the future direction of mental health legislation and policy in Victoria, the Charter has been crucial.     

The Hard Sell: Promoting Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the most important constitutional reforms to have been implemented by the New Labour administration in Britain. In addition to incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, its main ambition is the creation of a human rights culture. However, while citizens appear to have very little understanding of what the legislation entails, there is a strong tide of negative media publicity which depicts the Human Rights Act as a ‘villains’ charter’. It has been suggested that the government should do more to promote human rights. This paper reflects on how this may be achieved. An important strategy for creating a positive public awareness of human rights involves eradicating myths which have been allowed to flourish in sections of the British press. However, drawing on the work of Roland Barthes, this paper argues that this may be an unattainable goal. Human rights are empty signifiers which invite mythical appropriation. Both proponents and detractors of human rights legislation mobilise this capacity for mythmaking in their rhetoric.     

Achieving and Managing Equality in the Criminal Justice Process: Do the New Equality Measures Go Far Enough?

Abstract: This article will explore some of the legal and organisational challenges facing the various agencies involved in the delivery of criminal justice, in the UK, in adhering to the Equality Act 2006, Equality Duties and the forthcoming Single Equality Act (which, proposes a Single Equality Duty). We will consider the impact of these changes with reference to European legislation. Of particular interest will be the themes of effective implementation of the current Duties, equality of access and equality of outcome for both victims and offenders to appropriate services to tackle offending behaviour and the prevention of crime. This article will highlight issues surrounding impact assessment and the role of agency discretion and regulation. We offer some comments on future directions and the role of the regulatory bodies including the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).     

Challenging arbitral awards: A comparative study of Chinese law, british law and UNCITRAL model law

Support and supervision of a court ensure the integrity of the arbitral process and protect the public interest. However, to prevent the confidence of the arbitral system from being damaged, the judicial control should not be too strict. The support and supervision of a court can be seen in many aspects, among which is to challenge an award. Under the Chinese arbitration law, an award made by a foreign arbitration agency is regarded as a foreign award, challenge of which involves resisting recognition and enforcement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China or on the principle of reciprocity. Accordingly, an award made by a Chinese arbitration agency is regarded as a domestic award, challenge of which includes setting aside and resisting enforcement. As to the grounds and procedures for challenging a domestic award, including foreign-related awards and non-foreign-related awards, some Chinese provisions are either obscure or contradictory. There may be room for the Chinese system to be modernized. The Model Law and the English Arbitration Act of 1996 may be used for its reference.     

'The necessity must be convincingly shown to exist': standards for compulsory treatment for mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 1983

Current English law has few controls on the involuntary treatment of persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. In 2001, R (Wilkinson) v. Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority provided some hope that, in conjunction with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), meaningful substantive and procedural standards for compulsory psychiatric treatment might be developed, but that hope has not been fulfilled. Using Wilkinson and the ECHR jurisprudence as a starting point, this article considers when, if at all, compulsory psychiatric treatment might be justified. In particular, it considers the difference between the 'appropriateness' standard of the English legislation and the ECHR requirement of 'therapeutic necessity', the requirements for appropriate procedure and appropriate legislative clarity, how the courts should deal with disagreements among treating physicians, and the relevance of the capacity and best interests of the detained person.     

Panel recommends significant changes to federal law against discrimination

In a report released on 23 June 2000, the Review Panel tasked by the federal Minister of Justice with reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act made some welcome recommendations for improving the Act and the way the Canadian Human Rights Commission functions. Three are of particular significance: the recommendation that "social condition" be added to the prohibited grounds for discrimination listed in the Act; the recommendation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should have, under its governing legislation, the duty to monitor and report to Parliament and the UN Human Rights Committee on the federal government's compliance with international human rights treaties regarding economic, social, and cultural rights; and the recommendation that "gender identity" should be expressly added to the Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.     

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.     

A Tort-Based Approach to Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998

This article argues that a strong case can be made for departing from the current approach to damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, and for the adoption of an alternative tort-based approach. The article critically analyses the English courts' arguments against adopting a tort-based approach and demonstrates that neither the Act nor the European Convention on Human Rights militate against such approach. It makes a positive case for a tort-based approach, arguing that the law of damages in tort provides an appropriate model for damages under the Act as a matter of principle given the common functions and protected interests that underpin both areas of the law. Further, tort law offers an established and elaborate corpus of principles to draw on, which can readily and naturally be read across to the human rights context. A tort-based approach would also promote consistency across English law, while generally affording greater protection to human rights than the English courts' current approach.