Category: Human Rights

Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate: HL 28 Nov 2007

The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional practices and cultures.
Held: Any interference with the appellants article 11 rights was justified. The Act was not outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights 11, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Friend In Petition of Hagan, Friend v The Lord Advocate SCS 27-Sep-2005
. .
Cited – Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6 – General principle of Community law – Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement – Direct effect – Obligation to set aside conflicting national law. . .
Cited – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd PatC 16-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Cited – A v The Scottish Ministers PC 15-Oct-2001
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate . .

Cited by:

Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals, Crime

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261604

Westcott v Westcott: QBD 30 Oct 2007

The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
Held: ‘the process of taking a witness statement is an essential early step in an embryonic investigation, and it is the product of a police decision to take that step.’ and the court could see no reason to distinguish those interviewed by the police investigating a complaint from those whose statements give rise to the investigation. The Defendant’s oral complaint to the police was protected by absolute privilege and immunity from suit.

Judges:

Richard Parkes QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2501 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Martin v Watson HL 13-Jul-1995
The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown . .
Cited – Munster v Lamb CA 1883
Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences . .
Cited – Stanton and Another v Callaghan and Others CA 8-Jul-1998
The defendant, a structural engineer, was retained by the plaintiffs in a claim against insurers for the costs of remedying subsidence of the plaintiffs’ house. He advised total underpinning for pounds 77,000, but later while preparing a joint . .
Cited – Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others 1981
The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no . .
Cited – Watson v M’Ewan HL 1905
A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD 3-May-2007
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart QBD 1963
The plaintiff sought to sue police officers who had prepared a report for the Director of Public Prosecutions and appeared as witnesses against him at his criminal trial.
Held: The claim failed. Salmon J considered the principle of the . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 2-Jan-1963
Decision upheld (dicta approved) . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Westcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
Approved – Alexandrovic v Khan QBD 2008
The public policy priority is that those who have complaints should be free to make them to the police without fear that they will be challenged in later proceedings even if those who are malicious obtain the benefit of such protection, since the . .
Cited – Vaidya v General Medical Council QBD 2010
Sir Charles Gray said: ‘It appears to me to be clear beyond argument that this letter is protected by absolute privilege since it was written to an official of an investigatory body (the GMC) in order to complain about the conduct of Dr Vaidya.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261574

Pfeifer v Austria: ECHR 15 Nov 2007

The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity.’

Citations:

12556/03, [2007] ECHR 935, (2007) 48 EHRR 175, 24 BHRC 167

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
Cited – In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
Cited – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
See Also – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 2009
. .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012
The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now asked whether the paper had Reynolds type . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261434

Gault v The United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Nov 2007

The claimant said that the system for withholding bail in criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland had infringed her human rights. She was accused of murder, had been convicted but that conviction had been overturned and she was awaiting a second trial. She was the mother of triplets aged 6, and the prosecution did not object to bail.
Held: The claim succeeded. There was insufficient clarity as to the reasons for withholding bail. The nearness of a forthcoming trial was not a relevant consideration, and nor in the light of the prosecution’s attitude was it proper to conclude that she might flee.

Citations:

1271/05, [2007] ECHR 952, Times 28-Nov-2007, [2010] ECHR 986

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261415