The defendant NHS trust objected as to the leading of certain evidence by the prosecutor, saying it infringed the right to a fair trial.
Held: As a governmental body rather the Trust could not have human rights capable of being infringed, it did not qualify as a victim under the Act. The French version of the Convention clearly referred to physical individuals, and the alternative claimants under article 34 were mutually exclusive.There were three tests as to whether an organisation was a state one: Was it a decentralised authority exercising public functions; would its acts engage the state’s responsibility under the Convention; and was it sufficiently independent of the State. In this case the establishment of the Trust was a decentralisation of the state’s administration.
Judges:
Marnoch, Macfadyen LL, Sir Gerald Gordon QC
Citations:
Times 02-Mar-2004
Statutes:
Scotland Act 1998 100(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 834
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – The Holy Monasteries v Greece ECHR 9-Dec-1994
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (ratione personae); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. . .
Cited – Ayuntamiento de Mula v Spain ECHR 1-Feb-2001
Under the settled case law of the Convention institutions local government organisations are public law bodies which perform official duties assigned to them by the Constitution and by substantive law and are therefore quite clearly governmental . .
Cited – Danderyds v Sweden ECHR 7-Jun-2001
. .
Applied – Pfizer Corporation v Ministry of Health CA 1964
Lord Justice Diplock said: ‘The duty to provide hospital and specialist services is imposed upon the Minister. It is in its nature a duty which he can only perform vicariously through agents acting on his behalf. The Act requires him to do so . .
Cited – British Medical Association v Greater Glasgow Health Board HL 1989
The House considered the availability of orders against the Crown in Scotland. It is inconceivable that Parliament should have intended to fetter the right of the subject to obtain a prohibitory order more strictly in Scotland than in England. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.194091
