Hewitt and Harman v United Kingdom: ECHR 1991

(Commission) When asking whether an action about which complaint is made is ‘according to law’, it is the quality of the law that matters rather than the form it takes which matters. As to the case of Malone, it ‘elucidated the concept of foreseeability and highlighted its importance as a safeguard against the arbitrary application of measures of secret surveillance.’
(1991) 14 EHRR 657, (1992) 14 EHRR 657, [1989] ECHR 29
Human Rights
CitedMalone v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Aug-1984
The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in ‘accordance with law’. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.231146

Comments are closed.