Tag: Human Rights

Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985

The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them.
Held: Article 8 did not impose a ‘general obligation on the part of a Contracting State to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to accept the non-national spouses for settlement in that country’.
‘Whatever else the word ‘family’ may mean, it must at any rate include the relationship that arises from a lawful and genuine marriage . . even if a family life . . has not yet been fully established’.

Citations:

9473/81, [1985] ECHR 7, 9214/80, 9474/81, (1985) 7 EHRR 471

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Ali and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration, Family

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445027

Bradshaw and Roberts v The Attorney General, Superintendent of Glendairy Prison And, The Chief Marshall: PC 24 May 1995

(Barbados) The maximum of 5 years to be spent awaiting the death penalty is appropriate and is not to be varied, even though it might be calculated broadly. It serves as a good general guideline.
(Barbados)

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-1995, Gazette 21-Jun-1995, [1995] UKPC 21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442327

Condliff, Regina (on The Application of) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust: CA 27 Jul 2011

the claimant, a morbidly obese man, made a funding request to the trust for gastric surgery. This was refused because he did not meet the trust’s policy of offering funding to people who had a body mass index which exceeded a certain level. The claimant sought judicial review of the trust’s decision on the ground, inter alia, that it had breached his right to respect for his private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The court was asked whether article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights makes it unlawful for a Primary Care Trust (PCT) to adopt an Individual Funding Request (IFR) policy by which all such requests are to be considered and determined exclusively by reference to clinical factors.
Held: The application was dismissed. Article 8 of ECHR did not give rise to a positive duty on a statutory health care provider to consider non-clinical, social or welfare considerations wider than the comparative medical conditions and medical needs of different patients when deciding on the allocation of funding for medical treatment.
Toulson LJ said of section 3 of the 2006 Act, ‘this is a public law duty and not a direct duty owed to individual patients’.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Hallett, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 910, [2012] PTSR 460, (2011) 121 BMLR 192, [2011] HRLR 38, [2011] Med LR 572, [2011] ACD 113

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service Act 2006 3, European Convention on Human Rights8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Condliff, Regina (on The Application of) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust Admn 7-Apr-2011
The patient sought judicial review of the decision not to fund laparoscopic gastric by-pass surgery. He said that the policy by which all such requests are to be considered and determined exclusively by reference to clinical factors, infringed his . .

Cited by:

Cited – A and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 14-Jun-2017
The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health Professions

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442230

Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 23 Jul 1999

The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative provided it did not tend to provoke violence. There was no reasonable inference available in this case to the police officer that the appellant, preaching about morality, was about to cause a breach of the peace.
Sedley LJ said: ‘A judgment as to the imminence of a breach of the peace does not conclude the constable’s task. The next and critical question for the constable, and in turn for the court, is where the threat is coming from, because it is there that preventive action must be directed. It is only if otherwise lawful conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that it will, by interfering with the rights or liberties of others, provoke violence which, though unlawful, would not be entirely unreasonable that a constable is empowered to take steps to prevent it . . Mr Kealy for the prosecutor submitted that if there are two alternative sources of trouble, a constable can properly take steps against either. This is right, but only if both are threatening violence or behaving in a manner that might provoke violence’ and ‘The test to determine whether the police officer’s action was reasonable was an objective one, in the sense that it was for the courts to decide, not whether the view taken by that officer fell within the broad band of rational decisions but whether, in the light of what he knew and perceived at the time, the court was satisfied that it was reasonable to fear an imminent breach of the peace and that reasonableness had to be evaluated without the qualifications of hindsight.’
Sedley LJ said: ‘Freedom of speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

Times 28-Jul-1999, [2000] HRLR 249, [1999] EWHC Admin 733, (1999) 7 BHRC 375, [1999] Crim LR 998, (1999) 163 JP 789, CO/188/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1996 89(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
Cited – Beatty v Gilbanks CA 13-Jun-1882
A lawful Salvation Army march attracted disorderly opposition and was therefore the occasion of a breach of the peace.
Held: It could not be found a case of unlawful assembly against the leaders of the Salvation Army march. Accepting that a . .
Cited – Duncan v Jones KBD 1936
The appellant was about to make a public address in a situation in which the year before a disturbance had been incited by her speaking. A policeman believed reasonably that a breach of the peace would occur if the meeting was held, and ordered the . .
Cited – Wise v Dunning KBD 1902
A protestant preacher in Liverpool was held to be liable to be bound over to keep the peace upon proof that he habitually accompanied his public speeches with behaviour calculated to insult Roman Catholics. His actions had caused, and were liable to . .
Cited – Regina v Howell (Errol) CACD 1981
The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable . .
Cited – Regina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .
Cited – Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .
Cited – Regina v Morpeth Ward Justices, ex parte Ward 1992
A bind-over was upheld on people who had noisily and turbulently disrupted a pheasant shoot. . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Norwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
Cited – Wragg, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Jun-2005
The court faced a case stated where the defendant had been accused of resisting arrest. The officers claimed to have anticipated a breach of the peace, having been called to a domestic dispute.
Held: Though the defendant had not behaved with . .
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Cited – Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex Police CA 6-Apr-2000
A bailiff sought to execute against goods in a shop against the will of the occupier. The police attended and when tempers were raised the police officer anticipated a breach of the peace by the bailiff and arrested him. He sought damages for that . .
Cited – Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 28-Jul-2006
Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Gaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .
Cited – Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
Cited – Moos and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of the Police of The Metropolis Admn 14-Apr-2011
The claimants, demonstrators at the G20 summit, complained of the police policy of kettling, the containment of a crowd over a period of time, not because they were expected to to behave unlawfully, but to ensure a separation from those who were. . .
Cited – McClure and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 19-Jan-2012
The Commissioner appealed against a decision that certain aspects of its crowd control procedures exercised during a public protest were unlawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue came down to whether the commanding officer genuinely held . .
Cited – Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Sep-2005
The appellant had been convicted under section 4 of the 1986 Act. He had been accused of attending at Luton Guruwarda and intending to cause distress. He said that he had gone only peacefully to express his true religious beliefs. He had left a . .
Cited – Jewish Rights Watch (T/A Jewish Human Rights Watch), Regina (on The Application of) v Leicester City Council Admn 28-Jun-2016
The claimant challenged the legaity of resolutions passed by three local authorities which were critical of the State of Israel. They said that the resolultions infringed the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the 2010 Act, and also . .
Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.139996

Orlic v Croatia: ECHR 21 Jun 2011

Citations:

48833/07, [2011] ECHR 974, [2011] HLR 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.441130

British Broadcasting Corporation v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Jan 1996

(Commission – Admissibility) The Corporation complained that it had been served with a witness summons obliging it to to hand over materials in its possession, both broadcast and not-broadacst being coverage of a riot.

Judges:

Rozakis P

Citations:

25798/94, [1996] ECHR 82

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6 10, Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Doffman and Another ChD 11-Oct-2010
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440296