HUMAN RIGHTS, BURDEN OF PROOF, RETROSPECTIVITY AND PRECEDENT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
I.D. Macphail
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

R. v. Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, [2001] 3 W.L.R. 206 and R. v. Kansal (No. 2) [2001] UKHL 62, [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1562 are important decisions of the House of Lords in the field of human rights and criminal justice. Lambert is primarily concerned with a question as to the retrospective effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 in criminal proceedings, and with the question whether a reverse onus provision in section 28 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is compatible with the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Kansal is primarily concerned with the former question. A majority of the House in Kansal decided that the decision of the majority of the House in Lambert on the issue of retrospectivity was wrong, but nevertheless should be followed.

The Retrospective Effect of S. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998

2002 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 445-457
Author(s):  
Gavin Dingwall
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Careful Scrutiny ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

When the House of Lords delivered its judgment in Lambert, comment initially concerned the fact that their Lordships held that the legal burden of proof placed on defendants in s. 28 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contravened the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was indeed a major and potentially far-reaching finding, but it was in fact obiter dicta for the House also held that a defendant who was convicted prior to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force could not rely on that section in an appeal after the Act came into force, except in certain carefully prescribed circumstances. It is only now when subsequent case law has challenged this finding that its importance has been fully recognised. This article aims to respond to the academic neglect of this point through a careful scrutiny of the judgments in Lambert and will argue that, despite recent judicial criticism, the majority in Lambert deconstructed a complex statutory framework to expose Parliament's limited intention to ‘bring rights home’.

2. Burden of proof

2019 ◽  
pp. 10-36
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter focuses on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence in criminal and civil cases under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It considers the influence of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 on the allocation of the burden of proof and compares legal/persuasive burden of proof with the evidential burden. It contains a detailed examination of the case law under this Act and the criteria developed to assess where reverse burdens should apply. It draws on academic commentary in making this analysis. It also looks at situations where the legal and the evidential burden may be split. It concludes with an overview of the law on presumptions.

2. Burden of proof and presumptions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter focuses on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence in criminal and civil cases under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It considers the influence of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 on the allocation of the burden of proof and compares legal/persuasive burden of proof with the evidential burden. It contains a detailed examination of the case law under this Act and the criteria developed to assess where reverse burdens should apply. It draws on academic commentary in making this analysis. It also looks at situations where the legal and the evidential burden may be split. It concludes with an overview of the law on presumptions.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom’s domestic jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

7 The Human Rights Act 1998: Bringing Rights Home

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 125-146
Author(s):  
Stephanie Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Domestic Law

The Labour government has quickly acted on its election promise to introduce a bill of rights into domestic law. The Human Rights Act 1998 partially incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into United Kingdom law. This legislation is part of a wider constitutional package including devolved government for Scotland and Wales and reform of the House of Lords. The government’s programme is intended to modernise and indeed transform the British constitutional structure. According to the government, the Human Rights Act will bring rights home. Individuals will be able to argue for their Convention rights in the United Kingdom’s own courts and tribunals and judges will be able to adjudicate directly on Convention issues. All new laws will be carefully scrutinised to ensure compatibility with Convention rights.

Campbell v Mirror Group News Limited [2004] UKHL 22, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Drug Addiction ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Mirror Group ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Newspaper Articles

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Campbell v Mirror Group News Limited [2004] UKHL 22, before the House of Lords. MGN Ltd had published newspaper articles regarding Naomi Campbell’s recovery from drug addiction. Campbell alleged this was a breach of her Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). MGN Ltd argued that restricting its ability to publish such articles would be a breach of its Article 10 rights. The case provides an example of discussion regarding the concept of ‘indirect’ horizontal effect of the ECHR under the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

“RAPE SHIELDS” AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-492
Author(s):  
J.R. Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Youth Justice ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right

INR. v. A (No. 2) [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1546 the House of Lords knocked a dent in the controversial “rape shield” provision, section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA). They did so wielding Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given direct effect by another piece of “flagship” legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision is important for constitutional law as well as for criminal evidence.

Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in the UK Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 527-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

This article considers how arguments relating to the principle of joint applicability of international human rights law (IHR) and international humanitarian law (IHL) are playing out in the United Kingdom's courts. The core of the article is a case study of the decisions of the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in Al-Skeini v. Secretary of State for Defence. The central issues of the case concerned the application of the UK's European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations in the context of its activities in Iraq, and the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act, 1998. This case study of the domestic application of the principle is particularly useful for considering (i) its practical implications on the specific facts of particular cases; (ii) the argumentation used by the UK government and judges; (iii) the difficulties of national courts in analyzing the IHR and IHL rights jurisprudence; and (iv) the significant differences between IHR and IHL in terms of positive obligations and domestic remedies.

15. Privacy

2021 ◽  
pp. 186-198
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter discusses the law on the protection of privacy. The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law, enabled a new perspective on the question of protection of privacy, previously not covered by a specific tort. The art 8 right to respect for private and family life must be balanced with the equally powerful art 10 right to freedom of expression. Campbell v MGN (2004) provides a detailed consideration of this area of law by the House of Lords. The chapter covers the action for misuse of private information, the issue of photography, and that of remedies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document