Defamation, qualified privilege and the European Convention on Human Rights

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Richard Mullender
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Significant Measure ◽  
Expressive Activity ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

DEFAMATION law protects reputation while affording a significant measure of protection to freedom of expression. Valuable expressive activity is protected by, inter alia, a number of defences, including qualified privilege. In order successfully to invoke this defence, defendants who honestly believe their–factually false–statements to be true must meet two requirements. First, they must establish “an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral”, to communicate the relevant material to another (or others). Secondly, the recipient of the material must be shown to have “a corresponding interest or duty to receive it”. (See Adam v. Ward [1917] A.C. 309, p. 334, per Lord Atkinson.) The requirements of the qualified privilege defence have recently been glossed by the Court of Appeal in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers and Others [1998] 3 W.L.R. 862 (which is on appeal to the House of Lords). While the Court can be regarded as having extended the defence's scope, the position it has staked out is not, in all respects, clear. As a result the qualified privilege defence may fail to meet the requirements of the right to freedom of expression enunciated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (E.C.H.R.). (When the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, the E.C.H.R. will be an element of domestic law.)

Remedies and Sanctions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Nicklin QC ◽  
Chloe Strong
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the legal remedies that may be available to those who complain that an invasion of their privacy has occurred or is threatened by the actions of the media, as well as touching briefly on the criminal sanctions that may be applicable. Regulatory remedies under the Data Protection Act are considered in Chapter 7 and the remedies available from the media regulators in Chapter 14. Whether a remedy is sought before or after publication, and whether the complaint relates to the content of an actual or proposed publication or the method by which personal information has been obtained, it is likely that any relief granted will affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In such circumstances s 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) applies. The interpretation given to this important statutory provision by the courts is considered in Section C, but this chapter begins by looking at Parliament’s intention in enacting s 12. This is not necessarily to suggest that courts should have regard to such material as an aid to construction under the rule in Pepper v Hart but rather to explain the legislative background to this highly relevant provision.

“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.

Seeking the principle: chancels, choices and human rights

Legal Studies ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Dawson ◽  
Alison Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parish Church ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Modern Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Chancel liability is an ancient property right, enforced by a Parochial Church Council, attaching to certain former rectorial lands. It requires a landowner to bear the cost of repair of the parish church chancel. The right poses particular problems for a purchaser, not least because it is hard to discover and is not limited to the value of the land. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has found that a Parochial Church Council falls within section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a public authority, and that chancel liability infringes article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will dispute the rationale used by the Court of Appeal, and in so doing will argue that whilst chancel liability is outmoded, widely regarded as incongruous and does not bear scrutiny in its modern context, it should nevertheless be removed on a principled basis, avoiding unwanted repercussions elsewhere in the law.

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.

Human Rights Act 1998 (European Convention on Human Rights)

2021 ◽  
pp. 299-306
Author(s):  
Anna Smajdor ◽  
Jonathan Herring ◽  
Robert Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
The Right

This chapter covers the Human Rights Act 1998 (European Convention on Human Rights) and includes topics on The Right to Protection from Torture, The Right to Life, Prohibition of slavery and forced labour, Right to liberty and security, Right to a Fair Trial, The Right Not to Suffer Punishment without Legal Authorisation, Right to respect for private and family life, The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, The Right to Freedom of Expression, The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Association, The Right to Marry, and The Right to Protection from Discrimination.

English Criminal Procedure and the Human Rights Act 1998

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-677
Author(s):  
J.R. Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Correspondence Art ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
The Right ◽  
Initial List

The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the manifestations of the Council of Europe, an organisation of European states founded in 1949 with the aim of strengthening the common democratic heritage. It is an international treaty which binds the contracting States to respect the list of human rights and freedoms it proclaims. An enforcement mechanism exists in the form of the European Court of Human Rights (in this paper called ‘the Strasbourg court’).In brief, these rights and freedoms are the right to life (art. 2); freedom from torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (art. 3); freedom from slavery or forced labour (art. 4); the right to liberty (art. 5); the right to a fair trial (art. 6); freedom from retrospective criminal laws (art. 7); the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (art. 8); freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 9); freedom of expression (art. 10); freedom of peaceful assembly (art. 11); and the right to marry and found a family (art. 12). Over the years, this initial list of rights has been expanded by a series of additional Protocols — not all of which have been ratified by all the Member States. The First Protocol, which Britain has ratified, guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, education, and free elections.

Judicial Approaches to the Human Rights Act

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bonner ◽  
Helen Fenwick ◽  
Sonia Harris-Short
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The case law generated in just over two years' operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), enables stocktaking rather than definitive appraisal.1 This article begins by recalling the markedly contrasting roles in United Kingdom law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) before and after the HRA, the better to appreciate judicial approaches to, and use of, the HRA in the areas surveyed. The second part of the article focuses on judicial use of key provisions of the HRA to interpret primary legislation said to conflict with one or more Convention rights and on judicial use of the power to make a declaration of incompatibility. It considers a selection of decisions, principally of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal, which raise important points regarding the purpose and scope of the HRA as a constitutional document and indicate judicial uncertainty as to how the HRA should be conceptualised, interpreted and applied. With this emerging picture of a cautious and uncertain judiciary in mind, the final two sections of the article give detailed consideration to the post-HRA jurisprudence within two discrete areas of English law. Part III explores the impact of the HRA on judicial approaches to the clash between the freedoms of expression and assembly, on the one hand, and public order, on the other. Part IV considers the ‘use and abuse’ of the HRA and of Article 8 ECHR in private law family disputes. Finally, certain tentative conclusions as to the perhaps disappointing story of the HRA so far, will be proffered.

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.

14. Privacy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Invasion Of Privacy ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The right of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, but English law as yet recognises no tort of invasion of privacy as such. Admittedly, a number of specific torts protect particular aspects of privacy, but this protection may be regarded as haphazard, incidental, and incomplete. Recent decisions, however, have seen substantial developments in the protection given to particular privacy interests, above all by adapting the law of breach of confidence to provide a remedy against the unauthorised disclosure of personal information. These issues are discussed in this chapter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document