1. Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This introductory chapter examines the functions of criminal law and discusses the sources of criminal law. These include common law and statutes, international law, and the Human Rights Act 1998. It also considers the principle of fair labelling in criminal law and the codification of criminal law.

1. Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This introductory chapter examines the functions of criminal law and discusses the sources of criminal law. These include common law and statutes, EU and international law, and the Human Rights Act 1998. It also considers the principle of fair labelling in criminal law and the codification of criminal law.

scholarly journals COMMON LAW RIGHTS: BALANCING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL EXIGENCIES

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirik Bjorge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Principle Of Legality

AbstractThe protection of human rights through common law principles and values has a greater potential than has been recognised hitherto. First, the adoption at common law of the proportionality test of interferences with rights shows that, when human rights are at issue, the courts will apply an exigent test, allowing interferences only if, amongst other things, a less intrusive measure could not have been used. Secondly, the principle of legality, along with common law constitutionalism as developed recently by the Supreme Court, now means that there is a common law pendant to the rule in s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Thirdly, in cases where the protection offered by the Act is displaced by obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, there is no displacement of common law rights, which continue to operate. Fourthly, common law rights are more open to the influences of the customary international law of human rights than are Convention rights. These factors combine to mean that the future of common law rights is an auspicious one.

The Puzzle of Atrocity Criminalization

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Mark S. Berlin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Qualitative Case Studies ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Quantitative Analyses

Why do governments take atrocity offenses, like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, from international law and legislate them into domestic criminal law, empowering national courts to prosecute their own, and sometimes other states’, government and military officials? The question is important, because the international community has constructed an international legal regime to prosecute the most serious human rights violations, but that regime is designed to rely primarily on domestic criminal courts to try offenders. To fulfill this role, domestic courts often require specific legislation that defines and criminalizes these offenses in national law. Yet, the adoption of national atrocity laws is puzzling, since in a number of ways, these laws appear to threaten states’ interests. This introductory chapter highlights the puzzle of atrocity criminalization and discusses its importance for the functioning of the international atrocity regime. It then situates this study in existing literatures and highlights the book’s contributions to research on atrocity justice, human rights, and international law. Next, it summarizes the book’s main arguments and details the study’s multi-method research design, which combines quantitative analyses of new, original datasets with in-depth qualitative case studies of Guatemala, Colombia, Poland, and the Maldives.

15. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998

Public Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Positive Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

One of the most fundamental aspects of any constitution are the provisions and measures that protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. In the UK, rights protection is markedly different to that in America, in chief because there is no entrenched Bill of Rights. Rights protection is dominated by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, which sets out a number of positive rights that are actionable in the UK courts This chapter discusses the ways in which these rights are protected in the UK Constitution. It discusses the courts' historic civil liberties approach and common law protection of rights, before then examining the development, incorporation, and application of the ECHR. The chapter also explores the way in which the various sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 work to ensure appropriate enforcement and protection of rights in UK law.

20. Human Rights IV: The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998

2021 ◽  
pp. 528-578
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legislative Policy ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact

This chapter analyses some of the leading cases in which the courts addressed different aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998, and draws out the constitutional implications of the courts’ initial conclusions. The discussions cover the interlinked issues of the extent to which the courts have recognised a distinction between Convention articles and Convention Rights, the approach taken to statutory interpretation mandated by s 3, and the use of Declarations of Incompatibility under s 4; the doctrine of judicial ‘deference’ to legislative policy decisions; the ‘horizontality’ of the Act and its impact on the development of the common law; and the status of proportionality as a ground of review of executive action. The chapter concludes with an assessment of whether the Act has triggered a shift in understandings on the proper scope of the doctrines of the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law within the modern constitutional order.

4. Strict Liability

Criminal Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 210-229
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

A strict liability offence is one where it is not necessary to prove any mental state of the defendant. All that needs to be shown is that the defendant caused a particular result or carried out a particular act. This chapter discusses the offences that are strict liability; when a court will not presume mens rea; what mens rea will be presumed; the Human Rights Act 1998 and strict liability offences; common law defences and strict liability offences; possession offences; and the arguments for and against strict liability.

5. Case law

Legal Skills ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 85-103
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact

Case law can be broken down into common law, equity, and custom. This chapter begins with a discussion of common law and equity, including a brief history on how these sources came into being. It then turns to custom as a further source of law. It also provides an overview of the court system to illustrate how the various courts in the system link together in a hierarchy. It concludes with a discussion of the European Court of Human Rights and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on case law.

14. Invasion of privacy

2019 ◽  
pp. 346-379
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Invasion Of Privacy ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

This chapter discusses different aspects of privacy. It shows that there is no general common law right to protection from invasion of privacy (the so-called ‘right to be let alone’), but that limitation has been largely subverted by the new law in the second section on the protection of personal information and the reasonable expectation of privacy that has developed significantly in recent years. This shows the potential power of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and is the subject of considerable controversy, especially in relation to the protection of celebrity privacy. The final section considers remedies in privacy cases.

4. Case law

Legal Skills ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact

Case law can be broken down into common law, equity, and custom. This chapter begins with a discussion of common law and equity, including a brief history on how these sources came into being. It then turns to custom as a further source of law. It also provides an overview of the court system to illustrate how the various courts in the system link together in a hierarchy. It concludes with a discussion of the European Court of Human Rights and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on case law.

scholarly journals Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police; [2008] UKHL; 50

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Exclusive Focus

WHO HAS FIRST CLAIM ON “THE LOYALTY OF THE LAW”?Smith v Chief Constable of the Sussex Police (hereafter Smith) was heard by the House of Lords at the same time as Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle and another because they had two uniting factors. First, they both concerned the recurring question of the ambit of police liability in the situation described by Lord Bingham thus: “…if the police are alerted to a threat that D may kill or inflict violence on V, and the police take no action to prevent that occurrence, and D does kill or inflict violence on V, may V or his relatives obtain civil redress against the police, and if so, how and in what circumstances?”2  Secondly, considering the cases together highlighted the wider issue of the relationship between decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 (hereafter the HRA) and the development of the common law. The Law Lords embarked on a more extensive examination of these issues in Smith and thus that case will be the exclusive focus of this note.  In addition, the study of Smith raises questions regarding proposals for law reform as well as about judicial perceptions of policy priorities. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document