Case Comment: Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-604
Author(s):  
Alex Ruck Keene ◽  
Xinyu Xu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract How (if at all) can the right to liberty of a child under Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) be balanced against the rights of parents, enshrined both at common law and under Article 8 ECHR? Is there a limit to the extent to which parents can themselves, or via others, seek to impose restrictions upon their disabled child’s liberty so as to secure their child’s interests? This case considers the answers to these questions given by and the implications of the decision of the Supreme Court in September 2019 in Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, before the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals The practice of the Supreme Court and the decisions of the European Court concluding violations of artic - le 3 of the Convention

2020 ◽  
pp. 413-417
Author(s):  
Alla Radzivill
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Effective System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
European Standards ◽  
The Right

Law enforcement practice of the Supreme Court in cases involving torture in the light of the standards of the European Court ofHuman Rights. The article is devoted to the study of individual legal positions of the Supreme Court, their coordination with the practiceof the European Court of Human Rights. The author emphasizes that the decisions of the European Court should serve as precedents,which will make it impossible to produce diametrically opposite decisions on similar categories of cases. Analysis of the problem ofcriminal responsibility for torture allows us to form conclusions and suggestions that are important for the development of the theoryof criminal law and the improvement of law enforcement practice.The article deals with the issues related to the peculiarities of the interpretation and application of Article 3 of the European Conventionon Human Rights of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the scope of Article 3 has been analyzed; it has been de -fined, what is necessary to understand under concepts of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Substantive and proceduralaspects of violations of the prohibition of torture have been revealed, as well as positive and negative obligations of a state to providethe effective protection of the right. The standards of the appropriate assessment of ill-treatment and the main aspects of judicial qualificationof a particular form of mistreatment as torture have been analyzed. The procedural guarantees, which must be provided for each personat the stage of pre-trial investigation, non-observance of which leads to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, have been determined.Creation of the effective system of protection of human rights and its efficiency is analysed in relation to the crime of “torture”in the context of European Convention on human rights, which must be in future stored and taken for basis for a further improvementand systematization of the single European standards in area of human rights.

Austrian Constitutional Court: The Constitutionality of Restrictions on Nullity Appeals in Law of Criminal Procedure

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Gärner
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe limitation of nullity appeals to cases of ‘serious concerns regarding the correctness of the facts’ on which the lower court based upon its decision is in conformity with constitutional law. It does not violate the procedural safeguards protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the right to equal protection under the law protected by Article 7 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law. Despite the restrictive application in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Austria, the limitation is proportionate und thus constitutional, as such limitations only apply to rulings by a penal of lay judges.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This case note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The Problem of the Non-justiciability of Religious Defamations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Religious Doctrine ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

English courts have historically been wary of deciding cases that rest on contested findings of fact about the practices and doctrines of religions. This is particularly true in defamation cases. However, the recent case of Shergill and others v Khaira and others [2014] UKSC 33 in the UK Supreme Court has narrowed the principle of non-justiciability on the grounds of subject matter. Defamation cases such as Blake v Associated Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB) have treated religious doctrine and practice as matters not justiciable per se, even if a determination is essential for the exercise of private or public law rights and obligations. The Supreme Court indicated in Khaira that it may be appropriate for courts to treat such disputes as justiciable. The common law, domestic statute and the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right to reputation, and Khaira indicates that it is time that defamation claims resting on disputes about religious doctrine and practice were entertained by the courts to a much greater extent than recent cases have allowed. However, the judgment has left open the possibility of some religious disputes still being non-justiciable.

Professional secrecy and legal professional privilege

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorg Sladič
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Professional ◽  
The Right

Legal privilege and professional secrecy of attorneys relate to the right to a fair trial (Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) as well as to the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The reason for protecting the lawyer via fundamental rights is the protection of fundamental rights of the lawyer’s clients. All legal orders apply legal privileges and professional secrecy; however, the contents of such are not identical. Traditionally there is an important difference between common and civil law. The professional secrecy of an attorney in civil law jurisdictions is his right and at the same time his obligation based on his membership of the Bar (that is his legal profession). In common law legal privilege comprises the contents of documents issued by an attorney to the client. Professional secrecy of attorneys in civil law jurisdictions applies solely to independent lawyers; in-house lawyers are usually not allowed to benefit from rules on professional secrecy (exceptions in the Netherlands and Belgium). On the other hand, common law jurisdictions apply legal professional privilege, recognized also to in-house lawyers. Slovenian law follows the traditional civil law concept of professional secrecy and sets a limited privilege to in-house lawyers. The article then discusses Slovenian law of civil procedure and compares the position of professional secrecy in lawsuits before State’s courts and in arbitration.

9. Freedom of Expression

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Clements
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Obscenity Law ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions; diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic and suggestions on further reading. This chapter moves on from the previous one to examine the freedom of expression. Under common law, freedom of speech is guaranteed unless the speaker breaks the law, but this is now reinforced by the right of free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The questions here deal with issues such as obscenity law and contempt of court; the Official Secrets Act; freedom of information; breach of confidence and whether there is a right of privacy in English law.

14. Land Law and Human Rights

Land Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 593-629
Author(s):  
Chris Bevan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Land Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the relationship between land law and human rights. From a distinctly land law perspective, the human rights discourse has given rise to much debate, which continues to fuel much academic commentary including recent examination of the availability of horizontal effect in McDonald v McDonald in the Supreme Court and in the European Court of Human Rights. The chapter focuses chiefly on the two most pertinent provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for land law; namely Art. 1 of the First Protocol and Art. 8 and reflects on the, at times, difficult relationship between land law and human rights.

9 Criminal Justice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dickson Brice
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

This chapter selects five issues within the sphere of criminal justice to exemplify how the Irish Supreme Court has made its mark in the field. It looks first at the Court’s approach to the principle that prosecutions should be ended if they are unfair to the defendant and then moves to related issues surrounding use of the Special Criminal Court. It considers whether the Supreme Court has done enough to police the Special Criminal Court and whether reforms are necessary in that domain. In examining the Supreme Court’s views on the right to bail and on the admissibility of evidence which has been obtained unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally (with particular reference to the Damache and JC cases), comparisons are made with other common law jurisdictions. A final section looks at the Supreme Court’s position regarding the retrospectivity of declarations of incompatibility in criminal cases.

8. Freedom to protest and police powers

2020 ◽  
pp. 138-160
Author(s):  
Richard Clements
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Reasonable Suspicion ◽  
The Right

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions, diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic, and suggestions on further reading. This chapter is all about the freedom to protest and police powers. Freedom to protest is protected by common law, statute, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The questions looked at here consider issues such as public order law; the right to protest; the right to freedom of peaceful assembly; and police powers to arrest and search on reasonable suspicion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document