Detention

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Complete Control ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
False Imprisonment ◽  
Assault And Battery

Public authorities are responsible for detaining individuals in a variety of situations. The police, prison authorities, and health authorities treating the mentally ill, are all empowered to confine people against their will. Given the almost complete control such authorities have over the detainees’ environment, and the dependence of the detainees on the authority to provide for their daily needs, it is foreseeable that in various circumstances the carelessness of the authority will harm those detained. This chapter considers the potential liability in negligence of detaining authorities. Negligence is not, however, the only, or even the most important, tort available to detainees. They may also be able to hold detaining authorities liable for the torts of assault and battery, misfeasance in public office, and false imprisonment, as well as various claims for breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. As this chapter explains, the tort of negligence often operates as a residual remedy where one of these other remedies is not available to a detainee. Another kind of negligence liability this chapter considers arises where harm is caused by the detainees themselves. Given that some of those detained may be dangerous, it is foreseeable that if they are incorrectly released or allowed to escape they will cause harm. This chapter examines whether those injured by detainees in such circumstances can hold the detaining authority liable in negligence. The possibility of the victims succeeding in claims for breach of the European Convention on Human Rights is such cases is considered in Chapter 7.

5. Human Rights Act 1998

2021 ◽  
pp. 154-198
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter examines the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and discusses some of the important issues that arise from its use. It also provides an overview of relevant articles in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The HRA 1998 is quite a short Act and its key parts are in a small number of sections. Perhaps the most important is that of s 6 which places an obligation on public authorities to act in a way compatible with the ECHR; s 7 which prescribes how it can be used to obtain a remedy in the courts. This chapter also links to the previous chapters in terms of discussing how the Act is interpreted.

scholarly journals Information delayed is justice denied

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jurij Toplak ◽  
Boštjan Brezovnik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right

European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2016 that the European Convention on Human Rights includes a right to access information held by public authorities. While according to international documents the procedures for accessing information should be ‘rapid’, the courts have yet to rule on what ‘rapid’ means and when the procedures are so long that they violate rights of those asking for information. This article analyses the length of proceedings in access to information cases in Slovenia and Croatia. It shows that these two countries do not have a system of effective protection of rights because the authorities can easily delay disclosure of information for several years. It argues that lengthy procedures violate the right to access the information and the freedom of expression. It then presents solutions for improving access to information procedures in order for them to become ‘rapid’

Public authority negligence revisited

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.H. Bailey ◽  
M.J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

Public Authority Liability in the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-86
Author(s):  
Gordon Anthony
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
External Sources ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Uk

Although the UK has not what would be recognized by other legal systems as a general principle of damages liability concerning public authorities, there is no general shield of immunity for them. Nor is there a separate, or dedicated, system of courts that deals with administrative liability. Finally, there is no such thing as a codification of administrative procedure. However, the rules of administrative procedure can be found not only in common law (the rules of ‘natural justice’ or ‘fairness’, i.e. the rule against bias and audi alteram partem) and in statute law, but also in external sources, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, in Article 6. The latter has obviously influenced case law under the Human Rights Act, notably through the requirement that UK courts take into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Considered as a whole, these sources set out standards of procedural fairness and propriety which must be respected by public authorities.

5. Human Rights Act 1998

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisdair Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter examines the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and discusses some of the important issues that arise from its use. It also provides an overview of relevant articles in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The HRA 1998 is quite a short Act and its key parts are in a small number of sections. Perhaps the most important is that of s 6 which places an obligation on public authorities to act in a way compatible with the ECHR, and s 7 which prescribes how it can be used to obtain a remedy in the courts. This chapter also links to the previous chapters in terms of discussing how the Act is interpreted.

14. Torts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The One

A claim for damages for loss caused by a public authority gives a court the opportunity to do justice for the claimant, and also to impose the rule of law on the administration. The challenge is to do both without interfering in the administrative pursuit of public goods, and without creating public compensation funds that only a legislature can legitimately create. It is an important constitutional principle that liabilities in the law of tort apply to public authorities, just as to private parties. But there is no general liability to compensate for public action that was unlawful; the impugned conduct must meet the standard requirements of the tort liability of private parties, with the exception of the one public tort: misfeasance in a public office. This chapter discusses trespass to property, statutory liabilities, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 and under European Union law.

The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 in Theory and Practice

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 901-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Thisessay assesses the significance of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 on legal theory and practice. Part II considers its constitutional context and significance; Part III deals with whether the European Convention on Human Rights has been ‘incorporated’. Part IV deals with its entry into force. The two principal methods used by the HRA to relate to (1) statutory interpretation and (2) a duty on public authorities or those exercising public functions. We consider these in turn. Part V analyses the interpretative obligation contained in the Act, the power for higher courts to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, and effects of such a declaration. Part VI explores the new statutory duty imposed by the Act. Part VII assesses the Act's remedial provisions. Part VIII notes the particular provision made for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Part IX discusses the issues of ‘horizontal effect’ and the ‘margin of appreciation’. Part X concludes with an assessment of the significance of the HRA on legal theory and practice—just how big a difference has it made and will it make?

Direct action, Convention values and the Human Rights Act

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fenwick ◽  
Gavin Phillipson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

The direct action form of protest is becoming an increasingly significant form of political expression. This paper considers such protest in relation to the guarantees of free expression and peaceful assembly under arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, now binding on United Kingdom public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998. Its aim is to set out a framework of principle which would guide and underpin judicial approaches to the application of the Convention to domestic criminal law aimed at such protest, specifically ss 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It argues that, because of the deficiencies of the Strasbourg case law in this area, an activist judicial stance, one reliant on underlying Convention values, will be required if there is to be any significant change to the traditional, illiberal domestic approach to direct action.

Police

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Controls ◽  
False Imprisonment

The police are subject to a range of different legal controls. They have a general duty to uphold the law, and breach of this duty can, in principle, be enforced by way of judicial review proceedings brought by members of the public. If, in the course of enforcing the law, the police detain, arrest, or assault an individual without lawful justification, they can be held liable for the torts of false imprisonment or trespass to the person, and they may also be held liable for the tort of misfeasance in public office if they act maliciously and unlawfully in the purported performance of their duties. as well as statutory torts specifically aimed at the police. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides further significant additions to the claims that can be brought against the police, and these are considered further in chapter 7. Claimants have also sought to establish that the police, like other public authorities, can be held liable for the tort of negligence, and it is such claims that are considered in this chapter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document