scholarly journals Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2012

Legal Studies ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Chan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Baseline Level ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Proportionality Test

One of the most contested issues in UK public law is how to calibrate the appropriate intensity of proportionality review in human rights adjudication. Here, the challenge lies in formulating a theory of intensity of review that can both comply with the constitutional framework introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) and accommodate courts' varying levels of competence in different areas of litigation. This paper attempts to sketch such a theory in two steps. First, it argues that to fulfil the constitutional expectations brought about by the HRA, a minimum rigour of proportionality review should be observed. This baseline consists of requiring the government to demonstrate to the courts by means of cogent and sufficient evidence that a rights-limiting measure satisfies the distinct stages of the proportionality test. Secondly, this paper highlights the ways in which compliance with this baseline can nonetheless accommodate the courts' varying levels of competence in different adjudicative contexts. In particular, courts can vary the intensity of review once the baseline level of review is reached and adjust the nature of the evidence required from the government.

8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies

2019 ◽  
pp. 295-342
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government

This chapter discusses the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998. The chapter explores in detail the question of whether public authorities, and the police in particular, are under a duty of care when undertaking and performing their operational duties, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. In turn, it teases out some of the broader implications of what is a rapidly evolving, and politically sensitive, aspect of the law.

8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government

This chapter discusses the following: the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998.

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.

4. Personal Liberty (Article 5) II: Detention and Questioning

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Costigan ◽  
Richard Stone
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Police Station ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Article 5

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provide an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter examines the issues arising from more extended detention, generally at a police station. It focuses on the grounds for such extended detention prior to charge, and the procedures which must be adopted in relation to it. It considers the rights of a citizen who is a ‘suspect’ but against whom the police do not have sufficient evidence to charge with an offence. Relevant provisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are discussed.

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

Handyside v United Kingdom (1979–80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Domestic Law

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights. This case provides an exemplar of the challenges of balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of press regulation. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the Human Rights Act 1998, the willingness of the courts to engage with national security matters and, by extension, considered how key constitutional principles should shape the courts’ approach. 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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document