Police misunderstanding the scope of public order powers in Northern Ireland

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-263
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Do So

It is a common feature of public order legislation throughout the UK that those who organise public processions must give the police advance notification that they are to be held, and that it is a criminal offence to fail to do so. Whilst the European Court of Human Rights has accepted that such a requirement is not necessarily incompatible with the Article 11 freedom to peacefully assemble, recent litigation concerning the policing of the ‘flag protests’ in Belfast suggests that the officers in charge were mistaken as to the scope of their powers under the relevant legislation, the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, and that they failed to appreciate that the protection afforded to protestors by Article 11 has important limits.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

The Vires Defence—“Ultra Vires” as a Defence to Criminal or Civil Proceedings

1992 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 308-348
Author(s):  
Carl Emery
Keyword(s):  
Public Authority ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Uk

Defendants to criminal or civil proceedings will often seek to escape liability by showing that a public authority has acted ultra vires. For example, a person prosecuted for infringing a byelaw or breaking a licence condition may seek to advance the defence that the byelaw or condition is ultra vires the public authority which made or imposed it. Again, a person sued in debt by a public authority may seek to raise the defence that no money is due because the authority acted ultra vires in imposing the charge which it is now suing to recover. Nowadays, too, the European Court of Justice may hold in effect that an Act of Parliament is contrary to Community law and so should not be applied by UK courts. A person prosecuted, say in a magistrates' court, for a criminal offence created by a statute which is or may be contrary to Community law may seek to persuade the justices to “disapply” the statute—virtually, in the case of a post-Accession statute, to treat it as ultra vires the UK Parliament—and so to acquit him.

Righting the Public Order Script

2021 ◽  
pp. 205-240
Author(s):  
Richard Martin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Paradigm Case ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The Social ◽  
Material Form

Contentious parades and protests in Northern Ireland present a paradigm case of competing rights, requiring the PSNI to respond in ways that respect the human rights of the various parties involved. This chapter introduces and develops the idea of the PSNI’s public order ‘script’ which is used to manage contentious parades and protests. The script can be thought of as the organization’s carefully constructed template for managing public order events, especially contentious parades and protests. This script is written and promoted by public order commanders who are acutely aware of the political sensitivities of parades and protests and the formal oversight they face in policing them. In the material form of operational plans and briefing documents, the script is communicated to frontline officers – often the TSG – who are tasked with performing the police operation according to the script. The first two sections of this chapter provide the platform for the analysis of the police script by explaining the social and legal context within which it is written and performed. The production, promotion and delivery of human rights law as an integral part of the police script is then traced in detail, before the chapter analyses how public order commanders came to acquire the knowledge and expertise needed to become human rights script-writers and decision-makers. This hints at the movement away from the kinds of ‘common sense’ understandings described in Part III and towards a more legalistic, technical one reflecting the responsibilities commanders shouldered and the formal audiences they addressed.

The Dissemination of International Liberal Norms: The Case of the ECHR and the UK

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendall W. Stiles
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Norm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mass Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Policy Elites ◽  
Dominant Theory

Abstract. The dominant theory of international liberal norm-dissemination argues that states will tend to move from rejection of international norms to internationalization through gradual, predictable stages. The presumption is that the mass public consistently presses the state (in partnership with international norm carriers) for greater liberalization. This theory is shown to have serious weaknesses when applied to mature democracies. A study of the UK's response to adverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights indicates that policy elites respond differently depending on the norm, the security context and public opinion. Further, the public does not consistently advocate liberalization, but sometimes the reverse. Résumé. Une théorie principale sur la propagation des normes libérales internationales avance que les États ne passent que graduellement du rejet des normes internationales à leur adoption, en passant par plusieurs étapes prévisibles. Elles présument que le grand public (en conjonction avec les créateurs des normes internationales) exerce des pressions continuelles sur les États pour plus de libertés civiques. En fait, cette théorie n'explique pas l'évolution des attitudes vis-à-vis les libertés civiques dans les démocraties avancées. Une étude du Royaume-Uni, par exemple, démontre que, lorsque la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme dénonce une violation de la Convention, les élites politiques réagissent différemment en fonction de la norme en cause, des questions de sécurité et de l'opinion publique. En outre, le public n'est pas toujours en faveur de la libéralisation, au contraire.

9. Freedom from discrimination

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Nations Development

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on freedom from discrimination, beginning with an overview of equality as a contested concept as well as formal and substantive forms of equality, and then examines the United Nations’ development of specific treaty and charter mechanisms to protect individuals against discrimination. It then discusses Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which gives limited protection against discrimination but has been expanded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its case law and via Protocol 12. Finally, the chapter examines the consolidation and expansion of equality laws in the UK (except for Northern Ireland) under the Equality Act 2010.

The Journalist—Source Relationship in Context: A Comparative Review of US and English Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-294
Author(s):  
Stuart Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
State Level ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
Shield Law ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Comparative Review ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

This paper analyses the legal protection of the journalist–source relationship from both sides and the underlying interests involved. The paper begins by analysing why the relationship deserves protection. The position of journalists at common law is analysed with a discussion of the application of the principle established in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise to journalists. The development of immunity from contempt in s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is examined to illustrate the ideological clash between the judiciary and journalists. The impact of the Human Rights Act and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are analysed to assess whether this will lead to a change in attitudes in the UK. Finally, the potential threat to journalists posed by compelled evidentiary disclosure in criminal cases is reviewed, with a particular look at ‘special procedure’ material. The US section begins with an analysis of the law at federal level, the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading decision of Branzburg v Hayes, as well as the role the legislature has played. The paper then analyses protections provided at state level, with a case study of the California shield law and a review of Californian jurisprudence.

Muslim Reformists, Female Citizenship, and the Public Accommodation of Islam in Liberal Democracy

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Fadel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Gender Hierarchy ◽  
Normative Justification

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in a trilogy of cases involving Muslim claimants, has granted state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights a wide margin of appreciation with respect to the regulation of public manifestations of Islam. The ECHR has justified its decisions in these cases on the grounds that Islamic symbols, such as the ḥijāb, or Muslim commitments to the shari‘a — Islamic law — are inconsistent with the democratic order of Europe. This article raises the question of what kinds of commitments to gender equality and democratic decision-making are sufficient for a democratic order, and whether modernist Islamic teachings manifest a satisfactory normative commitment in this regard. It uses the arguments of two modern Muslim reformist scholars — Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī and ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm Abū Shuqqa — as evidence to argue that if the relevant degree of commitment to gender equality is understood from the perspective of political rather than comprehensive liberalism, doctrines such as those elaborated by these two religious scholars evidence sufficient commitment to the value of political equality between men and women. This makes less plausible the ECHR's arguments justifying a different treatment of Muslims on account of alleged Islamic commitments to gender hierarchy. It also argues that in light of Muslim modernist conceptions of the shari‘a, there is no normative justification to conclude that faithfulness to the shari‘a entails a categorical rejection of democracy as the ECHR suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document