scholarly journals Vindicating the right to bodily security of the incapable in research – Part 2

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (14) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Austen Garwood-Gowers

<p>The Mental Capacity Act 2005 generally exhibits a stronger ethos of protecting the incapable in intrusive research than the last but one version of the Bill. However, sections 31(5) and 6 of the Act replicate clauses 31(4) and 31(5) of that version. As I noted in Part 1 of this article, these clauses are difficult to reconcile with the primary principle. Here I examine what effect, if any, they will have both on the process of authorising research projects involving intrusive research upon the incapable adult and on the ultimate use of the incapable adult in such research. This will involve analysis of the Act’s provisions in the light of both ordinary rules of statutory interpretation and the interpretative obligation imposed by section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.</p>

Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant

The right of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, but English law as yet recognises no tort of invasion of privacy as such. Admittedly, a number of specific torts protect particular aspects of privacy, but this protection may be regarded as haphazard, incidental, and incomplete. Recent decisions, however, have seen substantial developments in the protection given to particular privacy interests, above all by adapting the law of breach of confidence to provide a remedy against the unauthorised disclosure of personal information. These issues are discussed in this chapter.


2019 ◽  
pp. 441-475
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley

This chapter considers two ‘land torts’: trespass to land and private nuisance. Trespass to land protects a person in possession of land against direct invasion of his property. The right to sue includes not only those with a proprietorial interest in the land, such as owners and tenants, but also those who have exclusive occupation such as squatters. The fact that any invasion of land, however minute and whether it causes damage or not, is a trespass, indicates that the primary function of this tort is to protect rights in property, rather than simply to provide compensation. The chapter continues by distinguishing between public and private nuisance. It then discusses the interests protected in private nuisance; the standard of reasonable user; the person(s) liable for nuisance; remoteness of damage; statutory authority and planning permission; and the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on nuisance claims.


Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The Calcutt Committee Report on Privacy and Related Matters (1990) defines privacy as ‘the right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information’. While a number of different torts indirectly address wrongful intrusion into another’s privacy, English law has not directly protected privacy in its own right. It was the Human Rights Act 1998 that has made it possible to use breach of confidence in regulating the publication of private information. This chapter looks at the history of the protection of privacy in English law, discusses the current legal approaches to privacy, examines the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on this developing area of law, and evaluates English law on privacy in an international context.


Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

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 discusses the definition of parliamentary sovereignty, AV Dicey’s views concerning parliamentary sovereignty, the jurisdiction of the courts, whether the substance of an Act of Parliament can be challenged, the enrolled bill rule; whether the jurisdiction of the court over an Act of Parliament be enlarged; the rule in Pepper v Hart; entrenchment clauses; prospective formula; the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998; the purposive approach to statutory interpretation; and the implications of EU law for parliamentary sovereignty.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
Amanda McSorley

Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, 1998 states that: ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No-one shall be deprived of his or her liberty unless in accordance with a procedure prescribed in law.’ However, there are occasions when it is necessary and appropriate to deprive a person of their liberty in order to keep them safe from harm. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are the legal framework introduced in 2009 to ensure that this occurs only when absolutely necessary and no alternative, less restrictive measures can be utilised to ensure safe care. This article outlines the key points relating to DOLS, considering how they relate to GPs during their training and careers.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
Joanna Miles

“The problem is more with what the [Children] Act does not say than with what it does”: Hale L.J., Court of Appeal at para. [50]. Therein lay the problem addressed in Re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) [2002] UKHL 10, [2002] 2 W.L.R. 720; reversing in part [2001] EWCA Civ 757, [2001] 2 F.L.R. 582. This case involves key issues in child protection under the Children Act 1989 and provides further guidance regarding the courts’ interpretation of legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behrad Baharlo ◽  
Daniele Bryden ◽  
Stephen J Brett

The right to liberty and security of the person is protected by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. The 2014 Supreme Court judgment in the case commonly known as Cheshire West provided for an ‘acid test’ to be employed in establishing a deprivation of liberty. This ‘acid test’ of ‘continuous supervision and not free to leave’ led to concerns that patients lacking capacity being treated on an Intensive Care Unit could be at risk of a ‘deprivation of liberty’, if this authority was applicable to this setting. This article revisits the aftermath of Cheshire West before describing the recent legal developments around deprivation of liberty pertaining to intensive care by summarising the recent Ferreira judgments which appear for now to answer the question as to the applicability of Cheshire West in life-saving treatment.


2014 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 317-368
Author(s):  
Karen Morrow

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) (ECHR) regime has, in the absence of specific coverage of environmental rights, developed a “creative” approach in its jurisprudence in this area, pressing a variety of other rights, notably: Article 6 (the right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (the right to privacy and family life); and Article 1 to the First Protocol of the ECHR (the right to enjoyment of property) into service. This creativity has achieved much in according indirect protection to individuals in this regard, but has also placed additional pressure on the already congested Convention system. The entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) made long-held rights under the ECHR directly accessible in domestic law in the United Kingdom. This naturally spawned a wave of litigation. One of the most prominently litigated areas concerned the pursuit of a variety of environment-based rights claims. In the intervening decade, the application of the ECHR to environmental claims in the UK courts has generated somewhat mixed results. This is in part a result of the “patchwork” approach that has developed toward environmental claims within the Convention regime itself, but it is also a product of the nature of the relationship between the ECHR and domestic law and the content and ethos of both regimes. This article will conclude by briefly considering the on-going role of the ECHR regime in environmental cases in light of subsequent developments in this area of law, notably under the Aarhus Convention.


Author(s):  
Paul Bowen

<p>R (Wilkinson) v. Broadmoor RMO (1) Mental Health Act Commission (2) Secretary of State for Health (Interested party) [2001] EWCA Civ 1545<br />Court of Appeal (22nd October 2001) Simon Brown LJ, Brooke LJ and Hale LJ</p><p>A detained patient’s right to refuse treatment to which he or she objects has been greatly strengthened by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, applying the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, although in reaching its decision the Court of Appeal has posed as many questions for the future of the law in this area as it has answered.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document