having relied on reasonable chastisement in the circumstances. The court concluded that there had been a violation of Art 3 on the basis that existing domestic law on the defence of lawful chastisement had failed to provide the applicant with adequate protection. Whilst the question of whether, in any given case, the treatment suffered by an applicant reached the minimum level of severity necessary to trigger the operation of Art 3 would depend on the circumstances, where the victim was a child the minimum threshold would be more easily attained. It should be noted that, whilst the court accepted that the United Kingdom could not be held responsible for the actions of a private individual, such as the applicant’s stepfather, it was responsible for a system of criminal law that allowed a person inflicting serious harm upon a child to be acquitted on the grounds that the harm was justifiable chastisement. There has been no legislative response to this decision, but the courts have attempted to alleviate the shortcomings of the domestic law by offering guidelines on the availability of the defence; see RvH (Reasonable Chastisement) (2001) The Times, 18 May. Where a parent raises the defence of lawful chastisement the jury ought to be directed to consider: (i) the nature and context of the defendant’s behaviour; (ii) the duration of that behaviour; (iii) the physical and mental consequences in respect of the child; (iv) the age and personal characteristics of the child; (v) the reasons given by the defendant for administering the punishment. Article 7: Non-retrospectivity
Keyword(s):
Keyword(s):
2019 ◽
Vol 19
(4)
◽
pp. 258-281
◽
2007 ◽
Vol 37
(2)
◽
pp. 245-262
◽
Keyword(s):
2016 ◽
Keyword(s):
Keyword(s):
1948 ◽
Vol 192
(1029)
◽
pp. 143-155
2009 ◽
Vol 102
(5)
◽
pp. 195-198
◽
1887 ◽
Vol 1
(1)
◽
pp. 17-21
◽