In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. Some of them were limited during a state of emergency declared on the basis of Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and, particularly relevant for the current COVID-19 crisis, Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. The review of legal documents and literature indicates that the lockdown regulations – mainly Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 – adversely affected the everyday life of British citizens. This article discusses if those restrictions could have potentially interfered with some of the fundamental rights.
This chapter covers the Human Rights Act 1998 (European Convention on Human Rights) and includes topics on The Right to Protection from Torture, The Right to Life, Prohibition of slavery and forced labour, Right to liberty and security, Right to a Fair Trial, The Right Not to Suffer Punishment without Legal Authorisation, Right to respect for private and family life, The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, The Right to Freedom of Expression, The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Association, The Right to Marry, and The Right to Protection from Discrimination.
This chapter covers various issues in relation to public law liability associated with the regulation and use of medicines and medical devices. It analyses the practice and procedure for bringing a public law claim and specific instances of public law and human rights liability that might arise in the medicines context. It also provides an overview of the general principles and procedure applicable to claims for judicial review and claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The chapter highlights the case law that relates to specific examples of potential public law liability issues arising in the context of the regulation of medicines and medical devices.
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 Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom’s domestic jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
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.
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 Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, Supreme Court. The case concerned assisted dying, specifically whether s. 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (Nicklinson and Lambs’ cases), and whether the prosecution guidance on assisting someone to commit suicide issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions was sufficiently clear (Martin’s case). However, the primary focus of this case note is on the justices’ discussion of the respective competences of Parliament and the courts to resolve the legal issues in this area. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
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.
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Campbell v Mirror Group News Limited [2004] UKHL 22, before the House of Lords. MGN Ltd had published newspaper articles regarding Naomi Campbell’s recovery from drug addiction. Campbell alleged this was a breach of her Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). MGN Ltd argued that restricting its ability to publish such articles would be a breach of its Article 10 rights. The case provides an example of discussion regarding the concept of ‘indirect’ horizontal effect of the ECHR under the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, House of Lords. This case is concerned with the identification of public bodies and public functions under s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
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 Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court. This case addressed a further challenge to the rules against prisoner voting (see Hirst), and considered the limits of the courts’ role in relation to legislation deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Here the court was sceptical of the value of making a further declaration of incompatibility in an area where such declarations had already been made. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Restrictions of Rights and Freedoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
