Article 16: The Right to Protection of Privacy

This chapter provides a brief overview of article 16 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child and of its legislative history as outlined in the Travaux Préparatoires. It outlines the principle threats to children’s privacy today and summarizes the substantive content of Article 16, particularly in relation to the General Principles of child rights in Articles 2, 3, 6, and 12, as well as the nexus between the right to privacy and several other rights of children under the Convention as well as other international human rights instruments. It then puts forward four main attributes of the child’s right to privacy as aspects of the right which State Parties should monitor as a means of measuring the effective implementation of Article 16. The essential attributes of Article 16 and the child’s right to privacy are State protection against: (1) interference with privacy; (2) interference with family, home or correspondence; (3) unlawful attacks upon honour and reputation; and (4) protection of the law against unlawful interference or attacks.

Screening for Substance Use Disorders during Pregnancy: A Decision at the Intersection of Racial and Reproductive Justice

Objective: Improve racial equity with routine universal drug screening / Study Design: Commentary on the medicolegal and social history of the United States and the field of obstetrics and gynecology regarding drug screening policy / Results: Critical aspects to inform an equitable drug screening policy include (1) racial bias and stigma related to substance use, (2) the legislative history surrounding substance use during pregnancy, (3) the relationship between substance use and mass incarceration which disproportionately affects persons of color, (4) propensity toward punitive measures for Black mothers with substance use, including termination of parental rights, (5) the role of the medical field in fostering mistrust among our patients / Conclusion: new practices in screening for substance use during pregnancy are needed. Key Points

Judicial infringement of the right to internet access by the imposition of special sentencing conditions

<p>Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act extends to protect internet access within New Zealand as a means of expression. Judicial restriction of internet access via the imposition of special conditions during sentencing is therefore an infringement of s 14. This interpretation of s 14 is consistent with its purpose, legislative history, and the broad approach afforded to human rights generally, as well as international case law and statutes. Any imposition of special conditions restricting internet access must be a demonstrably justifiable limit per s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act to be legitimate. The practical considerations of such a technological limit also warrant judicial consideration before it is imposed. As yet, New Zealand has no explicit protection of internet access but growing acceptance of its importance indicates that reform or judicial acknowledgement are, or soon will be, required.</p>

All smoke and mirrors? The Taylor litigation and issues surrounding the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons

<p>A 2005 prisoner health survey found that almost three quarters of the New Zealand prison population identified as smokers. Tobacco was deeply engrained in prison culture and smoking was viewed as an aid for managing the stress and boredom associated with prison life. The Department of Corrections implemented a policy on 1 July 2011, banning smoking in all areas of all prisons in New Zealand. The policy aimed to improve the long-term health of prisoners, and create a healthier workplace environment. Arthur Taylor, a notorious and litigious criminal, successfully challenged the delegated legislation implementing the policy by way of judicial review. This paper argues that the judicial reasoning was flawed, as it was based on erroneous assumptions without a thorough assessment and interpretation of the legislative history. Despite Taylor’s successful claims, the smoking ban was then incorporated into primary legislation. This paper examines the method of implementation, finding issues with retrospective and privative clauses introduced by a late stage supplementary order paper. Prisoners are a group especially vulnerable to curtailment of rights and freedoms, and this paper concludes that removal of the freedom to smoke in prison cells and outside in prison yards was a step too far.</p>

All smoke and mirrors? The Taylor litigation and issues surrounding the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons

<p>A 2005 prisoner health survey found that almost three quarters of the New Zealand prison population identified as smokers. Tobacco was deeply engrained in prison culture and smoking was viewed as an aid for managing the stress and boredom associated with prison life. The Department of Corrections implemented a policy on 1 July 2011, banning smoking in all areas of all prisons in New Zealand. The policy aimed to improve the long-term health of prisoners, and create a healthier workplace environment. Arthur Taylor, a notorious and litigious criminal, successfully challenged the delegated legislation implementing the policy by way of judicial review. This paper argues that the judicial reasoning was flawed, as it was based on erroneous assumptions without a thorough assessment and interpretation of the legislative history. Despite Taylor’s successful claims, the smoking ban was then incorporated into primary legislation. This paper examines the method of implementation, finding issues with retrospective and privative clauses introduced by a late stage supplementary order paper. Prisoners are a group especially vulnerable to curtailment of rights and freedoms, and this paper concludes that removal of the freedom to smoke in prison cells and outside in prison yards was a step too far.</p>

Judicial infringement of the right to internet access by the imposition of special sentencing conditions

<p>Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act extends to protect internet access within New Zealand as a means of expression. Judicial restriction of internet access via the imposition of special conditions during sentencing is therefore an infringement of s 14. This interpretation of s 14 is consistent with its purpose, legislative history, and the broad approach afforded to human rights generally, as well as international case law and statutes. Any imposition of special conditions restricting internet access must be a demonstrably justifiable limit per s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act to be legitimate. The practical considerations of such a technological limit also warrant judicial consideration before it is imposed. As yet, New Zealand has no explicit protection of internet access but growing acceptance of its importance indicates that reform or judicial acknowledgement are, or soon will be, required.</p>

Challenging Production, 1993–2005

The chapter analyzes Swedish legislative attempts to challenge pornography production with laws against pimping/procuring. Minority parliamentary motions and the 1993 Prostitution Inquiry’s proposal to extend prostitution laws to cover pornography producers are considered. The 1998 Sexual Crimes Committee’s rejection of this proposal is scrutinized. Its attempts to invoke the legislative history of media antitrust and bankruptcy law, child pornography and child molestation amendments, as well as distinctions between content and underlying criminal conduct, are rebutted by legal analysis based on the primary sources. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that case law on analogous issues disproves the Committee’s position, including decisions on violent resistance and dishonest conduct during artistic film projects, filmed sexual crimes, amateur pornography, and purchasing/possessing illegal weapons as an integral means of otherwise legitimate news reporting. It is concluded that decisions not to apply prostitution laws to pornographers are based on ideology, not law, political ideas, not legislated rules.

The Legislation and Regulation of Medical Devices

This chapter outlines the laws that govern the manufacture and supply of medical devices in the EU and UK, both multi-faceted and internationally well-regarded legislative regimes. It contextualises these laws within the broader framework of the EU’s new approach to product safety legislation, in which these medical devices regimes were established. It discusses the core principles and fundamental statutory concepts under the EU and UK legislation that have been reinforced and improved upon over forty years of legislative history. Recent legislative change and the impact of Brexit is discussed in detail in that regard. The chapter also describes the regulatory environment in which Europe’s substantial medical devices industry operates, an industry which is estimated by the European Commission in 2019 as being comprised of 500,000 different types of medical devices and worth €100 billion. An outline of key regulatory bodies and functions is also provided.

Protection of Copyright in Foreign Works in Nigeria: An Analysis of the Decision in Voice Web International Limited v Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Ltd & Ors

The protection for copyright in foreign works in Nigeria has been a contentious and controversial issue for over three decades. In this case analysis, through a trilogy of cases, we trace the judicial trend and jurisprudence on this issue of copyright law. We argue that although Sec. 5 and Sec. 41 of the Nigerian Copyright Act provide two methods by which foreign works can receive protection under the Act, the courts have repeatedly declined to confer such protection. The most recent case on this issue, Voice Web International Limited v Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Ltd & Ors, provided an opportunity for the courts to lay the issue to rest; however, unfortunately, the courts again failed to do so. In this opinion, we critically examine the case and discuss the legislative history conferring protection to foreign works. We conclude that the correct statutory interpretation in determining the protection of foreign works is reciprocity, and this was satisfied in the case under review.