Paper 3 flashcards (human rights and legal theory)

R v G 2008
15-y-o having sex with a 12-y-o; human rights not breached as law should protect vulnerable people
1 of 75
Pearce v Brookes 1866
Cab owner failed to enforce a contract with a cab owner; cabs being used for immoral purposes
2 of 75
Otkritie Int'l Investment Management Ltd v Urumov 2013
Court specifically made the link between law and morality
3 of 75
R v Inglis 2010
While life sentence for murder stands; judge can reduce the tariff
4 of 75
Rynes v Urad 2014 (Law and technology)
Footage from a surveillance camera used to prove guilt; argued it breached Czech data protection law
5 of 75
Bellringer v Bellringer 2003 (HRA 1998)
Declaration of incompatibility issued for 1973 Act under ECHR; Parliament later passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to remove the incompatibility
6 of 75
R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2002
Judge could fix a tariff for a life sentence; HOL decided this was incompatible with Article 6 ECHR
7 of 75
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2005
Detained indefinitely under Article 15 which was entitled in times of war and public emergency; it was for the gov't to decide if there was an emergency situation, powers were disproportionate
8 of 75
Wainwright v United Kingdom 2007
***** searched; held to not be proportionate to Article 8; lack of a tort of invasion of privacy violated Article 13
9 of 75
Hirst v United Kingdom (no. 2) 2005
Prisoner barred by s3 of the 1983 Representation of the People Act from voting in elections; ECtHR upheld his complaint
10 of 75
What is important about this, however?
UK domestic law does not have to follow decisions of the ECtHR, unlike the ECJ
11 of 75
(Article 5) Guzzardi v Italy 1981
Man suspected of criminal activities sent to isolated island; he had a strict curfew, wasn't allowed to go to bars and had to report to supervisory authorities; in violation of his human rights
12 of 75
Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ 2007
Controlees subject to an 18-hour curfew, confined to restricted areas; deprivation of liberty
13 of 75
Secretary of State for the Home Department v E 2007
12-hour curfew in home with wife and family; no restrictions; not a deprivation of liberty
14 of 75
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P 2014
P was incontinent and developed the habit of tearing pieces off his continence pad; placed in all body suit
15 of 75
P and Q by their litigation friend the Official Solicitor v Surrey County Council 2011
P devoted to foster mother, went home during the holidays, if she tried to leave foster mother would restrain her; Q restrained due to outbursts against mental patients; Supreme Court decided both cases represented a deprivation of liberty
16 of 75
What was the "Lady Hale" Test and what did it set out?
"Is the patient under continuous supervision and not entitled to leave?"
17 of 75
J E v D E, aka Re DE 2006
D E in a care home, wanted to move in with J E, deprived of his liberty as he couldn't leave; no need for a lock or physical barrier
18 of 75
Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2009
Police stood in lines across the exits from Oxford Circus; HOL considered measures were resorted to in good faith, proportionate, and enforced for no longer than necessary; didn't offend Article 5
19 of 75
R (Moos) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 2011
Police must be in apprehension of "an imminent breach of the peace" before taking action
20 of 75
Mengesha v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 2013
Chief superintendent filmed those leaving and took down their details; police requirement unlawful under s64A of PACE 1984
21 of 75
R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2006
C stopped under s44 Terrorism Act; as he was merely being stopped no violation of Article 5
22 of 75
R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2012
No deprivation of liberty, only held temporarily
23 of 75
Shimvolos v Russia 2011
Had been forced to the police station; Article 5(1)(c) doesn't allow detention, as a general policy of prevention, of people who are perceived to be a threat
24 of 75
Christie v Leachinsky 1947
Charged with "unlawful possession" and detained in custody; D claimed false imprisonment; HOL decideed that the imprisonment was justified
25 of 75
R v Samuel 1988
D denied access to a lawyer; questioned about robbery and burglary and only received legal advice afterwards; right to legal representation could not be delayed; certainly not delayed after a serious arrestable offence; conviction quashed
26 of 75
Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police 2004
A 10-year-old boy arrested at a protest for violent disorder committed at a previous protest; enough of a description
27 of 75
Brown v Stott 2001
D admitted she was drink-driving, used in court; argued that this amounted to self-incrimination; Article 6 complied with
28 of 75
Osman v United Kingdom 2000
Police sued for failure to protect a family from harassment; ECtHR argued the blanket immunity was a disproportionate restriction on C's right of access to court
29 of 75
R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte 2000
One of the judges in the Pinochet case had not disclosed his links to Amnesty Int'l; judges must disclose an interest to the case
30 of 75
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom 2005
Sued by McDonald's for publishing a defamatory leaflet; S&M represented themselves against corporate barristers; complexity and differing levels of legal representation meant violation of Art. 6
31 of 75
T and V v United Kingdom 2000
11-y-o boys tried in a Crown Court room; public trial in an adult court; trial was in breach of Art. 6
32 of 75
Secretary of State for the Home Department v A F 2009
Evidence against defendants based on closed material; HOL held that it was unlawful to hold somebody under a control order without them knowing why
33 of 75
B and P v United Kingdom 2002
Family cases usually held in private; ECtHR held it was valid to hold a private trial in some circumstances, no breach of Article 6
34 of 75
Brumarescu v Romania 1999
B's family's house nationalised by the state in the 1950; Court held house passed on under a valid law; ECtHR upheld B's complaint as there had been a final judgement which could not be re-opened
35 of 75
Ibrahim v United Kingdom 2016
Ds arrested in connection with the London bombings; refused legal assistance to allow "safety interviews"; no breach of Article 6
36 of 75
(Article 8) Niemitz v Germany 1992
Correspondence is private life; police searched a lawyer's office for information on a suspect
37 of 75
Halford v United Kingdom 1997
Telephone calls intercepted by senior police officers to obtain information; interception of the phone calls of a private employee was the breach of the right to private life
38 of 75
Axon v Secretary of State for Health 2006
Provided a child is Gillick competent; right to parental interference violates Article 8
39 of 75
Wainwright v Home Office 2003
*****-searched; Article 8 includes touching the body as a part of the right to a private life
40 of 75
Campbell v MGN Ltd 2004
Naomi Campbell photographed leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting; no question of Article 10 over Article 8 or a presumption of favour
41 of 75
PJS v News Group Newspapers 2016
Elton John tried to stop publication of information that he had a *********; criticism of a person's conduct cannot be a pretext for an invasion of privacy; neither Article 8 or Article 10 takes precedence
42 of 75
Agyarko and Ikuga v Secretary of State for the Home Dep't 2015
Relied on relationships with British citizens to remain in the UK; no reason they couldn't continue their relationships outside of the UK; no exceptional circumstances under Article 8
43 of 75
Gaskin v United Kingdom 1989
Refusal to allow access to adoption records a violation of his rights under Article 8; must be a specific justification
44 of 75
Johannsen v Norway 1996
Opposed adoption; court should consider the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent
45 of 75
(Home) Khatun v United Kingdom 1998
Applicants suffered from pollution of the area of their home by dust caused by building works in the London Docklands; proprietary interest applied to all tenants
46 of 75
Connors v UK and Price v Leeds City Council 2005
Article 8 is engaged where the dispute relates to eviction from a lawful site for gypsy caravans, but not where the occupation of land is unauthorised
47 of 75
McDonald v McDonald 2016
Girl with mental health issues in a house; parents couldn't pay mortgage so she was evicted; Article 8 does not require whether it's proportionate to evict a residential occupier in a possession claim brought by private landlord
48 of 75
(Correspondence) Barbalescu v Romania 2016
Used company Yahoo account for personal messages; interfered with his private life
49 of 75
Tele2Sverige and Watson 2016
Where national legislation provides for data retention, any retention must be strictly necessary for the purposes of investigating serious crime
50 of 75
(Article 10) Handyside v United Kingdom 1976
Convicted under Obscene Publications Act; no violation of Article 10 because of the margin of appreciation of a member state
51 of 75
Goodwin v United Kingdom 1996
Goodwin failed to disclose the source of company financial information and was fined; order for disclosure not necessary, a breach of Article 10
52 of 75
Axel Springer AG v Germany 2012
The rights to Article 8 of an actor who had been photographed outweighed Article 10
53 of 75
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom 2005
Steel and Morris ordered to pay damages to McDonald's in 1997; given lack of procedural fairness violation of Article 10
54 of 75
A v B plc (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) 2002
No proper public interest in a tabloid newspaper publishing name of a footballer who'd been unfaithful to his wife; no violation of Article 10
55 of 75
Otto-Preminger-Institut v Hungary 1994
Institute tried to show a film that offended the Catholic religion; institute claimed a violation of Article 10 but failed because of the right of a member state to avoid cultural offence
56 of 75
Garuady v France 2003
Garuady disputed that the Holocaust had happened in a book; however unpalatable his views, should not be banned under Article 10
57 of 75
Guerra v Italy 1998
Italian state failed to provide information about potentially hazardous industry near where they lived; positive obligations to collect and disseminate information are not included in Article 10
58 of 75
Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom 1995
Newspapers challenged an injunction against their publication of restricted information; injunctions overturned as Spycatcher had been published in the USA
59 of 75
R v Shayler 2002
No public interest defence in the publication of classified documents
60 of 75
(Prevention of disorder or crime) Surek v Turkey 1999
Newspaper charged with publishing readers' letters against Turkish actions in Kurdistan; applicant's conviction was both relevant and sufficient; intervention proportionate to its legitimate aim, no violation
61 of 75
(Protection of public health and morals) Muller v Switzerland 1988
Man convicted for owning obscene paintings; ECtHR did not find Swiss courts to be disproportionate
62 of 75
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland 1992
Publishing information about abortion clinics in Great Britain allowed under Article 10
63 of 75
(Protection of the rights and reputation of others) Bedat v Switzerland 2016
Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 10; fine imposed on Mr Bedat was necessary in a democratic society
64 of 75
Sunday Times v United Kingdom 1979
Reporting on thalidomide negotiations would obstruct justice; ECtHR said that the thalidomide disaster was a matter of public concern
65 of 75
Pinto Coelho v Portugal (no. 2) 2016
Portuguese journalist played broadcasts from the courtroom; not authorised for public release; Article 10 violated
66 of 75
Yildrim v Turkey 2013
State ordered blanket blocking of This breached the right to freedom of expression
67 of 75
(Article 11) Cisse v France 2002
Protesters against the difficulty of getting work visas stormed a church in Paris; police ordered the evacuation of the church on medical grounds. No violation of Article 11
68 of 75
Artze fur das leben v Austria 1988
Demonstrations must be able to be held without the fear of physical violence by their opponents; while there is a right to counter-demonstrate sometimes the state must intervene to ensure order
69 of 75
DPP v Margaret Jones 1999
A peaceful assembly on the highway, which did not interfere with or obstruct the highway, was not a trespassory assembly
70 of 75
Appleby v United Kingdom 2003
Protesting the construction of a new mall, despite the importance of freedom of expression, Article 11 does not grant any freedom as to where an individual may exercise that right
71 of 75
(Freedom of association) McFeeley v United Kingdom 1981
Ant-terrorist prisoners isolated; decided on the basis of Article 3
72 of 75
Redfearn v United Kingdom 2012
Bus driver drove around mostly Asian disabled youths, fear of abuse as he joined the BNP; lost his job yet the court held this struck at the "very essence" of the rights contained in Article 11
73 of 75
(Aggravated trespass) DPP v Chivers 2010
Locked himself to a stair railing using a D-lock around his neck, court decided that land includes a building so all three had been correctly charged with aggravated trespass
74 of 75
R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire 2006
Stopped coaches carrying anti-Iraq War protestors; some of the protestors had purely peaceful intentions including Laporte but items were found suggesting more violent; not allowed to get off coach under police escort; unlawful as disproportionate
75 of 75

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Pearce v Brookes 1866


Cab owner failed to enforce a contract with a cab owner; cabs being used for immoral purposes

Card 3


Otkritie Int'l Investment Management Ltd v Urumov 2013


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


R v Inglis 2010


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Rynes v Urad 2014 (Law and technology)


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Human rights resources »