Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 148

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 148
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 152 International Legal Research Group 153 than not the declarations have been responded too and subsequent changes made.110 3.3 How did the ECHR Change the UK Legal System in Terms of the Right to Protest? The seemingly checkered track record of the UK courts of protecting human rights is also apparent in the right to protest. The right to engage in public protest has not historically been recognised in British law. In Duncan v Jones, Lord Hewart stated that “English law does not recognize any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes.”111 Therefore, the introduction of the ECHR and the HRA has provided a more recognizable right to protest in the form of the combination of Articles 10 and 11 in British law. Article 10 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, “the right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”112 In addition, Article 11 guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others. However, both of these rights are not absolute, the exercise of both these rights may be subject to restrictions “as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.”113 Any interference with either of these rights must also be proportionate. The three-part proportionality test set out by the ECtHR seeks to establish: (i) whether the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) whether the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) whether the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.114 The third part of the test articulated in De Freitas protects the right to protest by ensuring that any policy that restricts either the right to expression or the right to peaceful assembly cannot be draconian and must be measured. There is a positive obligation on the state to ensure that people can engage in lawful peaceful protest. In Arzte fur das Leben v Austria, the ECtHR noted that “Article 11 sometimes requires positive measures to be taken even in the sphere of relations between individuals.”115 Meanwhile, there is the negative obligation on the state, which establishes “the right not to be prevented or restricted by the state from meeting and associating with others to pursue particular aims, except 110 Alice Donald, Jane Gordon and Philip Leach, The UK and the European Court of Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission, Research Report 83. 111 Duncan v Jones [1936] 1.K.B. 218, 222. 112 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10, section 1. 113 ibid, section 2. 114 For an application of the proportionality test see De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and Others [1999] 1 AC 69, 80. 115 Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria no. 10126/82, ECHR 1988 [32-33]. to the extent allowed by Article 11(2).”116 Before the enactment of the HRA, the protection of fundamental rights of British individuals often (albeit, not always117) relied on the Wednesbury test of reasonableness. Lord Greene stated that a decision is unreasonable when it is “so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.118” The Wednesbury test that resulted was a strong indication of judicial restraint in ruling against authorities.119 Nonetheless, the British courts did recognize the importance of protecting human life and liberty by applying the ‘anxious scrutiny’ test, displayed in Bugdaycay, Lord Bridge states “the court must…be entitled to subject an administrative decision to more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines.”120 The ‘anxious scrutiny’ test, although milder than the Wednesbury test, was ultimately dismissed by the ECtHR in Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom and was described by the ECtHR as “still effectively excluding any consideration of whether the national security and public order aims pursued struck a balance with the interference with rights.”121 The introduction of the Human Rights Act, which allows individuals to rely on the ECHR in domestic courts led to the British Courts embracing the tests of proportionality, used by the ECtHR in assessing human rights claims. 3.3.1 Must the Courts Follow ECtHR Decisions? The issue of whether the domestic courts must follow ECtHR decisions has been thoroughly discussed by the British Courts since the inception of the Human Rights Act. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act subsection 1(a) provides that “a court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Courts of Human Rights.”122 The key words 116 Aldemir v Turkey, no 32124/02, ECHR 2009 [41], and Human Rights Joint Committee, Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest (Seventh Report, 2009) HL 45/HC 328 [17]-[18]. Retrieved on 01 July 2018 from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/4702.htm. 117 Daniel Wei Wang, ‘From Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Accountability for Reasonableness’ [2017] 76(3) Cambridge Law Journal 642, and Michael Fordham, ‘Wednesbury’ [2007] 12(4) Judicial Review 266. 118 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223, 229. 119 “In Wednesbury… the licence [of a cinema operator] included a condition that no child under 15 could be admitted, whether accompanied by an adult or not. This decision was taken having regard to the well-being and moral health of children likely to visit the cinema. The local licensing authority had a wide discretion in relation to licences and could impose ‘such conditions as the authority [thought] fit.”’ Justin Leslie and Gavin McLeon, ‘Judicial review: Wednesbury unreasonableness’ (Westlaw Insight, 13 March 2015) [2]-[3]. 120 Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] A.C. 514, 531. 121 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] 29 EHRR 493. 122 Human Rights Act 1998 section 2(1).
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212
Side 213
Side 214
Side 215
Side 216
Side 217
Side 218
Side 219
Side 220
Side 221
Side 222
Side 223
Side 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.