Helga Law Journal

Ukioqatigiit
Ataaseq assigiiaat ilaat

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 149

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 149
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 154 International Legal Research Group 155 of the statute that answer the question are ‘take into account,’ the statute does not require the UK courts to follow all ECtHR decisions blindly. The mirror approach that was once advocated by members of the judiciary, such as Lord Rodger, who noted that in AF (No 3) that “Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed”123 and Lord Hoffman who further noted that the “UK is bound by the Convention, as a matter of international law, to accept the decision of the ECtHR on its interpretation”124 is incorrect. Instead, the British Courts have transitioned into the ‘partial-mirror’ approach noted by Lord Bingham in Ullah.125 Lord Bingham noted that the courts should follow the clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court in the absence of special circumstances. Lord Neuberger further supports this approach in Pinnock v Manchester City Council noting that the British courts “should usually follow a clear and constant line of decisions by the European Court...but we are not actually bound to do so.”126 The UK Courts have now reached a point in which they are fully capable of departing from ECtHR decisions when special circumstances arise.127 Occasionally, the ECtHR provides domestic courts with the ability to depart from its persuasive jurisprudence. In many cases, the ECtHR provides states with a ‘margin of appreciation’ which relaxes the requirement to follow ECtHR reasoning by providing states with the ability to balance rights with domestic policy. For example, in Handyside v UK the applicant was convicted in England under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for publishing a book aimed at children with explicit and obscene materials. The Court held that the domestic margin of appreciation embraced this case and was best left to contracting states to decide if the materials were permissible.128 Another example of an issue covered by the margin of appreciation is the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, this is displayed in Gard and Others v UK. The ECtHR states that “where the case raises sensitive moral or ethical issues, the margin of appreciation of the domestic authorities will be wider.”129 123 AF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 2 A.C. 269, 366. 124 ibid 356. 125 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26. 126 Pinnock v Manchester City Counil [2011] UKSC 6. 127 For an example see Horncastle: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair trial. In cases where a defendant’s conviction is solely, or to a decisive extent, on statements from an absent witness, the ECtHR has ruled as a violation of the ECHR. In Al-Khawaja v UK, the chamber of the ECHR held that the use of a dead victim’s witness statement to convict a man of sexual assault was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. The appellants in Horncastle relied on the ‘sole or decisive’ rule applied by the ECtHR to claim that their convictions were unsafe. The Supreme Court rejected this test as part of the Strasbourg jurisprudence. The Supreme Court noted that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained provisions that render hearsay evidence from witnesses who are dead, ill, missing or absent through fear admissible in court. 128 Handyside v UK, [1976] ECHR, no. 5493/72. 129 Gard and Others v UK [2017] ECHR, no. 39793/17. 3.3.2 When do the Courts Depart from the ECtHR Jurisprudence? However, the answer to the question of what are the special circumstances that result in the departure of ECtHR decisions is less clear. An example of this special circumstance can be illustrated through Horncastle,130 which concerned the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The Supreme Court noted, contrary to Strasbourg jurisprudence, that “the provisions of the 2003 [Criminal Justice] Act… strike the right balance between the imperative that a trial must be fair and the interests of the victims.”131 Hence, some reluctance can be noticed when the UKSC is confronted with the opportunity to side with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. More recently, the prisoner-voting controversy that was initiated through the case of Hirst132 in 2005 continues; in 2016 in Millbank,133 the Court reached the same conclusion.134 However, the UK has not followed suit and continues the blanket ban on prisoners, so as to prevent the latter from exercising their rights to vote. 3.4 What is the Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on the Right to Protest in Your Country? There have been numerous cases concerning the right to protest that shaped the way UK law treated civil liberties prior to the ratification of the ECHR (as well as after it), thereby showing the development of the right. In O’Kelly v Harvey135 it was deemed by Law C that the defendant was “justified in taking the necessary steps to stop and disperse [the meeting of the plaintiff]”136 even affecting individuals not potentially involved in a breach of peace. Almost 30 years later, Dicey stated that ‘an otherwise lawful’ meeting may become the opposite if there is a suspected breach of peace.137 In Michaels v Block,138 the court cited Cicero’s maxim ‘salus populi suprema lex’ (‘the safety of the state being the highest law’)139 130 R v Horncastle & Others [2009] UKSC 14. 131 ibid [108]. 132 Hirst v The United Kingdom (No2) [2005] ECHR 681. The British government has enforced a blanket ban on convicted prisoners’ voting, and the ECtHR has made it clear that it is “incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR. Yet the British Prime Minister has insisted that the issue is for ‘Parliament to decide, not a foreign court’,4 British Members of Parliament having voted to reject Hirst back in February 2011.” Ed Bates, ‘Analysing the Prisoner Voting Saga and the British Challenge to Strasbourg’ [2014] 14(3) Human Rights Law Review 503. 133 Millbank and others v The United Kingdom [2016] ECHR 595. 134 “[The Court] holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the ineligibility to vote in elections,” Ibid. 135 [1882] 10 LR Ir 287. 136 ibid. 137 Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edn Macmillan 1915) 174. 138 [1918] 34 TLR 438. 139 ibid 438.
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108
Qupperneq 109
Qupperneq 110
Qupperneq 111
Qupperneq 112
Qupperneq 113
Qupperneq 114
Qupperneq 115
Qupperneq 116
Qupperneq 117
Qupperneq 118
Qupperneq 119
Qupperneq 120
Qupperneq 121
Qupperneq 122
Qupperneq 123
Qupperneq 124
Qupperneq 125
Qupperneq 126
Qupperneq 127
Qupperneq 128
Qupperneq 129
Qupperneq 130
Qupperneq 131
Qupperneq 132
Qupperneq 133
Qupperneq 134
Qupperneq 135
Qupperneq 136
Qupperneq 137
Qupperneq 138
Qupperneq 139
Qupperneq 140
Qupperneq 141
Qupperneq 142
Qupperneq 143
Qupperneq 144
Qupperneq 145
Qupperneq 146
Qupperneq 147
Qupperneq 148
Qupperneq 149
Qupperneq 150
Qupperneq 151
Qupperneq 152
Qupperneq 153
Qupperneq 154
Qupperneq 155
Qupperneq 156
Qupperneq 157
Qupperneq 158
Qupperneq 159
Qupperneq 160
Qupperneq 161
Qupperneq 162
Qupperneq 163
Qupperneq 164
Qupperneq 165
Qupperneq 166
Qupperneq 167
Qupperneq 168
Qupperneq 169
Qupperneq 170
Qupperneq 171
Qupperneq 172
Qupperneq 173
Qupperneq 174
Qupperneq 175
Qupperneq 176
Qupperneq 177
Qupperneq 178
Qupperneq 179
Qupperneq 180
Qupperneq 181
Qupperneq 182
Qupperneq 183
Qupperneq 184
Qupperneq 185
Qupperneq 186
Qupperneq 187
Qupperneq 188
Qupperneq 189
Qupperneq 190
Qupperneq 191
Qupperneq 192
Qupperneq 193
Qupperneq 194
Qupperneq 195
Qupperneq 196
Qupperneq 197
Qupperneq 198
Qupperneq 199
Qupperneq 200
Qupperneq 201
Qupperneq 202
Qupperneq 203
Qupperneq 204
Qupperneq 205
Qupperneq 206
Qupperneq 207
Qupperneq 208
Qupperneq 209
Qupperneq 210
Qupperneq 211
Qupperneq 212
Qupperneq 213
Qupperneq 214
Qupperneq 215
Qupperneq 216
Qupperneq 217
Qupperneq 218
Qupperneq 219
Qupperneq 220
Qupperneq 221
Qupperneq 222
Qupperneq 223
Qupperneq 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

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.