Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 150

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 150
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.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.