Human Rights

On 13 February 2013, the Court of Appeal upheld an award of damages for a public body's breach of the right to protection of property under Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights. A claim must be based on a law or on judicial authority (but it did not require both), in order to be classed as a "possession" under Article 1. (R (Infinis Plc and others) v The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 70.)

The Home Secretary has exercised her power to discharge an extradition order against the alleged computer hacker, Gary McKinnon.

The Commission on a Bill of Rights has published a second consultation seeking further views on whether a UK Bill of Rights is needed, and if so, what form it should  take.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2012 (SI 2012/1205) was made on 2 May and will bring various provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 into force on 9 May 2012, 1 July 2012 and 10 July 2012.

The government has agreed a number of reforms to the European Court of Human Rights set out in the Council of Europe’s “Brighton Declaration”.

On 15 March 2012, the Government Equalities Office opened a consultation setting out proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage on civil premises. The consultation will close on 14 June 2012.

In Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation [2012] UKSC 2, the Supreme Court held that health authorities owe a duty under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to patients who have voluntarily submitted to mental health treatment. The court also held that relatives of someone who commits suicide can have victim status for the purposes of pursuing a claim against a health authority for a breach of its obligations under Article 2.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) have published guidance on how equality and human rights duties fit in with the CQC's essential standards of quality and safety.

On 8 September 2011, the Ministry of Justice published its report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, setting out the government's response to implementing adverse human rights judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission on a Bill of Rights has published a discussion paper, Do we need a UK Bill of Rights?.

The Court of Appeal, in Manchester City Council v G and others [2011] EWCA Civ 939, has held that Manchester City Council was liable to pay the claimant's legal costs, despite rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules (SI 2007/1744) stating that generally there should be no order as to costs in Court of Protection cases involving personal welfare.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published an online resource on human rights, aimed at those in the public sector.

In R (Cockburn) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 2095 (Admin), the High Court held that the NHS pension scheme for widowers of NHS staff was compliant with Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a possession order granted to Barnsley Metropolitan Council in Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton and others [2011] EWCA Civ 834.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance on human rights aimed at social housing providers.

The Government Equalities Office has published a consultation on registering civil partnerships on religious premises.

On 17 March 2011, the Home Secretary published the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011 (SI 2011/631), limiting the stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The government has announced its plans to allow same-sex couples to hold civil ceremonies in religious buildings.

On 11 January 2011, the European Court of Human Rights gave its decision in Ali v The United Kingdom (application no 40385/06).

On 20 December 2010, the Information Tribunal published decision notice EA/2010/0015 relating to a request for information on mineral reserves in Staffordshire.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has decided to continue to scrutinise Bills for compatibility with human rights.

A legal update on changes to police stop and search powers.

A legal update on an investigation launched by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into whether public bodies and public transport providers are meeting their legal obligations to prevent disability-related harassment.

A legal update on guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for public authorities on the provision of goods, facilities and services to trans people.

A legal update on R (on the application of Ghai) v Newcastle City Council & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 59.

A legal update on the publication by PLC Public Sector of a new practice note on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A legal update on an invitation by the Ministry of Justice for the education sector to take part in a survey evaluating its human rights toolkit for public authorities.

An update on the Supreme Court's refusal to grant permission to appeal in R (Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust and Central Bedfordshire Council v Taylor & Ors.

An update on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Paulic v Croatia (Application no 3572/06).

An update on a new practice note which provides an overview of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights that are replicated in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK's retention of the fingerprints and DNA data of persons suspected but not convicted of a crime violated their right to privacy.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has held that a trade mark application, like a registered trade mark, is a "possession" within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The High Court has held that it was not unlawful for a council to evict a group of travellers on a regular basis over a number of years, without offering them a permanent site.

The revelations that Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, had secretly taped telephone conversations have led some sections of the media to allege that his actions were illegal. Whatever the rights or wrongs of his actions, however, the incident highlights the implications of telephone monitoring in the workplace, not just for high-ranking public officials, but also for businesses

The European Court of Human Rights has held that a registered trade mark is a possession within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that an application for registration of a trade mark is not.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force on 1 January 2005.

Chichester District Council v First Secretary of State, 29 September 2004, Court of Appeal.The Court of Appeal has upheld the planning inspector's view that the defendant gypsies should be allowed to retain their caravans on their land even though they had no planning permission to do so. The planning inspector had been entitled to take into account the lack of provision by the local authority of gypsy sites, and this, with other factors, meant that the planning enforcement action amounted to disproportionate State interference with the gypsies' rights to respect for homes under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The House of Lords has held that sewerage undertakers owe no common law duty to build new sewers and are not liable to a private individual in nuisance for flooding.

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the government’s policy for restricting night flights at Heathrow airport did not breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights but that there had been a breach of Article 13.

The Special Commissioners have held that a personal belief that direct taxation is immoral and breaches an individual's human rights is not a 'reasonable excuse' for the failure to file tax returns.

The Court of Appeal has held that a 12-month notice period to terminate an exclusive agency agreement was outside the range of reasonable notice periods.

Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd, 5 December, 2002 (House of Lords). The House of Lords overturned the decision in the Court of Appeal in relation to the definition of a house, holding that the property could not reasonably be described as a single house, and that, therefore, the tenant could not enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The House of Lords made no reference to Human Rights, which was one of the issues in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Leonard Cheshire Foundation is not a public authority and that its provision of residential accommodation to disabled persons, the fees for whom were paid by the local authoirity, was a private act for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Court of Appeal has held that Thames Water is liable in nuisance to a landowner whose land was repeatedly flooded due to the inadequacy of the drainage system provided by Thames Water.

The High Court has held that electoral law is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998 because the electoral register is sold to commercial concerns without giving individual electors a right to object.

The High Court has held that the refusal by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to call in a planning application did not infringe the claimant’s rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the scheme put in place allowing some night flights to operate from Heathrow was adopted in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

South Bucks District Council v Porter, 12 October, 2001 (Court of Appeal). The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the approach to be taken by the court when deciding whether to grant an injunction to a local planning authority requiring a breach of planning control to be remedied. In cases involving gypsies occupying land in mobile homes in breach of planning control, the Court emphasised the need for proportionality and highlighted the importance of both the degree and flagrancy of the breach, and whether previous enforcement actions had been taken. The Court of Appeal's guidance was given unanimous support by the House of Lords on 22 May 2003; see the Update, House of Lords endorses Court of Appeal guidance on enforcement of planning control by injunctions.

The Court of Appeal has held that, in rare circumstances the right of freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) comes into conflict with protection provided under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to a fair trial does not extend to an appeal against a tax assessment, and where this is a matter of public, and not criminal or civil law.

The Court of Appeal has held that civil penalties for dishonest evasion of value added tax and excise duties give rise to criminal charges, and the right to a fair trial, for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R v Lambert, 5 July, 2001 (House of Lords). This case concerned the extent to which the Human Rights Act 1998 has retrospective effect. The particular question asked, was whether a person who would be a victim of an unlawful act of a public authority which took place before the Human Rights Act came into force, could rely on the Convention rights in an appellate court if the judgment in the lower court had been given before the Human Rights Act came into force (2 October, 2000). By a majority, the House of Lords held that the victim could not. This item includes links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998.

The High Court has considered whether or not the strict liability principle for defamation should override the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited, 14 May 2001 (High Court). Thames Water was the statutory undertaker for the water and sewerage systems serving the claimant's property. The claimant's property suffered severe flooding over several years due to the inadequacy of those systems. Thames Water did not carry out works to improve them. The High Court held that Thames Water was not liable in nuisance, negligence or breach of statutory duty (under the Water Industry Act 1991) in respect of its failure to carry out improvements to the systems. However, this failure was a breach of the claimant's rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, respectively, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to enjoyment of possessions. This item includes links to Practice Notes on the Human Rights Act 1998. NOTE ADDED 07/02/2002: This judgment was overturned on the nuisance issue by the Court of Appeal. For more information, see the Update, Water company liable for flooding in nuisance (Court of Appeal). NOTE ADDED 04/12/2003: The House of Lords has overruled the Court of Appeal decision. For more information, see the Update, Water company liable for flooding in nuisance (House of Lords).

Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd, 23 May, 2001 (Court of Appeal). The Court of Appeal has held (obiter) that the provision in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that prevents tenants of residential premises that have horizontal boundaries (because they include basements or 'overhangings') from being able to enfranchise is not discriminatory within Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This item contains links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998.

The House of Lords has overturned a High Court decision that had cast doubt on the legitimacy of the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the town and country planning regime.

The Court of Appeal has considered the distinction between public and private bodies and functions for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank, 17 May, 2001 (Court of Appeal). This is a full report on the Court of Appeal decision that ruled that the liability for chancel repairs offends against human rights. The court overruled the High Court and held that the owners of former rectorial glebe land subject to common law chancel repair liabilities, could not have the liability enforced against them. A parochial church council is a public authority and, as such, cannot act in a way that is incompatible with Convention rights. The liability to pay for chancel repairs amounts to a tax on land and is contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol unless it can be justified and is both appropriate and proportionate. The liability could be justified as the maintenance of historical buildings can be in the public interest, but the court held that the means were arbitrary and neither appropriate nor proportionate. The imposition of the liability also offended against Article 14 of the Convention because it was discrimination against a class of owners of freehold land that had formerly been rectorial glebe land as compared with a class of owners of freehold land that had not formerly been rectorial glebe land. This item links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998. NOTE ADDED 27/06/2003: The House of Lords has overturned the decision in this case. For more information, see the Update, Liability for chancel repairs - House of Lords ov

The House of Lords has overturned the High Court decision in the appeals in all four cases in Alconbury. In a unanimous decision, Lords Slynn of Hadley, Nolan, Hoffmann, Hutton and Clyde held that the decision making powers of the Secretary of State in question are not incompatible with Article 6(1) (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reason behind the decision is, broadly, that the availability and scope of judicial review in relation to such powers are sufficient to make the powers compatible with Article 6(1). The full text of the decision is on the House of Lords' web site, in the judicial business section.This item includes links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998.

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue, 27 April, 2001 (Court of Appeal). In an important Court of Appeal judgment, Lord Chief Justice Woolf has given guidance on the distinction between public and private bodies and functions for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Court of Appeal has considered whether the Limitation Act 1980 in relation to actions for the recovery of possession of land was compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The High Court has given summary judgment in favour of Paddy Ashdown against the Telegraph Group Ltd for breach of copyright in his minute of a meeting with the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet.

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the imposition of civil penalties for the dishonest evasion of VAT amounts to criminal proceedings for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R (on the application of Ward) v Hillingdon London Borough Council, 15 February, 2001 (High Court). The High Court rejected arguments by a trespasser that eviction from a council's encampment for gypsies and travellers was in contravention of the right to private and family life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A plot occupied by a trespasser cannot be said to be the trespasser's home for the purposes of Article 8.This item includes links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998.

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham, 6 February, 2001 (Court of Appeal). The Court of Appeal has overturned the first instance decision on whether a farmer who had grazed neighbouring land possessed the necessary intention to possess the land, and so establish title by adverse possession. In the appeal, the issue of whether the Limitation Act 1980 in relation to actions for the recovery of possession of land was compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to protection of property) also arose. The Court held that Article 1 of the First Protocol did not impinge on the application of the Limitation Act. This item includes links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998.

The VAT tribunal has held that VAT civil evasion penalties should be treated as criminal charges and that taxpayers accused of offences to which the penalties apply are therefore entitled to the protection of a fair and public hearing.

A challenge to the grant of planning permission for a telecommunications mast has been launched on human rights grounds in the High Court.

Biggin Hill Airport v Bromley LBC, 22 November, 2000 (High Court).The High Court has considered the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the user clause of a lease granted before the Act came into force. The lease of the airport was granted in 1994 by the local authority. After the Human Rights Act came into force a group of local residents objected to a proposed expansion of the airport. The court held the the Act could not make unlawful a contract which had been entered into before the Act came into force.This item includes links to practice notes on the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Human Rights Act 2000 came into force on 2nd October, 2000.

The High Court has held that, provided it was properly drafted, a clause in a scheme of arrangement excluding recourse to the courts will not contravene public policy or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dorothy Perkins were ordered to pay £60,000 damages plus costs after a manager detained a shopper suspected of passing a forged banknote.