Human Rights and Civil Liberties 9781134032273, 1134032277, 9781134032341, 113403234X, 9781134032419, 1134032412, 9781138415843, 1138415847, 9781843924548, 1843924544

Table of contents :
Content: Cover
Copyright Page
Contents
Preface
Table of cases
Table of Acts of Parliament
Table of Statutory Instruments
Table of Command, parliamentary and other official papers
Abbreviations
Part I Values and institutions
1 Introduction and underlying values
2 The institutional setting
Part II General powers and duties of the state
3 Public authorities
4 The police and security services
5 Police powers: stop and search, arrest and detection
6 Police powers: entry, search and seizure
7 Surveillance
8 The right to a fair trial
9 Prisoners' rights. Part III Freedom of expression and the media10 Freedom of expression
11 The Media
12 Contempt of court
Part IV Political freedom
13 Political participation and electoral politics
14 Political offences
15 Access to public information
16 National security
17 Public order and political action
18 Terrorism and law
Part V Private life
19 The protection of personal information
20 Bodily integrity
21 Sexual freedom
22 Obscenity and indecency
23 Religious fr.

Citation preview

Human Rights and Civil Liberties Howard Davis

Iw

* WI LLAN PUBLISHING

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Howard Davis

WILLAN

P u blished by: W illan P u b lish in g C u lm co tt H ou se M ill S treet, U ffcu lm e C u llo m p to n , D ev on EX 15 3A T , UK Tel: + 4 4 (0 )1 8 8 4 840337 Fax: + 4 4 (0 )1 8 8 4 840251 e-m ail: i n f o @ w illan p u b lish in g .co .u k w ebsite: w w w .@ w illa n p u b lish in g .c o .u k P u blish ed sim u ltan e o u sly in the U SA and C an ad a by: W illan P u b lish in g c / o ISB S , 5824 N .E . H assalo St, P ortlan d , O reg o n 9 7 2 1 3-3644, U SA Tel: + 0 0 1 ( 0 ) 5 0 3 287 3093 Fax: + 0 0 1 (0 )5 0 3 280 8832 © H o w ard D a v is 2003 A ll rig h ts re se rv ed ; no p art o f this p u b licatio n m ay be rep rod u ced , stored in a retriev al sy ste m , o r tran sm itted in any form o r b y any m ean s, electro n ic, m ech an ical, p h o to co p y in g , reco rd in g o r o th e rw ise w ith o u t the p rio r w ritten p erm issio n o f the P u b lish ers or a licen ce p erm ittin g cop y in g in the U K issu ed by the C o p y rig h t L icen sin g A g e n cy L td , 90 T otten h am C o u rt R o ad , L on d o n W 1P 9H E. ISBN 1 843 9 2 008 5 B ritish L ib rary C a talo g u in g -in -P u b licatio n D ata A catalo g u e record fo r th is b o o k is av ailab le from the B ritish L ibrary

T y p ese t b y T W T y p ese ttin g , P ly m o u th , D evon. Printed and bound by T .J. In tern atio n al Ltd, P ad stow , C o rn w all.

Contents Preface Table o f cases Table o f A cts o f P arliam ent Table o f Statutory Instrum ents Table o f C om m and, parliam entary and other official papers A bbreviations

x xii xxix xxxvii xxxviii xl

Part I V alues and in stitutions 1 In trodu ction and u nd erlying valu es 1.1 Introd uction 1.2 V alues: d em ocracy and privacy 1.3 C on stitutional and political theory 1.4 H um an rights 2 T he in stitu tion al settin g 2.1 T he traditional ap proach in England and W ales 2.2 International law 2.3 E uropean U nion law 2.4 T he E uropean C on vention on H um an Rights 2.5 The H um an R ights A ct 1998 2.6 T he m ain term s o f the H um an R ights A ct 1998 2.7 T he sched uled C on vention rights

3 3 3 8 9 14 14 18 20 22 28 30 40

Part II G eneral pow ers and duties of the state 3 Public au thorities 3.1 The public sector 3.2 L egal d efinitions of pu blic bodies 3.3 T he legal au th ority o f public bodies and officials

55 55 56 57

4 The police and secu rity services 4.1 Introd uction 4.2 The police 4.3 The use o f force 4.4 Secu rity and intelligence services 4.5 O ther organisations

61 61 61 74 77 80

vi

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

5 Police pow ers: stop and search, arrest and detention 5.1 Introd uction 5.2 P olice question s 5.3 Stop and search 5.4 A rrest 5.5 T reatm en t of arrested persons 5.6 The rights and treatm ent o f detained persons

82 82 82 82 88 94 98

6 Police pow ers: entry, search and seizure 6.1 Introd uction 6.2 P rivacy and property 6.3 C on vention rights 6.4 C om m on law 6.5 Law ful entry and search w ith con sent 6.6 Law ful entry and search at com m on law 6.7 Statutory pow ers to enter w ithout a w arrant 6.8 Entry by w arrant 6.9 S eizu re 6.10 M aterial subject to lim itation 6.11 Search orders

107 107 107 108 109 109 111 111 114 117 118 124

7 S urveillance 7.1 Surv eillance 7.2 Surv eillance and legality 7.3 Interception of com m u nications 7.4 A ccess to com m u nications data 7.5 Encrypted data 7.6 Surv eillance inv olv ing in terference w ith property 7.7 O ther form s of su rv eillance 7.8 Sup erv ision and control o f su rv eillance 7.9 C om p atibility w ith C on vention rights 7.10 A dm issibility o f evid ence 7.11 C losed -circuit television

126 126 127 129 132 133 133 136 139 141 144 144

8 T he right to a fair trial 8.1 Fair trials and civil liberties issues 8.2 C om m on law 8.3 A rticle 6 of the E uropean C on vention on H um an Rights

146 146 146 148

9 P riso n ers' rights 9.1 Introd uction 9.2 International law 9.3 Prisons in the U nited K ingd om 9.4 T he civil rights o f prisoners 9.5 D iscip linary procedu res 9.6 T reatm en t 9.7 O ther civil and h u m an rights 9.8 Life sentences

157 157 157 158 159 161 162 165 167

Contents

vii

Part III Freedom of expression and the m edia 10 Freedom of expression 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Freedom of expression as a value 10.3 Free expression problem s 10.4 Freedom of expression and English law 10.5 The H um an Rights A ct 1998 and A rticle 10

171 171 171 173 176 179

11 The media 11.1 Introduction 11.2 The m edia and the general law 11.3 The Hum an Rights A ct 1998, A rticle 10 and a free media 11.4 The press 11.5 Broadcasting 11.6 Free m edia and the law

181 181 182 183 185 190 198

12 Contem pt of court 12.1 Fair trials and media freedom 12.2 Convention rights 12.3 The courts to w hich contem pt law applies 12.4 Civil and crim inal contem pt 12.5 Penalties for contem pt 12.6 Civil contem pt 12.7 Crim inal contem pt: intention and strict liability 12.8 The m ain form s of crim inal contem pt 12.9 Strict liability and the Contem pt of Court Act 1981 12.10 Defences that apply to strict liability contem pt 12.11 Orders preventing or restricting the publication of trials 12.12 Jury secrets

206 206 208

211 211 212 212 214 215

221 226 229 231

Part IV Political freedom 13 Political participation and electoral politics 13.1 Political participation 13.2 Political parties 13.3 Elections and the law

235 235 239 242

14 Political offences 14.1 Introduction 14.2 Treason 14.3 Seditious libel 14.4 Incitem ent to disaffection 14.5 Incitem ent to racial hatred

250 250 250 252 255 256

15 A ccess to public information 15.1 The argum ent for secrecy 15.2 The legal basis for secrecy: official secrets and public records

261 261 262

viii

H um an R ights and Civil Liberties

15.3 Justification s for openn ess 15.4 C on vention rights 15.5 Freed om o f inform ation: the C od e o f P ractice and the Freed om o f Inform ation A ct 2000 15.6 C on clusion 16 N ation al security 16.1 N ational security 16.2 T he O fficial Secrets A ct 16.3 T he d isclosure o f inform ation 16.4 T he O fficial Secrets A ct 16.5 Breach o f con fid ence 16.6 D efence A d v isory N otices

1911, section 1 1989

263 264 265 277 278 278 279 281 282 289 293

17 Pub lic order and political action 17.1 T he con text 17.2 T he p olice 17.3 C on vention rights 17.4 G eneral legal fram ew ork 17.5 M eetings 17.6 M arches and procession s 17.7 D em on strations 17.8 P ublic o rd er offences

295 295 296 297 299 303 313 317 324

18 T errorism and law 18.1 Introd uction: special p ow ers 18.2 U nited K ingdom law 18.3 A n ti-terrorist legislation 18.4 D efinition o f terrorism 18.5 G en eral issues 18.6 P roscrip tion 18.7 T errorist property 18.8 Terrorist offences 18.9 International terrorism 18.10 The inv estigation o f terrorist offences 18.11 Suspected terrorists 18.12 D isclosure offences and m edia freedom

329 329 331 332 334 335 336 340 340 341 345 348 351

P art V Private life 19 T he protection of person al in form ation 19.1 Introd uction 19.2 C on vention rights 19.3 Specific legislation 19.4 D ata P rotection A ct 1998 19.5 D isclosure o f inform ation held by pu blic auth orities

357 357 358 360 360 367

C ontents

ix

20 B odily in tegrity 20.1 Introd uction 20.2 P hysical pu nishm ents 20.3 B odily integrity, the right to life and the right to con sent to m ed ical treatm ents 20.4 B odily integrity and n on-th erap eu tic treatm ent 20.5 A bortion, life and privacy

368 368 369 374 380 382

21 Sexual freedom 21.1 Introd uction 21.2 R eform o f the law 21.3 C on vention rights 21.4 The lim its o f con sent 21.5 T ranssexu als

385 385 387 388 389 394

22 O b scenity and in decency 22.1 Introd uction 22.2 H arm 22.3 P ublic good 22.4 H um an rights 22.5 M oral w elfare 22.6 O utraging public d ecency 22.7 T end in g to d ep rave and corrupt 22.8 O ther provisions 22.9 The p rotection o f child ren 22.10 P rior restraints 22.11 V id eos 22.12 B roadcasting 22.13 Internet

397 397 397 398 399 400 401 403 406 407 408 410 411 412

23 R eligious freedom and b lasp hem y 23.1 Introd uction 23.2 D iscrim ination law 23.3 H um an rights 23.4 C om m on law 23.5 R eligiou s exem ptions 23.6 The prom otion o f religion 23.7 The p rotection o f religion: blasph em y

414 414 414 415 416 417 418 419

B ibliography o f w orks cited Index

424 429

Preface

T his book is a general survey of the law o f civil liberties. It aim s to identify and exam ine the legal rules, the com m on law and the statutes w hich relate to the field o f civil liberties. But civil liberties is a subject that d eals in controversial, p olitically charged m atters. R ules o f law produced b y P arlia­ m ent or the cou rts m ay be con trov ersial in term s, for exam ple, o f the background principles they p resupp ose, the coh erence and con sisten cy o f the rules one to ano ther or the social and political con sequ ences o f their application. The bo o k aim s to d escribe and d iscu ss the m ain term s o f the argum ents on such issues and to d em onstrate their influence on the d ev elo p ­ ing law. The H um an R ights A ct 1998 is hav ing a great im pact on m an y areas o f law, an im pact w hich is p ervasive and by no m eans confined to pu blic law and civil liberties. Its influence on the latter is v ery great indeed. In C h ap ter 1 it is suggested that m u ch o f civil liberties law relates to problem s about the scope and significance o f d em ocracy and privacy. Both these ideas, the freedom to participate in d eterm ining pu blic goals and the ability to preserve an area of personal auton om y, are esp ecially touched by hum an rights consid erations. The approach in this book is to d em onstrate, so far as it is possible, hum an rights law as integrated w ith d om estic law , albeit in a w ay w hich challenges m any o f its rules and assu m ptions. The end of the tw entieth cen tury and the beginn ing o f the tw enty-first has been a period of m ajor con stitutional reform and m u ch o f this touches and affects civil liberties. In particular there have b een m ajor statu tory reform s, in areas such as surveillance, protection o f personal d ata and freed om of inform ation, w hich are o f great im portance and fully covered in this w ork. A nother im p ortan t issue is the rise of 'terrorism ' and the question o f how the gov ernm ent should respond. T h e significance o f this m atter has w arranted the inclu sion o f a sep arate chapter. Th e book is in five parts. Part 1 looks at d em ocracy, privacy and hum an rights as valu es u n derlyin g civil liberties law and w hich inform its d ev elo p ­ m ent and are the term s o f its controversies. Part I also introd uces the legal fram ew ork in w hich the law operates. The traditional approach in England and W ales is described and contrasted to the system un der the E uropean C on vention on H um an Rights as it is given further effect through the H um an Rights A ct 1998. Part II deals w ith those aspects o f civil liberties law w hich are pred om inantly to do w ith the pow ers and d uties o f state agen cies, particularly the police and security services, in respect o f actions they m ay take w hich

Preface

xi

affect p eo p le's liberty and privacy. P rincipal duties o f the state inclu de the provision of fair trials and the p rop er treatm en t o f prisoners. B oth o f these have been influenced by hu m an rights law and are given sep arate chapters. Part III deals w ith a ran ge o f m atters in volving the law of freed om of expression. The focus of Part III is on the law as it bears on the m edia, w hose im portan ce in the com m u nication o f the kn ow led ge and ideas necessary for an effective d em ocracy is recognised . P art IV deals w ith a nu m ber o f topics involving the law in so far as it can restrict those w ho are acting for political reasons. This inclu d es chapters on public ord er and terrorism . A spects of privacy, the freed om people have to d ecid e for them selves how to live their lives for them selves, is the subject o f P art V. It is here that som e o f the m ost profound and con troversial m atters w ith w hich the law has to deal, m atters of life and death, are discussed. I w ould like to thank a nu m ber o f colleagues, esp ecially P rofessor Barry H ough and D r M ike Bennett, w ho have m ad e p articular con tribution s to m y un d erstand ing o f the law . All errors are m y own. M y fam ily, as ever, have tolerated m y absences w hile w riting this book. The book is dedicated to m y m oth er and to the m em ory o f m y father.

Table of cases

A v B Pic [2002] 2 A ll ER 543, 176, 184, 199, 200, 201, 366 A v U nited Kingdom (1999) 27 E H R R 611, 75, 253, 372 A and others v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent [2002] E W C A C iv 1502; The Tim es, 29 O ctober, 344 A N ational H ealth Service Trust v D [2000] 2 FLR 677, 379 A dam v W ard [1917] A C 309, 201 A D T v U nited K ingdom Ap. 3 5 7 6 5 /9 7 ; (2001) 31 EH R R 33, 391, 394 A G O S I v U nited Kingdom (1987) 9 EH R R 1, 340 A hm ad v /LEA [1978] 1 All ER 574 C A , 418 A hm ed v U nited Kingdom (1981) 22 D R 27, 415 A hm ed v U nited K ingdom (2000) 29 EH R R 1, 239 A ir C anada v Secretary o f State fo r T ransport [1983] 1 A ll ER 910, 153 A ir C anada v U nited Kingdom (1995) 20 EH R R 150, 340 A iredale N H S Trust v Bland [1993] 1 A ll ER 821, 375, 376, 380 A ksoy v Turkey (1997) 23 EH R R 553, 75 A lbert v Lavin [1982] A C 547, 68, 69, 93, 300 A lder v G eorge [1964] 2 Q B 7, 281 A lderson v Boof/i [1969] 2 Q B 216, 89 A lexandrou v O xford [1993] 4 A ll ER 328, 67 A llen v W right (1835) 8 C & P 522, 173 ER 602, 91 A m ann v Sw itzerland (2000) 30 E H R R 843, 143, 144 A m bard v A ttorn ey G eneral fo r Trinidad and T obago [1936] A C 322, 217 A m brose (1973) 57 C r A p Rep, 325 A m erican Cyanam id Co. v Ethicon [1975] A C 396 H L; [1975] 1 A ll ER 504 H L, 318 A ndecha A stur v Spain (1997) 90-B D & R 172, 241 A nderson v U nited K ingdom Ap. 3 3 6 8 9 /9 6 , 27 O cto ber 1997, 297, 304 A n ism in ic Ltd v Foreign C om pensation Com m ission [1969] 2 AC 147, 148 A nton P iller KG v M an ufactu ring P rocesses Ltd [1976] 1 A ll ER 779 C A , 124 A P v Sw itzerland (1998) 26 EH R R 541, 336 A rrow sm ith v Jenkins [1963] 2 Q B 561, 309 Arrozvsmith v U nited Kingdom (1978) D & R 1 9 /5 , 255 A rthur U. P endragon v U nited K ingdom Ap. 3 1 4 1 6 /9 5 , 321 A rtico v Italy (1980) 3 EH R R 1, 100 A shin gdan e v UK (1985) 7 EH R R 528, 152 A shw orth Security H ospital v M G N Ltd [2002] U K H L 29; [2002] 1 W L R 2033, 203, 204 A ssociated Provincial Picture H ouses v W ednesbury C orporation [1948] 1 KB 223, 59

Table o f cases

xiii

Atkins v DPP [2000] 2 A ll ER 425, 407 Atlan v UK (2002) 34 EH RR 33, 154 Attorney General v A ssociated N ewspapers [1994] 1 All ER 556, 231 A ttorney General v A ssociated N eivspapers and another [1998] EM LR 711, 225 A ttorney General v BBC [1981] AC 303, 211 Attorney General v BBC [1997] EM LR 76, 224 Attorney General v BBC; A ttorney General v Hat Trick Productions Ltd (1996) TLR 460, 226 Attorney General v Birmingham Post and M ail Ltd [1998] 4 All ER 49, 219, 224, 225 A ttorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd, third party) [2000] 4 All ER 385, 290 Attorney General v Butterworth and another [1963] 1 QB 696, 216 Attorney General v English [1983] 1 A C 116, 224, 228 Attorney General v Guardian N ewspapers and others (No. 2) [1988] 3 A ll ER 545, 200, 278, 290, 291 Attorney General v Guardian N ewspapers Ltd [1999] EM LR 904, 222, 228-9 Attorney General v Guardian N ewspapers Ltd and another [1992] 3 All ER 38 QBD, 228 Attorney General v Guardian N ewspapers Ltd and others and related appeals [1987] 3 A11ER 316, 290 A ttorney General v Guardian N eivspapers (No. 2) [1990] AC 109, 79, 134 A ttorney General v H islop and another [1991] 1 Q B 514, 216, 217 A ttorney General v Independent Television Neivs Ltd and others [1995] 2 All ER 370, 225 A ttorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] Q B 752, 290, 291 A ttorney General v Leveller M agazine Ltd [1979] AC 440, 230 A ttorney General v M G N Ltd [2002] EW H C 907 A dm in Q BD, 219 A ttorney General v M G N Ltd and others [1997] 1 All ER 456, 212, 219, 224, 225 A ttorney General v N ews Group Nezuspapers Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 833, 224 A ttorney General v Nezvs Group N ewspapers Pic [1989] QB 110, 223 A ttorney General v N eivspaper Publishing Pic and others [1987] 3 A ll ER 276, 220 A ttorney General v Punch Ltd and another [2001] EW CA Civ 403; [2001] 2 A ll ER 655, 213, 220, 221, 292 A ttorney General v Sport Neivspapers Ltd and others [1992] 1 All ER 503, 223 A ttorney General v Times N ewspapers [1992] 1 AC 191, 221 A ttorney General v Times N ewspapers [2001] EM LR 19, 226 A ttorney General v Times N ewspapers Ltd (1983) The Times, 12 February, 219, 226, 229 A ttorney General v Times N ewspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273, 209, 216, 226, 227, 229 A ttorney General v TVS TV (1989) The Times, 7 July, 228 A ttorney General ex rei M cW hirter v IBA [1973] 1 QB 629, 195 Attwoods' Case (1617) Cro Jac 421, 79 ER 359, 419 A utronic v AG v Sw itzerland (1990) 12 EHRR 485, 190 Axen v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 195, 208 B v France (1993) 16 EHRR 1, 396 Bailey v W illiamson (1872-73) viii LR QBC 118, 306 Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73, 212 Bamber v United Kingdom [1998] EH RLR 110, 166

xiv

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Barfod v D enm ark (1989) Ap. 11508/85, 210 BBC v United Kingdom (1996) 21 EH RR CD 93, 39 Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 15 Cox CC 138 Q BD, 301 Belgian Linguistics Case (1979-80) 1 EH RR 784, 417 Bellinger v Bellinger [2001] EW CA Civ 1140; [2002] 1 All ER, 395 Bentley v Brodzinskki (1982) 75 Cr App Rep 217, 70 Bibby v C hief Constable o f Essex (2000) 164 JP 297, 89, 301, 302 Birch v DPP [2000] Crim LR 301, 309 Black v DPP 11 M ay 1995, Lexis transcript CO 877-95, 84 Blake v DPP [1993] Crim LR 586, 322, 418 Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] A C 397, 417 Bodden v C om m issioner o f Police for the M etropolis [1989] 3 All ER 833, 215 Bognor Regis UDC v Campion [1972] 2 QB 169, 202 Boucher v R (1951) 2 DLR 369, 252 Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 406, 416, 420 Bowman v United Kingdom (1998) 26 1 EHRR 1, 241, 242, 248 Brannigan and M cBride v United Kingdom (1993) 17 EHRR 539, 344 Brickley and Kitson v Police (1988) Legal Action, July, p. 21, 311 Brincat v Italy (1993) 16 EHRR 591, 96 British Broadcasting Corporation v United Kingdom Ap. 25 7 9 8 /9 4 ; (1996) 21 EHRR CD 93, 184 British Broadcasting Corporation Scotland and others v United Kingdom (1997) Ap. 0 0 0 3 4 3 2 4 /9 6 ,184 British Coal Corporation v N UM , 28 June 1996, Q BD, 202 Brogan and others v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 117, 96, 349, 350 Brooks v H om e Office [1999] 2 FLR 33, 165 Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, D unferm line) and another [2001] 2 ALL ER 97, 32, 100, 103, 153 Brüggemann and Scheuten v FRG (1977) 3 EHRR 244, 141, 383 Brutus v Cozens [1973] A C 854 HL, 258, 325 Bryan v Robinson [1960] 2 All ER 173 DC, 325 Bryan v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EH RR 342, 149, 156 Buckley v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EH RR 101, 108 Bugg v DPP, Percy v D PP [1993] 2 A ll ER 815, 306 Burden v Rigler [1910] 1 KB 337, 308, 312 Burnley v England (1977) 76 LGR 393; 77 LGR 227, 304 C v S [1988] QB 135, 382 C v United Kingdom (1983) 37 DR 142, 418 C Ltd v United Kingdom (1989) Ap. 14132/88, 209, 210, 227 Camelot Group v Centaur Comm unications [1998] 1 All ER 251, 204 Campbell v M irror Group N ewspapers [2002] EW CA Civ 1373, 201, 366 Campbell v United Kingdom (1993) 15 EH RR 137, 118, 161 Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 293, 373 Campbell & Fell v United Kingdom Ap. 7 8 1 9 /7 7 ; (1984) 7 EHRR 165, 150, 155 Capon v DPP [1988] Crim LR 870, 320 Castells v Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445, 183, 203, 254 Castorina v C hief Constable o f Surrey (1988) 138 NLJ Rep 180, 72, 85, 89

Tabie o f cases

xv

Chahal v United Kingdom Ap. 2 2 4 1 4 /9 3 ; (1997) 23 EH RR 413, 343, 370 Chambers and Edwards v D PP [1995] Crim LR 896 (QBD), 325 Champion v C hief Constable o f the Gwent Constabulary [1990] 1 W LR 1, 238 Chandler v D PP [1964] AC 763, 278, 281 Chappell v United Kingdom (1990) 12 EHRR 1, 1 0 8 ,1 2 5 Cheney v Conn [1968]' 1 All ER 779, 418 Chorherr v Austria (1993) Ap. 13308/87; (1993) 17 EHRR 358, 324 Clwudhury v United Kingdom Ap. 17439/90; (1991) HRLJ 172, 421 Christians against Racism and Fascism v United Kingdom Ap. 8 4 4 0 /7 8 ; 21 D&R 138, 297, 298, 316, 317 Christie v Leachinsky [1947] 1 A ll ER 567, 93 Christie v United Kingdom (1994) Ap. 2 1 4 8 2 /9 3 ; 78-A D & R 119, 132, 143, 144 Church o f X v United Kingdom (1968) 12 YB 306, 415 CIN Properties v Rawlins and others (1995) TLR 9.2.95, 303-4 Clarke v C hief Constable o f North Wales [2000] W L 345127, 94 Clibbery v Allan [2002] 1 All ER 865, 230 Clift v Schwabe (1846) 3 CB 437, 374 Coffin v Smith (1980) 71 Cr Ap Rep 221, 69 Collins v Willcox [1984] 3 All ER 374, 368 Commission v France [1997] ECRI-6959, 305 Condron v United Kingdom (2000) Ap. 3 5 7 1 8 /9 7 , Hudoc, 102 Conway v Rim m er [1968] A C 91, 153 Cope v Sharpe (2) [1912] 1 KB 496 CA, 68, 111 Corbett v Corbett (otherw ise Ashley) [1970] 2 All ER 33, 395 Cossey v United Kingdom (1991) 13 EHRR 622, 395 Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom (1995) 19 EHRR 112, 372-3 Court o f justice o f the European Com m unities Opinion 2/94370 [1996] ECR 1-1759,

21 Cowan v Com m issioners o f Police o f the M etropolis [2000] 1 All ER 504, 70, 111, 117 Croissant v Germ any (1993) 16 EHRR 135, 156 Crown Prosecution Service on behalf o f DPP for Australia v Holm an, Fenw ick and William [1994] CO D 174, 118 Cullet v Centre Leclerc Toulouse [1985] ECR 305, 305 D v United Kingdom Ap. 30 2 4 0 /9 6 ; (1997) 24 EHRR 423, 370 Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434, 69, 109, 110 De H aes and Gijsels v Belgium (1998) 25 EHRR 1, 183, 203, 217 De M organ v The M etropolitan Board o f Works (1879-80) v QBD 155, DC, 305 D elazarus v UK (1993) Ap. 17525/90, 163 D epartm ent o f Transport and others v Williams (1993) TLR 627, 318 D erbyshire County Council v Times N ewspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, 28, 171, 182,

202 Diennet v France Ap. 1 8 160/91; (1966) 21 EH RR 554, 155 Director General o f Fair Trading v Proprietary Association o f Great Britain and another [2001] N LJ 1372, 149 Dombo Beheer B V v The Netherlands (1994) 18 EHRR 213, 152 Donnelly v Jackm an [1970] 1 All ER 987, 70 Douglas v Hello! [2001] 2 All ER 289, 16, 28, 177, 180, 199

xvi

H uman Rights and Civil Liberties

DPP v Barnard and others [2000] Crim LR 371, 320 DPP v Channel 4 Television Co. and another [1993] 2 A ll ER 517, 120, 347, 353 DPP v Clarke (1991) 94 Cr A pp R 359, 326 DPP v Fidler (1992) 1 W LR 91, 323, 325 DPP v H utchinson [1990] 2 AC 783, 306 DPP v Jones [1999] 2 All ER 257, 308, 309 DPP v M oseley (Joanna) (1999) The Times, 3 June, 319 DPP v Todd (1995) The Independent, 5 May, 323 DPP v Whyte [1972] AC 849, 405 DPP v Wilson [1991] RTR 284, 87 D'Souza v DPP [1992] 4 All ER 545, 113 Duboivska and Skup v Poland (1997) 24 EH RR CD 75, 416, 421 Duchess o f Argyll v D uke o f A rgyll and others [1964] 1 Ch 302., 199 D udgeon v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EH RR 149, 391 Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412 CA, 376 Duncan v Jones [1935] All ER Rep 711 KBD, 301 Eckle v Germ any (1982) 5 EH RR 1, 39 Editions Periscope v France [1992] 14 EH RR 597, 151 Edivards v DPP (1993) Cr A pp Rep 301, 93 Ellen Street Estates Ltd [1934] 1 KB 590, 17 Elliott v C hief Constable o f W iltshire (1996) The Times, 5 Decem ber, 67, 165 Engel v Netherlands (1979-80) 1 EHRR 647, 88, 150 Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 W ils 275; (1765) 19 St Tr 1029, 16, 5 7 -8 , 114, 134 Erotica Rendez-Vous 12001] All ER (EC) 577, 412 Esther Thom as v N ewsgroup N ewspapers (2001) NLJ 1221 CA, 198 Ettridge v M orrell (1987) 85 LGR 100 CA, 247 Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q BD 191 DC, 306 Ezeh v United Kingdom (2002) A p 3 9 6 6 5 /9 8 ; The Times, 30 July, 162 Ezelin v France Ap. 11800/85; (1991) 14 EH RR 362, 299 F v West Berkshire Health Authority and another (M ental H ealth A ct Commission intervening) [1989] 2 A ll ER 545 HL, 379, 390 Faulkener v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453, 110 Fayed v United Kingdom (1994) 18 EHRR 393, 152 Findlay v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 221, 150, 155 Fisher v Oldham Corporation [1930] 2 KB 364, 65 Fitt v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 480, 153, 154 Flockhart v Robinson [1950] 2 KB 498, 313 Foulkes v Chief Constable o f the M erseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705 CA, 302 Fox v Stirk; Ricketts v Cambridge City Electoral Registration Officer [1970] 2 QB 463, 244 Fox, Campbell and H artley v United Kingdom (1991) 13 EH RR 157, 73, 94 Francis and Francis (a firm ) v Central Criminal Court [1988] 3 All ER 775, 119 Francom e v M irror Group N eivspapers Ltd [1984] 1 W LR 892, 183 Fressoz and Roire v France [1999] EH RLR 399, 204 Funke v France (1993) 16 EHRR 297, 103

Table o f cases

xvii

G v DPP [1989] Crim LR 150, 93 Gapper v Somerset Constabulary [1998] 4 A ll ER 248, 93 Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751, 19, 27 Gaskin v United Kingdom (1990) 12 EH RR 36, 264, 265, 359 Gelberg v M iller [1961] 1 All ER 291, 93 General M edical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation [1998] TLR 372, 211 Gillick v Wisbech and West N orfolk Area Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112, 159, 378 Gitanas v Greece (1997) 27 EHRR 417, 239 Glimm erveen and H agenbeek v Netherlands (1979) 18 D& R 187, 242, 260 G older v UK (1979-80) 1 EH RR 524, 118, 152, 160, 161 Goodwin v Phillips [1908] 7 CLR 1, 17 Goodwin v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EH RR 123, 204 Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) Ap. 2 8 9 5 7 /9 5 , 296 Govell v United Kingdom Ap. 2 7 2 37/95; [1999] EH RLR 121, 141 G regory v United Kingdom (1997) 25 EHRR 577, 155 Grobbelaar v N o ts Group Neivspapers Ltd and another [2001] EW CA Civ 33; [2001] 2 All ER 437, 183, 201, 208 Groppera Radio AG v Sw itzerland (1990) 12 EHRR 321, 190 Guardian N ewspapers v United Kingdom (1992) 14 EHRR 229, 292 Guerra v Italy (1995) 20 EH RR 277, 265 Guzzardi v Italy (1981) EH RR 333, 87, 88 Gwent v Dash [1986] RTR 41, 87 Halford v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523, 27, 128, 130, 141, 143 H andcock v Baker (1800) 2 Bos & O 260, 68, 111 H andyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, 32, 254, 297, 399, 421 Harman v Secretary o f State for the H om e D epartm ent [1982] 2 W LR 338, 213 Harrison v D uke o f Rutland [1893] 1 QB 143 CA, 307 H ashm an and H arrup v United Kingdom (1999) Ap. 2 5 5 94/94, 324, 400 H auer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (1981) 3 EH RR 140 ECJ, 21 H ickm an v M aisey [1900] 1 QB 752 CA, 307, 313 Hill v C hief Constable o f West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, 67 Hipperson v DPP (unreported) 3 July 1996, 322 Hipperson v N ewbury Electoral Officer [1985] QB 1060, 244 H iro v Spain (1995) 19 EH RR 566, 154 H irst and Agu v C hief Constable o f West Yorkshire (1987) 85 Cr App R 143 (QBD), 309 HM A dvocate v Zelter (unreported) 21 O ctober 1999, 323 H odgson, W oolf Productions, N U J and Channel Four T V v United Kingdom (1988) EHRR 503, 210, 227 H ojem eister v Germ any (1983) Unreported, 6 Ju ly 1981, 87 H olland v Ireland (1988) Ap. 24 8 2 7 /9 4 , 14 April, 166 H om er v Cadman (1885-86) II TLR 407, 309 Houston v BBC (1995) SLT 1305, 195 H ubbard v Pitt [1976] 1 Q B 142 CA , 313, 318 Huntingdon Life Sciences v Curtin (1997) The Times, 11 Decem ber, 319 Huvig v France (1990) 12 EHRR 528, 144

xviii

H uman Rights and Civil Liberties

I v United Kingdom (2002) Ap. 25 6 8 0 /9 4 , 396 Im briosca v Switzerland 24 N ovem ber 1993, 98 In re Davis, Deed [1968] 1 QB 72, 374 In re F (in utero) [1988] Fam 122, 382 In re M edicam ents and related classes o f goods (2) [2001] 1 W LR 700, 149, 155 Initial Services Ltd v Putterill and another [1967] 3 All ER 145, 200 Interbrew SA v Financial Tim es [2002] EW CA Civ 274, 204 International Transport Roth GM BH and others v Secretary o f State fo r the Home D epartm ent [2002] EW CA Civ 158, 33 Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, 75, 350 1SKCON v United Kingdom (1994) 18 EHRR CD 133, 416 Janaw ay v Salford AH A [1988] 2 W LR 1350 H L, 383 Jastrzebski v Poland, Comm ission Report, 19 M ay 1998, 165 Jersild v Denm ark (1994) 19 EHRR 1, 259, 260 John and others v Express N ewspapers pic and others [2000] 3 All ER 257 CA, 204 Johnston v C hief Constable o f the RUC [1986] ECR 1651, 21 ¡oyce v DPP [1946] AC 347, 251 K v Austria A /2 5 5 -B (1993) Com Rep, 204 Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62, 16 Keenan v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EH RR 38, 165 Kenlin v Gardner [1966] 3 All ER 931, 70 Kent v M etropolitan Police Com m issioner (1981) The Times, 13 M ay, 316 Khan v United Kingdom (2000) The Times, 23 M ay, 155 Kingsley v United Kingdom Ap. 35 6 0 5 /9 7 , The Times, 9 January 2001, 150 Klass and others v Federal Republic o f Germ any (1979) 2 EH RR 214, 126, 141, 142, 143 Knight and others v H om e Office and another [1990] 3 All ER 237 QBD, 165 Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435, 400, 402, 403 Kokkinakis v G reece (1993) 17 EH RR 397, 415, 416 Kopp v Switzerland (1999) 27 EHRR 91, 141, 143 KPD v Federal Republic o f Germ any (1957) Ap. 2 5 0 /5 7 ; 1 Yearbook 222, 254, 338 Kruslin v France (1990) 12 EHRR 528, 144 Kühnen v FRG (1988) Ap. 12194/86, 260 Lambert v Roberts [1981] 2 All ER 15, 110 Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom (1997) Ap. 2 1 6 2 7 /9 3 ; (1997) 24 EHRR 39, 393 Lawless v Ireland (1961) 1 EHRR 15, 344 Leach v M oney (1765) St Tr 1002, 114 Leander v Sweden (1987) 9 EH RR 433, 264, 359 Leech v Deputy Governor o f Parkhurst Prison/Prevot v D eputy G overnor o f Long Lartin Prison [1988] 1 AC 533, 162 Lemon v United Kingdom (1982) 5 EHRR 123, 421 Letellier v France (1991) 14 EHRR 83, 151 Lewis v Cox [1985] QB 509, 69 Liberal Party v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 106, 237, 243

Tabie o f cases

xix

Lindsay v United Kingdom (1979) 1 D & R 247, 243 Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EH R R 407, 183, 203, 254, 399 Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans and others [1984] 2 All ER 417, 200 Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and another and other applications [2000] 1 All ER 65 CA, 155 Lopez Ostra v Spain (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 265 Lord A dvocate v The Scotsman Publications Ltd and others [1990] 1 AC 812, 289, 291 Loutchansky v Times N eivspapers [2001] 4 All ER 115, 201 Loutchansky v Times N ewspapers Ltd (No. 2) [2001] EW CA Civ 1805; 12002] 1 All ER 652, 202 Ludi v Switzerland Ap. 12433/86; (1993) 15 EH RR 173, 141 M v H om e Office [1994] 1 A C 377, 57, 210 M v United Kingdom 52 D & R 269, 152 MC v Federal Republic o f Germ any Ap. 1 3 079/87, 297, 298, 320 M cArdle v Wallace (1964) 108 SJ 483, DC, 110 M cCann and others v United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHRR 91, 76 M cConnell v C hief Constable o f the Greater M anchester Police [1990] 1 All ER 423 CA, 310 M cEldow ney v Forde [1971] A C 632, 338 M cFeely v United Kingdom (1981) 3 EH RR 161, 105, 164, 415 M cG inley and Egan v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EH RR 1, 265 M cGonnell v United Kingdom (2000) 8 BHRC 56, 155, 265 M cLeod v Com m issioner o f Police fo r the M etropolis [1994] 4 All ER 553, 310 M cCleod v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 493, 113, 310 M cVeigh, O'Neill and Evans v United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR 71, 359 M adzim bam uto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645, 17 M akanjuola v C om m issioner o f Police o f the M etropolis [1992] 3 All ER 617 CA, 67 M alone v M etropolitan Police Com m issioner [19791 1 Ch 344, 58, 128 M alone v United Kingdom (1984) 7 EH RR 14, 27, 58, 141, 143 M andla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, 415 M arkcx v Belgium (1979) 2 EH RR 330, 23 M asterson v Holden [1986] 3 All ER 39, 392 M athieu-M ohin and Clerfayt v Belgium (1987) 10 EH RR 1, 32, 166, 241, 243 M atthews v United Kingdom (1999) 28 EHRR 361, 243 M auer v A ustria (1998) 25 EHRR 91, 150 M ayor o f Brighton v Packham (1907-08) xxiv TLR 603, 305 M GN Pension Trustees Ltd v Bank o f Am erica and others [1995] 2 All ER 355, 227 M oham m ed-H olgate v Duke [1984] 1 All ER 1054, 89 M oney and others v Leach (1764) 1 Black. W 555; 96 ER 320, 90 M orison v M oat (1851) 9 H are 241; 68 ER 492, 199 M orris and others v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114, 215 M orrow , Geach and Thomas v D PP and others [1994] Crim LR 58, 325 Moss v M cLahan [1985] IRLR 77, 302 M uller v Switzerland (1991) 13 EHRR 212, 400 M urray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29, 98, 99-100, 102, 150, 156, 351 M urray and others v United Kingdom (1995) 19 EHRR 193, 73, 97, 359

XX

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

M usiqu e D iffusion Fran çaise v C om m ission [1983] E C R 1825, 21 N ational P anasonic (U K) Ltd v Com m ission [1980] EC R 2033, 21, 109 N eum eister v A ustria (No. 1) (1979-80) 1 EH R R 91, 151 N H S Trust A v M /N H S Trust B v H [2001] 1 A ll ER 801, 380 N icol and Selvanayagam v D PP (1996) 160 JP 155, 301, 302 N iem ietz v G erm any (1993) 16 EH R R 97, 108, 118, 388 N old v Com m ission [1974] E C R 491, 21 N orris v Ireland (1991) 13 EH R R 186, 391 N orw ich P harm acal Co. v Custom s and E xcise C om m issioners [1973] 2 A ll ER 943, 203 N oviflora AB v Sw eden (1993) 15 EH R R C D 6, 108 O berschlick v A ustria (1998) 25 E H R R 357, 203, 254 O bserver and The G uardian v U nited Kingdom (1992) 14 EH R R 153, 214, 284, 292, 319 O 'Hara v U nited Kingdom [2001] N LJ 1884, Ap. 3 7 5 5 5 /9 7 , 32 O 'Loughlin v C h ief C onstable o f the Essex P olice [1998] 1 W LR 374, C A , 113 O 'M oran and others v D irector o f P ublic P rosecutions [1975] Q B 864, 336 Open D oor C ounselling and Well Woman v Ireland (1992) 15 E H R R 244, 39 O sm an v Southw ark Crown C ourt (1999) C O /2 3 1 8 /9 8 (Sm ith Bernal), 71, 74, 86 O sm an v U nited Kingdom (2000) 29 E H R R 245, 67, 152 Otto P rem inger Institu te v A ustria (1995) 19 E H R R 34, 421 Padfield v M in ister o f A gricu ltu re, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, 59 Papw orth v C oventry [1967] 1 W L R 663, 315 Paton v B PA ST [1979] Q B 276, 382 Paton v U nited K ingdom (1981) 3 E H R R 408, 383, 384 Peach G rey & Co (a firm ) v Som m ers [1995] 2 A ll ER 513, 211 Percy v D PP [1995] 3 A ll ER 124 Q BD , 301, 302 Percy v H all [1996] 4 A ll ER 523, 306 PG and JH v United K ingdom Ap. 4 4 7 8 7 /9 8 ; (2001) The Tim es, 19 O ctober, 130 Philis v G reece (1998) 25 EH R R 417, 151 P ickering v A ssociated N ew spapers H oldings Pic [1991] 2 AC 370, 211 P ierre-Bloch v France (1998) 26 EH R R 202, 150 P iange v C h ief C onstable o f South H um berside P olice 23 M arch 1992, The Tim es, 89 Platform Ä rtze fü r das Leben v A ustria (1988) 13 EH R R 204, 298, 312 Poplar H ou sing and R egeneration C om m unity A ssociation Ltd v D onoghue [2001] EW C A C iv 595; [2001 ] 4 A ll E R 604, 36, 37 P rager and O bserschlick v A ustria (1995) 21 E H R R 1, 210, 211 Prais v C ouncil [1976] E C R 1185, 21 P retty v U nited K ingdom (Ap. 2 3 4 6 /0 2 ) [2002] 2 FLR 45, 377, 379, 380 Price v U nited Kingdom (2002) 34 EH R R 53, 165 Prince v U nited Kingdom (1986) A p 1 1 4 5 6 /8 5 ; 46 D & R 222, 210 P rince A lbert v Strange (1842) 2 De G & Sm 652; 64 ER 293, 199 R v A [2001] U K H L 25; [2001] 3 All ER 1, 36, 148, 149, 208, 229 R v A bbassy v M P C [1990] 1 W L R 385, 94

Table o f cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

xxi

v Adam s [1957] Crim LR 365, 376 v A desanya (1994) The Times, 16 and 17 July, -381 v A ldred (1909) XXII Cox CC 1, 253 v Anderson [1972] 3 All ER 1152, 405 v Argent [1997] Crim Ap Rep 27, 102 v A rrowsm ith [1975] QB 678, 255 v A shford and Smith [1988] Crim LR 682, 322 v Barnet London Borough Council (1991) 89 LGR 581 (QBD), 306 v BBC ex parte Referendum Party [1997] The Times, 29 April, 249 v BCC ex parte BBC (1995) 7 A dm in LR 575, 196 v BCC ex parte Granada T V Ltd [1995] CO D 207, 197 v Beck ex parte Daily Telegraph [1993] 2 All ER 177, 227 v Benjaßeld (2000) The Times, 28 Decem ber, 336 v Bingham [1973] QB 870, 280 v Blaue [1975] 1 W LR 1411, 375 v Board o f Visitors o f H ull Prison ex parte St Germain [1979] QB 425, 159, 162 v Bow Street Stipendiary M agistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, 155 v Bozvden [2000] 2 All ER 418, 407 v Boivden [1999] 1 W LR 823, 102 v Bristol Crown Court ex parte Bristol Press and Picture A gency Ltd (1987) 85 Cr App R 190, QBD, 122, 123 v Broadcasting Complaints Comm ission ex parte Owen [1985] 2 All ER 522, 196 v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212, 381 v Brown and other appeals [1993] 2 All ER 75, 369, 376, 392-3 v BSC ex parte BBC (Liberty intervening) [2000] 3 All ER 989, 197 v Burns (1886) XVI Cox CC 355, 252, 253 v Calder and Boyars Ltd [1969] 1 QB 15, 406 v C ardiff Crown Court ex parte Kellam (1993) TLR 239, 119, 120 v Casem ent 11917] 1 KB 98, 251 v Caunt, 17 N ovem ber 1947, unreported, Liverpool A ssizes, 253 v CC Lancashire ex parte Parker & M cGrath [19931 Crim LR 204, 116 v CCCt ex parte AJD H oldings Ltd [1992] Crim LR 669, 116 v Central Crim inal Court ex parte Bright [2001] 2 A ll ER 244, 57, 122, 123, 124, 293, 347, 353 v Chalkley [1988] 2 All ER 155, 90 v Chesterfield Justice and Another ex parte Bram ley [2000] 1 All ER 4 1 1 ,1 1 9 ,1 2 4 v C hief Constable o f Devon and Cornwall ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board [1982] 1 QB 458; [1981] 3 All ER 826, 66, 301, 303, 304, 310, 318 v C hief Constable o f North Wales ex parte AB [1998] 3All ER 310, 358 v C hief Constable o f Sussex ex parte International T rader’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418, 66, 305 v C hief Constable o f West Yorkshire ex parte Govell, 23 M ay 1994, 134 v C hief M etropolitan Stipendiary M agistrate ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 A ll ER 306, 252, 419, 421 v Clark (No. 2) [1964] 2 QB 315 CCA, 309 v Clayton and H alsey (1963) 1 QB 163, 405 v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482, 74

xxii

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

R v C om m issioner o f Police o f the M etropolis ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118, 66 R v C om m issioner o f Police o f the M etropolis ex parte Blackburn (No. 2) 11968] 2 QB 150, 217 R v Condron [1997] 1 W LR 827, 102 R v Coventry City Council ex parte Phoenix Aviation [1995] 3 All ER 37, 305 R v Cox (1992) 12 BM LR 38, 376 R v Cox and Railton (1884-85) 14 LR Q BD 153, 119 R v Crisp and H om ew ood (1919) 83 JP 121, 282 R v Croivn Court at N ortham pton ex parte DPP (1991) 93 Cr App R 376, 123 R v Cunningham e Graham and Burns (1888) 16 Cox CC 420, 306 R v D elaney [1989] Crim LR 139, 71 R v Deputy Governor o f Parklm rst Prison and others ex parte Hague/W eldon v Hom e Office [1992] 1 AC 58, 159, 164, 165 R v D isciplinary Com m ittee o f the Jockey Club ex parte Aga Khan [1992] 2 All ER 853, 57 R v DPP ex parte Kebilene [1999] 4 All ER 801 H L, 33, 280, 341 R v Dytham [1979] 3 W LR 467, 69 R v Editor o f the Neiv Statesman ex parte DPP (1927-28) xliv TLR 301, 217 R v Effick [1994] 3 W LR 583, 128 R v Emm ett (1999) The Times, 15 October, 393 R v Evesham Justices ex parte M cDonagh and Berrows Neivspapers Ltd 11988) 1 QB 553, 230 R v Forbes [2001] 1 A ll ER 686, 149 R v Fulling [1987] QB 426, 71 R v Gibson [1991] 1 All ER 439 CA, 402, 403 R v Gott (1922) 16 C r App Rep 87, 420 R v Governor o f Brockhill Prison ex parte Evan (No. 2) [2000] 4 All ER 15, 164 R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36, 217 R v Guildhall M agistrates Court ex parte Primlaks H olding Co. (Panama) Inc. [1990] 1 QB 261, 119 R v Henn [1981] AC 850, 407 R v Hetherington (1841) 9 State Trials (NS) 563, 420 R v H icklin (1868) LR 3 Q B 360, 398, 404 R v H ill; R v H all [1989] Crim LR 136, 322 R v H om e Secretary ex parte Brind [1990] 1 All ER 469, CA, 194 R v H om e Secretary ex parte N orthum bria Police Authority [1989] QB 26; [1988] 1 All ER 556, 64, 297 R v H opley (1860) 2 F & F 202; 175 ER 1024, 372 R v Horseferry Road M agistrates Court ex parte Siadatan [1990] 3 W LR 1006, DC, 327 R v H ow ell [1981] 3 A ll ER 383, 300, 301 R v IBA ex parte W hitehouse (1985) The Times, 4 April, 195 R v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Baines & Baines [1988] QB 579, 119 R v Inw ood [1973] 2 All ER 645, 94 R v Khan (Sultan) [1997] AC 558, 128 R v Killen [1974] NI 220, 341 R v Lemon [1979] AC 617, 420 R v Lonrlw [1989] 2 All ER 1100, 224

Table o f cases

xxiii

R v Lord Chancellor ex parte Light foot [1998] 4 A LL ER 764, 18 R v Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779, 18, 148 R v Lord Saville and others ex parte A and others [1999] 4 All ER 860, CA, 28, 230, 305 R v Lynch [1983] NI 193, 195 R v Lynn (1788) 2 Tem Rep 733, 402 R v M cCann and others (1991) 92 Cr App R 239, 219, 226 R v M cGarry [1999] 1 Crim Ap Rep 377, 102 R v M aidstone Crown Court ex parte Waitt [1988] Crim LR 384, 119, 121 R v M alvern Justice ex parte Evans and Berrows N eivspapers Ltd [1988] 1 QB 540, 230 R v M anchester Stipendiary M agistrate and another ex parte Granada Television Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 135, 120 R v M ansfield Justices ex parte Starkey [1985] 1 QB 613, 324 R v M arsden (1868) LR 1 CCR 131, 309 R v M ay ling [1963] 2 QB 717, 391 R v M inistry o f Defence ex parte Smith [1996] 1 All ER 257, CA, 28 R v M oor [2000] Crim LR 31, 376 R v M orpeth Justices ex parte Ward (1992) 96 Cr App Rep 215 QBD, 301 R v Oxford ex parte Levey (1986) The Times, 1 N ovem ber, 66 R v Panel on Take-Overs and M ergers ex parte Datafin [1987] 1 QB 74, 57 R v Parrott (1913) 8 C r App Rep 186, CCA, 280 R v Paul M cM anus and Andrew Cross [2001] EW CA Crim 2455, 402 R v Perrin (Stephanie Laurent) [2002] EW CA Crim 747, 412 R v Ponting (1985) Crim LR 318, 284 R v Pratt (1855) 4 E&B 860; 119 ER 319, 307 R v Press Complaints Comm ission ex parte Stewart-Brady [1997] EM LR 185, 188 R v R (Rape: M arital exem ption) [1992] 1 AC 599, 44 R v Radio A uthority ex parte Bull [1995] 4 All ER 481, 248 R v Richmond upon Thames LBC ex parte JC (a child) (2000) The Times, 10 August, 150 R v Seeker and Warburg [1954] 2 A ll ER 687, 405 R v Secretary o f State for Culture, M edia and Sport ex parte Danish Satellite Television [1999] 3 CM LR 919 CA, 412 R v Secretary o f State fo r Foreign and Comm onwealth Affairs ex parte World Development M ovem ent [1995] 1 All ER 611, 39 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte Anderson [1984] 1 Q B 778, 159, 161 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte Brind [1991] 2 W LR 588 (HL), 19, 192 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte D aly [20011 UKH L 26; [2001] 3 All ER 433, 59, 118, 124, 160, 161 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, 154, 167 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte H erbage (No. 2) [1987] 1 QB 1077, 164 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte H indley [1999] 2 W LR 1253, 167

xxiv

H uman Rights and Civil Liberties

R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte H osenball [1977] 3 All ER 452, 279 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartment ex parte Leech (2) [1994] QB 198, 159, 161 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte M cQ uillan [1995] 4 All ER 400, 279 R v Secretary o f State fo r the Home D epartment ex parte Ruddock [1987] 2 All ER 518, 279 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte Simms and another [1999] 3 All ER 400, 18, 27, 160, 166, 171 R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent ex parte Tarrant [1985] 1 A ll ER 799, 162 R v Secretary o f State for the H om e D epartm ent and the Parole Board ex parte N orney (1995) 7 A dm in LR 861; [1996] CO D 81, 28 R v Secretary o f State fo r Social Services ex parte Joint Council fo r the W elfare o f Im m igrants [1996] 4 All ER 385, 18 R v S elf [1992] 3 All ER 476, 92 R v Senior [1899] 1 QB 283, 379, 418 R v Shayler [2001] EW CA Crim 1977; [2001] 1 W LR 2206, 285 R v Shayler [2002] UKH L 11; [2002] 2 All ER 477 HL, 59, 171, 285, 292 R v Sheppard and another [1980] 3 A ll ER 899, 379 R v Sm ethurst [20021 1 Cr App Rep 6, 408 R v Smith [2002] EW CA Crim 683; The Times, 23 A pril, 407 R v Socialist Worker Printers and Publishers Ltd and another ex parte Attorney G eneral [1975] 1 Q B 637, 213, 230 R v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings [1995] 3 All ER 20, 304-5 R v Southampton Crown Court ex parte J and P [1993] Crim LR 962, 119 R v Stone, R v Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341, 374 R v Taylor and Taylor (1994) 98 C r Ap Rbp 361, 219, 224, 226 R v Telegraph Group [2002] EM LR 10, 227 R v Telfer [1976] Crim LR 562, 93 R v The Commission o f English H eritage ex parte Firsoff (unreported), 19 June 1991, 305 R v University o f Liverpool ex parte Caesar-Gordon [1990] 3 A ll ER 821, 307 R v Video Appeals Com m ittee o f the British Board o f Film Classification ex parte the British Board o f Film Classification [2000] EM LR 850, 411 R v W addington (1822) 1 State Trials (NS), 107 ER 11, 420 R v Waddon (Graham) [1999] ITCLR 422, affirmed CA 6 April 2000 (2000 WL 491456), 412 R v Walker [19961 1 Cr App Rep 111, 402 R v W estminster City Council ex parte Castelli (1995) 7 A dm in LR 840, 230 R v Williams (1797) H ow ell's State Trials, volum e 26, 420 R v Wilson (1997) QB 47, 393 R v Young [1995] QB 324, 231 R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary o f State for the Environm ent, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 All ER 929 HL, 31, 33, 149, 156 R (Amin) v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartment [2002] EW CA Civ 390; [2002] 4 All ER 336, 163

Table o f cases

xxv

R (Anderson) v Secretary o f State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1698, [2002] 2 W LR 1143, 167 R (DPP) v Havering M agistrates Court [2001] 3 All ER 997, 324 R (Fleurose) v SFA Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 189, 150 R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 683; [2002] EMLR 5, 188 R (H) v Mental Health Review tribunal N&E London Region [2001] EWCA Civ 415, 35 R (Heather) v Cheshire Homes [2002] EWCA Civ 366; [2002] 2 All ER 936 CA, 37 R (LaRose) v Commissioner o f Police for the M etropolis (2001) 151 NLJ 1212, 100 R (M) v Commissioner o f Police for the M etropolis (2001) 151 NLJ 1212, 100 R (McCann) v Crown Court M anchester [2001] 4 All ER 264, 150 R (Marper) v CC South Yorkshire [2002] EWCA Civ 1275; [2002] NLJ 1383, 105 R (Mellor) v Secretary o f State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 472; [2002] QB 13, 165 R (Pearson and another) v Secretary o f State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 239; [2001 HRLR 39, 166 R (Persey) v Secretary o f State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2000] EWHC 371; [2002] 3 WLR 704, 265 R (Pretty) v DPP [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] 1 AC 800, 376-7 R (Pro-Life Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 297; [2002] 2 All ER 756, 189, 249 R (Robertson) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWHC Admin 915; [2002] 2 WLR 889, 360, 364, 367 R (Rottman) v Commissioner o f Police o f the M etropolis [2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 All ER 865, 111 R (Saadi and others) ex parte Secretary o f State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 670; [2001] 4 All ER 961, 342 R (Williamson) v Secretary o f State for Education and Employment [2001] EWHC Admin 960; [2002] 1 FLR 493, 373 Rai, Allmond and Negotiate Now v The United Kingdom (1995) 19 EHRR CD 93; Ap. 25522/94, 306 Ramsay v Foote (1883) 15 Cox CC 231, 420 Rassemblement Jurassien et Unite Jurassienne v Switzerland Ap. 8191/78; 17 D&R 93, 297, 298, 314 Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1, 160, 161 Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department o f Trade [1990] 2 AC 418, 19 Re B (Consent to treatment: Capacity) [2002] EWHC 429; [2002] 2 All ER 449, 375 Re B (a minor) (ivardship: medical treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421, 379 Re C (Adult: Refusal o f M edical Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290, 375, 379 Re an Inquiry under the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 [1988] AC 660, 204 Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision) [2000] 1 FCR 307, 381 Re J (Specific Issue Orders: Muslim Upbringing and Circumcision) [1995] 2 FLR 678, 381 Re JT (Adult: Refusal o f M edical Treatment) [1998] 1 FLR 48, 375, 380 Re Lysaght [1966] Ch 191, 417 Re M (child: refusal o f medical treatment) [1999] 2 FLR 1097, 378

xxvi

H uman Rights and Civil Liberties

Re M B [1997] 8 Med LR 217, 375, 382 R e R (a minor) (wardship: m edical treatment) [1991] 4 A ll ER 177, 378 Re R (M inor) (1993) 15 BM LR 72, 379 R e South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 W LR 1565, 422 Re T (adult: refusal o f medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649 CA, 375 Re Truth and Sportsmen Ltd (1937) SR (NSW ) 242, 229 Re Tuck's Settlement Trust [1976] Ch 99, 417 Re W (a minor) (m edical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 627, 378 Re Z (a minor) (freedom o f Publication) [1995] 4 All ER 961, 199 R edm ond-Bate v DPP (2000) 163 JP 789, 301, 302, 312 Rees v United Kingdom (1986) 9 EH RR 56, 395 Reynolds v Times N ewspapers Ltd and others [1999] 4 A ll ER 609, 201 RH v N orway, Hudoc. Ap. 17004/90, 383 Ribitsch v Austria (1996) 21 EHRR 573, 75 Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 All ER 649, 69 Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, 63, 148 Roach v Garvan (1742) 2 Atk 469, 206 Robins v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 527, 151 Robson and another v Hallett 11967] 2 QB 939, 109, 110, 309 Rowe and Davis v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 1, 154 Ruiz Torija v Spain Ap. 18390/91; 11999] ELIRLR 334, 155 Rut li v M inister o f the Interior [1975] ECR 1219, 21 Ryan v United Kingdom (1998) Ap. 3 2 8 7 5 /9 6 , 167 S v S [1972] AC 24, 380 S and G v United Kingdom (1991) Ap. 17634/91, 400, 403 St George's H ealthcare NHS Trust v S; R v Collins and others ex parte S [1998] 3 All ER 673, 375, 382 Salabiaku v France (1991) 13 EHRR 379, 336 Samuels v C om m issioner o f Police fo r the M etropolis 3 M arch 1999, Lexis: Smith Bernal CA, 85 Sander v United Kingdom (2001) EHRR 44, 231 Saunders v Punch Ltd (trading as Liberty Publishing) [1998] 1 A ll ER 234, 204 Saunders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EH RR 313, 70, 103, 105, 133 Scanfuture UK Ltd v Secretary o f State fo r Trade and Industry [2001] All ER (D) 296, 155 Schenk v Switzerland (1991) 13 EHRR 242, 144 Schiesser v Sw itzerland (1979-80) 2 EHRR 417, 96 Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 HL, 229 Secretary o f State for Defence v Guardian N eivspapers [1984] 3 All ER 601, 278 Secretary o f State fo r Defence v Guardian Neivspapers Ltd [1984] 2 W LR 268, 204 Secretary o f State fo r the H om e D epartm ent v Rehm an [2001] UKH L 47; [2002] 1 All ER 122, 279, 343 Sener v Turkey [2000] 11 H RCD 399, 254 Seven Individuals v Sweden Ap. 8 8 1 1 /7 9 ; (1982) 29 D& R 104, 373 Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220, 400, 402 Sheffield and H orsham v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 163, 395 Sidiropoulos and others v Greece (1998) Ap. 5 7 /1 9 9 7 /8 4 1 /1 0 4 7 , 338

Tabie o f cases

xxvii

Silver v United Kingdom (1983) 5 EH RR 347, 161 Sim on-Herold v Austria (1971) Ap. 4 3 4 0 /6 9 , 163 Singh v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EH RR 1, 167 Slee v M eadows (1911) 105 LT 127 DC, 306 Snooks v M annion (1982) The Times, 19 M arch, 110 SNP v BBC (1996) 146 NLJ 1433, 195 SN P v Scottish Television and Grampian T V (1997) 147 NLJ 528, 195 Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439, 370 Somersett v Stewart (1772) 20 St Tr 1, 16 SPUC (Ireland) v Grogan [1991] 3 CM LR 849, 21 Stafford v United Kingdom Ap. 4 6 2 9 5 /9 9 ; (2002) 152 NLJ 880, 167 Starrs v Ruxton (2000) SLT 42 HCJ, 155 Stedman v United Kingdom [1997] EH RLR 545, 415, 416 Steel and others v United Kingdom (1998) 28 EH RR 603, 89, 300, 302-3, 350 Stephens v Avery [1988] Ch 449, 199 Stubbings & others v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 213, 152, 388 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 245, 209, 210-11, 214, 218 Sutherland v United Kingdom Ap. 2 5 186/94; (2001) The Times, 13 April, 391, 392 Sutton LBC v Davis [1995] 1 All ER 53, 374 Swinney v C hief Constable o f N ortham pton Police [1997] QB 464 CA, 67 T v United Kingdom (1986) 49 D&R 5, 166 Taylor v United Kingdom (1994) 79-A D&R 127, 76 Taylor's Case (1676)"V ent 293, 86 ER 189, 419 Teixeira da Castro v Portugal (1999) 28 EHRR 101, 137 The Observer and the Guardian v United Kingdom (1992) 14 EH RR 153, 214, 284, 292, 319 The State v M akw anyane and M chunu (1995) C C T /3 /9 4 ; (3) SA 391, 370 Thom as v Sawkins [1935] 2 KB 249, 310 Thompson v Com m issioner o f Police o f the M etropolis, Hsu v Com m issioner o f Police o f the M etropolis [1997] 2 All ER 762, 67 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EW HC Adm in 195; [2002] 4 All ER 156, 17, 18 Thorgiersen v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843, 203 Three Rivers DC v Bank o f England [20001 3 All ER 1 HL, 165 Tinnelly & Sons v UK (1998) 4 BH RC 393, 152, 276 Togher v United Kingdom [1998] EH RLR 627, 164 Totalise Pic v M otley Fool Ltd (2001) The Times, 15 M arch, 204 Toumia v Evans (1999) The Times, 1 April, 164, 165 Tow er H am lets LBC v Rabin [1989] ICR 693, 415 T V v Finland (1994) Ap 21 7 8 0 /9 3 , 76A D&R 140, 359 Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, 84, 163, 371 United Comm unist Party o f Turkey and others v Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 121, 236, 254, 338 Universal Therm osensors Ltd v H ibben [1992] 3 All ER 257, 125 Valentine v DPOP [1997] CO D 339, 327 Valenzuela Contreras v Spain (1999) 28 EHRR 483, 141, 142, 143, 144

xxviii

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Van M echelen and others v The N etherlands Ap. 2 1 3 6 3 /9 3 ; (1997) 25 EH RR 647, 150 Vauxhall Estates Ltd [1932] 1 KB 733, 17 Venables and another v N ews Group N eivspapers [2001] 1 A ll ER 908, 188, 230 V ertali v Great Yarmouth [1981] 1 QB 202, 237, 307, 318 Vigon v DPP (1998) 162 JP 115, 325 Walters v W.H. Smith [1914] KB 595, 91 Ward v C hief Constable o f Avon and Som erset Constabulary (1986) The Times, 26 June, CA, 89 Warwick v United Kingdom (1989) 60 D&R 5, 373 Weber v Switzerland (1990) 12 EHRR 508, 213 Webster v Southw ark London Borough Council [1983] 1 QB 698, 247 Weeks v United Kingdom (1987) 10 EHRR 293, 167 W ershof v M etropolitan Police Com m issioner [1978] 3 A ll ER 540, 69 Wilkes v Lord H alifax (1769) 19 St Tr 1406, 114 Wilkes v Wood (1763) 19 St Tr 1153, 114 Williams v H om e Office (No. 2) [1981] 1 All ER 1211, 164 Wilson v First County Trusts Ltd [2001] EW CA Civ 633; [2001] 3 All ER 2 2 9 ,1 5 2 Wilson v IBA [1979] SC 351, 195 Wilson v IBA (2) (1988) SLT 276, 249 Winder and others v DPP (1966) 160 JPR 713, 320 W ingrove v United Kingdom Ap. 17419/90; (1997) 24 EH RR 1, 411, 420, 421 Winn v D PP (1992) 142 NLJ 527, 327 Worm v Austria (1998) 25 EH RR 454, 210, 218, 222 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

v Austria (1976) 6 D& R 120, 241 v Finland (1998) 25 EHRR, 359 v FRG Ap. 2 7 2 8 /6 6 25 CofD 38, 166 v FRG Ap. 4984 /7 1 43 CofD 28, 166 v Germ any (1981) 24 DR 158, 87 v Iceland (1976) 5 D& R 86, 388 v M organ Grampian [1990] 2 All ER 1 (HL), 204 v N etherlands Ap. 6 5 7 3 /7 4 , 166 v Belgium 18 D&R 250, 166 v Sweden (1976) 16 DR 44, 415 v United Kingdom (1975) 3 D&R 165, 166 v United Kingdom (1981) 24 D&R 57, 165 v United Kingdom (1982) 30 D&R 239, 359 v Y [1988] 2 All ER 648, 199 and the Association o f Z v United Kingdom (1971) 38 C D 862, 248 and Y v The Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 235, 338

Y v United Kingdom (1994) 17 EHRR 238, 373 Z v Austria (1988) 56 DR 13, 265 Z v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EH RR 97, 67, 152 Zamora, The [1916] 2 AC 77, 278 Zentralrat DSRR v Germany (1997) 23 EHRR 7 CD 209, 39

Table of Acts of Parliament

A bortion A ct 1967, 3 8 2 -3 S. 4, 382 A ccess to H ealth R ecords A ct 1990, 360 A ccess to M edical Reports A ct 1988, 360 A ccess to Personal Files A ct 1987, 360 A ct of S ettlem en t 1700, 416 A ir Force A ct 1955, 62 A nti-Terrorism C rim e and Secu rity A ct 2 0 0 1 ,16, 3 0 ,1 0 3 , 256, 258, 332, 340, 349, 353, 359 S. 17, 367, 415 P art 4, 3 4 3 -5 P art 11, 133 A rm ed Forces A ct 2001, 62 A rm y A ct 1955, 62, 370 A ud it C om m ission A ct 1998, 266 Bail A ct 1976, 151, 324 Betting, G am ing and L otteries A ct 1963, 66 B roadcasting A ct 1990, 185, 2 4 8 -9 , 412 S. 10, 191-2, 193 S. 6, 192, 194, 411 Broadcasting A ct 1996, 185, 193, 196, 197 C h ild ren A ct 1989, 60, 378, 379, 380 C h ild ren and Young P ersons A ct 1933, 230, 371, 379 C h ild ren and Youn g P ersons A ct 1969, 104 C inem as A ct 1985, 409, 418 C ity of L ondon Police A ct 1839, 314 C om m onw ealth Im m igration A ct 1962, 15 C o n su m er C red it A ct 1974, 152 C o n tem p t o f C ou rt A ct 1981, 211, 212, 214, 222-31 S. 2, 215, 2 2 2 -3 S. 4, 2 2 6 -7 S. 5, 215, 2 2 7 -9 S. 8, 231 S. 10, 2 0 3 -4 S. 11, 230 S. 19, 211 S ch ed u le 1, 223

XXX

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

C rim e and D isord er A ct 1998, 250, 370, 415 C rim in al D am age A ct 1971, 3 2 2 -3 C rim in al Ju stice A ct 1967, 371 C rim in al Ju stice A ct 1988, 407 S. 139, 83, 84, 88 C rim in al Ju stice A ct 1991, 158, 161 C rim inal Ju stice A ct 1992, 161 C rim in al Ju stice and C ou rt Services A ct 2000, 407 C rim in al Ju stice and P olice A ct 2001, 104, 105, 117, 124 C rim in al Ju stice and Public O rd er A ct 1994, 158, 299, 321, 326, 404, 408 S. 34, 101 S. 38, 102 S. 60, 86, 346 S. 61, 308 S. 68, 3 1 9 -2 0 S. 69, 320 S. 163, 145 C rim in al Ju stice (Terrorism and C on spiracy) A ct 1998, 333 C rim in al Law A ct 1967 S. 3, 74, 76, 326 C rim in al Law A ct 1977, 303, 321, 322, 333 C rim in al P roced ure and Investigation A ct 1996, 153, 154 C row n P roceed in gs A ct 1948, 57, 64 C u stom s and E xcise M anagem ent A ct 1979, 114, 407 C u stom s C on solid ation A ct 1876, 407 Data Protection A ct 1984, 360 Data Protection A ct 1998, 56, 60, 132, 145, 271, 351, 359, 360 S. 1, 361 S. 32, 365 P art II, 364 S ch ed u le 1, 361 S ch ed u le 2, 361 S ch ed u le 3, 362 E du cation A ct 1944, 418 Education A ct 1996, 372, 418 Education A ct 1997, 372 Education A ct (N o 2) 1986, 179, 307, 372 E m ploym en t A ct 1989, 417 E m ploym en t Rights A ct 1996, 282 E nviron m ent and Safety Inform ation A ct 1988, 266 E uropean C om m u nities A ct 1972, 19, 20 E xplosive Substances A ct 1883, 116 Fair T rad in g A ct 1973, 185 Fam ily Law Reform A ct 1969, 377, 378, 380 Firearm s A ct 1968, 85 Football (O ffences) A ct 1991, 259 Freed om o f Inform ation A ct 2000, 56, 60, 282, 360, 362 S. 1, 268

T able o f A cts o f P arliam ent

S. 2, 270 S. 12, 273 S. 15, 267 S. 21, 271 S. 22, 272 S. 23, 276 S. 24, 276 S. 28, 275 S. 33, 275 S. 35, 2 7 4 -5 S. 36, 2 7 4 -5 S. 41, 273 S. 43, 273 S. 44, 271 S. 45, 268 S. 53, 270 S. 55, 269 S. 62, 263 S. 63, 263 S. 74, 272 S. 75, 271 S. 78, 271 S ch ed u le 1, 267 S ch ed u le 3, 269 G reater L ondon A uthority A ct 1999, 306 H ighw ays A ct 1980 S. 137, 3 0 8 -9 H ouse of C om m ons D isqu alification A ct 1975, 245 H ouse of C om m ons (R em oval o f C lergy D isqu alification) A ct 2001, 245 H ouse of L ords A ct 1999, 245 H um an Fertilisation and E m bryology A ct 1990, 382 H um an Rights A ct 1998, 2 8 -5 1 , 59, 140 S. 1, 30, 47 S. 2, 30 S. 3, 34, 229 S. 4, 35 S. 6, 37, 56, 136, 184, 188 S. 7, 38, 59, 71 S. 10, 35 S. 12, 40, 123, 177, 180, 184, 198, 221, 228, 289, 319 S. 13, 40, 416 S. 14, 30 S. 15, 30 S. 16, 30 S. 21, 255, 370-1 S ch ed u le 1 A rticle 2, 4 1 -2 , 75, 163, 380 A rticle 3, 42, 75, 103, 163, 164, 165, 167, 370, 371, 378

xxxi

xxxii

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

A rticle 4, 42 A rticle 5, 43, 72, 8 7 -8 , 8 9 -9 0 ,9 3 , 94, 9 5 - 7 ,1 5 1 ,1 5 7 ,1 6 0 ,1 6 7 , 3 0 2 -3 ,3 4 4 , 350 A rticle 6, 44, 71, 98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 118, 123, 1 4 0 -1 , 144, 148-56, 160, 162, 2 0 8 -9 , 212, 215, 218, 222, 227, 229, 230, 280, 324, 340, 351 A rticle 7, 44, 349 A rticle 8, 45, 46, 105, 108, 113, 118, 132, 136, 1 4 1 -4 ,1 6 1 , 163, 164, 165, 359, 377, 379, 380, 388, 391, 393, 395, 408, 416 A rticle 9, 45, 46, 84, 165, 381, 4 1 5 -1 6 A rticle 10, 45, 46, 84, 123, 136, 142, 16 5 -6 , 179-80, 18 3 -4 , 186, 203, 209 -1 1 , 2 1 3 -1 4 , 215, 217, 218, 227, 228, 230, 2 5 0 -1 , 2 5 8 -9 , 2 6 4 -5 , 280, 284, 288, 289, 292, 2 9 7 -8 , 3 0 2 -3 , 358, 3 9 9 -4 0 0 , 401, 403, 408, 411, 416 A rticle 11, 45, 4 7 ,1 3 6 , 1 4 2 ,1 6 5 , 2 3 6 -7 , 2 9 7 -8 , 3 0 8 -9 , 316, 319, 3 2 1 -2 , 3 3 7 -8 A rticle 12, 47, 395 A rticle 14, 49, 103, 344, 388, 392, 395, 416 A rticle 16, 50 A rticle 17, 5 0 -1 , 2 5 8 -9 , 307, 3 3 7 -8 A rticle 18, 50, 245 Protocol 1 A rticle 1, 4 7 -8 , 108, 340, 416 Protocol 1 A rticle 2, 48, 373, 419 Protocol 1 A rticle 3, 48, 166, 237, 2 4 1 -3 , 245 Protocol 6 A rticle 1, 49, 369-71 Protocol 6 A rticle 2, 49, 370 Sch ed u le 2, 36 Im m igration A ct 1971, 343 Incitem ent to D isaffection A ct 1934, 2 5 5 -6 Indecency D isplays (C ontrol) A ct 1981, 406 Infant Life (P reservation) A ct 1929, 382, 383 Intelligence Services A ct 1994, 79, 80, 128, 13 5 -6 , 140, 285, 288 S. 5, 135, 136 Interception o f C om m u nications A ct 1985, 128, 130, 140 Ju stice o f the P eace A ct 1361, 324 K nives A ct 1997, 86, 116 Local G ov ern m ent A ct 1972, 304 Local G ov ern m ent (A ccess to Inform ation) A ct 1985, 2 6 5 -6 Local G ov ern m ent Finan ce A ct 1982, 266 Local G ov ern m ent and H ousing A ct 1989, 238 Local G ov ern m ent (M iscellaneous Provisions) A ct 1982, 116, 409 M agistrates' C ou rts A ct 1980, 90, 323 M arriage A ct 1983, 165 M ental H ealth A ct 1983, 35, 379 M etropolitan Police A ct 1839 S. 52, 3 1 4 -1 5 M inistry o f D efence P olice A ct 1987, 62 M isuse o f D ru gs A ct 1971, 85 M urder (A bolition o f the D eath Penalty) A ct 1965, 370 N aval D iscipline A ct 1957, 62 O aths A ct 1978, 417 O bscene P ublications A ct 1959, 182, 400, 402, 4 0 4 -1 3

T able o f A cts o f P arliam ent

S. 1, 404 S. 2(4), 398, 402, 403, 404, 410 S. 3, 406 S. 4, 4 0 5 -6 O bscene P ublication s A ct 1964, 182, 404 O ffences A gainst the Person A ct 1861, 382 O fficial Secrets A ct 1911, 116 S. 1, 2 7 9 -8 1 , 289 S. 2, 282 S. 9, 283 O fficial Secrets A ct 1920, 279, 280 O fficial Secrets A ct 1989, 64, 230, 2 8 2 -9 S. 1, 285, 285, 286, 290 S. 2, 286, 287 S. 3, 287 S. 4, 288 S. 5, 289 P arliam en tary C om m ission er A ct 1967, 56, 60, 80, 266, 273 P arliam en tary and H ealth Serv ice C om m ission ers A ct 1987, 266 Police A ct 1996, 63 S. 1-4, 63 S. 10, 64 S. 11, 63 S. 20, 66 S. 24, 62 S.s 3 6 -5 8 , P art II, 64 S. 59, 65 S. 64, 65 S. 88, 67 S. 89, 69, 311 S. 91, 256 Police A ct 1997, 63, 128, 138 Part III, 134, 135, 140, 288 S. 93, 134 S. 94, 134 S. 97, 135 S. 103, 135 S. 104, 135 Police and C rim in al Evid ence A ct 1984, 70 passim , 203 Part 1, Ss. 1 -8A , 72, 8 2 -5 , 86, 8 7 -8 S. 8, 74, 115, 117, 119 S. 9, 119 S. 10, 1 1 8-19 Ss. 1 1 -1 3 , 120-121 S. 15, 116 S. 16, 1 16-117 S. 17, 90, 111, 112, 311 (5), 70, 111

xxxiii

xxxiv

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

(6), 70, 111, 113, 310 114 94, 117, 351 118 118 73, 90, 299 (1), 91 (4), 68 S. 25, 69, 89, 90, 92, 299, 309, 312 S. 26, 93 S. 28, 93 S. 30, 94 S. 32, 94, 114 S. 34, 95 S. 37, 96, 97, S. 38, 96 S. 39, 98, 103 S. 40, 97 Ss. 4 1 -4 5 , 9 7 -9 8 S. 46, 97 S. 54, 104 S. 55, 84, 105 S. 56, 99 S. 57, 104 S. 61, 104, 105 S. 63, 105 S. 64, 105 S. 58, 99 S. 66, 70 S. 67, 71 S. 76, 71, 100, 147 S. 77, 71 S. 78, 7 1 -7 8 , 100, 103, 144, 147 S. 89, 71 S. 106, 66 S. 116, 73, 98 S. 117, 74 S ch ed u le 1, 1 1 9 -1 2 4 ,1 2 2 S ch ed u le 5, 73 P olice Reform A ct 2002, 63, 64, 67 Part 2, 68 P olitical Parties, Elections and R eferend um s A ct 2000, 2 4 0 -1 , 244, 2 4 5 -7 , 249 P ostal Services A ct 2000, 407 P revention o f T errorism (Tem porary Provisions) A ct 1973, 331 P reven tion o f T errorism (Tem porary P rovisions) A ct 1989, 331, 349 Prisons A ct 1952, 159, 164 S. 47, 159 P rohibition o f Fem ale C ircu m cision A ct 1985, 381 S. S. S. S. S.

18, 19, 21, 22, 24,

T able o f A cts o f P arliam ent

Protection o f C h ild ren A ct 1978, 407 Protection from H arassm en t A ct 1997, 136, 187, 319 Public Interest D isclosure A ct 1998, 282 Public M eeting A ct 1908, 308, 312 Public O rd er A ct 1936, 74, 324, 326 Public O rd er A ct 1986, 299, 324 S. 1, 327, 328 S. 2, 327 S. 3, 327 S. 4A , 326 S. 5, 3 2 5 -6 , 394, 403 S. 11, 3 1 3 -3 1 4 S. 12, 3 1 4 -3 1 5 S. 13, 3 1 5 -3 1 7 S. 14, 3 1 1 -3 1 2 S. 14A, 308, 3 2 1 -2 S. 16, 311 Part III, 2 5 6 -9 , 409 Public O rd er (A m end m ent) A ct 1996, 325 Public R ecords A ct 1958, 2 6 2 -3 Race R elations A ct 1976, 60, 256, 358, 415, 417 Race R elations (A m endm ent) A ct 2000, 56, 60, 66, 256 R egistration o f P olitical P arties A ct 1998, 240 Regu lation o f Inv estigatory P ow ers A ct 2000, 79, 154, 187, 288 S. 1, 129 S. 3, 130 S. 5, 13 1 -2 S. 6, 131 S. 7, 131 S. 17, 144 Part 1, C h ap ter 2, 132 S. 22, 132 Part II, 13 7 -9 S. 32, 138 S. 58, 139 Part 4, 140-1 S. 67, 140 S. 69, 140 S. 80, 137 Sch ed u le 1, 137 Sch ed u le 2, 133 R epresentation of the P eople A ct 1983, 2 4 4 -6 , 307, 312 Representation of the P eople A ct 1985, 244 Representation of the P eople A ct 2000, 244 Road Traffic A ct 1988, 8 6 -7 , 417 School Stand ards and Fram ew ork A ct 1998, 372, 418 Secu rity Serv ice A ct 1989, 77, 128, 140, 285, 288 S. 1, 78, 278

xxxv

xxxvi

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Security Service A ct 1996, 77, 128, 136 Sex Discrim ination A ct 1975, 415, 417 Sexual Offences A ct 1956, 389, 390, 391, 392 Sexual Offences (A m endm ent) Act 1967, 389, 391 Sexual Offences (A m endm ent) Act 1976, 230 Sexual Offences (A m endm ent) Act 2000, 389, 391 Special Im m igration A ppeals Com m ission Act 1997, 343-5 Sporting Events (Control of A lcohol etc) Act 1985, 85 Suicide A ct 1961, 374, 376 Sunday Trading Act 1994, 418 Tattooing of M inors A ct 1969, 380 Telecom m unications Act 1984, 130, 132, 407 Terrorism A ct 2000, 70, 85, 114, 332, 335 S. 1, 334 S. 3, 337 Ss. 4 -9 , 338 Ss. 11-13, 339 Ss 14-18, 340 S. 19, 352 S. 32, 345 S. 37, 347 S. 39, 352 S. 40, 348 S. 41, 349, 351 S. 42, 351 Ss 54-57, 341 S. 114, 74 S. 117, 333, 353 S. 118, 336, 353 Part IV, 345 Part V, 345 Part VII, 333 Schedule 2, 337 Schedule 3, 339 Schedule 5, 346 Schedule 8, 349-50 Theatres Act 1968, 116, 402, 403, 404, 408-9 Theft A ct 1968, 84, 116 Theft A ct 1978, 93 Tow n Police Clauses Act 1847, 314 Trade U nion and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, 237, 323 Treason Act 1351, 250-1 Treason Felony Act 1848, 251 Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, 147, 154 V agrancy A ct 1824, 93 Video Recordings Act 1984, 411 Video Recordings Act 1993, 410 Youth Justice and Crim inal Evidence A ct 1999, 103, 351

Table of Statutory Instruments Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989, SI 1989 No. 503, 360 Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989, SI 1989 No. 206, 360 Children's Homes Regulations 1991, SI 1991 No. 1506, 374 Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, SI 1988 No. 1987 (NI No. 2),

101 Crown Court (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) (Disclosure) Rules 1997, SI 1997 No. 698, 154 Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000, SI 2000 No. 417, 362 Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990, SI 1990 No. 851, 238 Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2000, SI 2001 No. 3712, 35 Official Secrets (Prohibited Places) Order 1994, SI 1994 No. 968, 280 Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Officers, Ranks and Positions) Order 2000, SI 2000 No. 2417, 137 Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, SI 1997 No. 1639, 306

Table of Command, parliamentary and other official papers

A nnan, Lord (1977) Report o f the Comm ittee on the Future o f Broadcasting, Cm 6753. London: H M SO, 193 Calcutt, Sir David (1990) Report o f the Com m ittee on Privacy and Related M atters, Cm 1102. London: H M SO , 187 Calcutt, Sir David (1992) Review o f Press Self Regulation, Cm 2135. London: H M SO, 129, 187 C hancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1993) Open Governm ent, Cm 2290. London: H M SO, 262, 266-77 Departm ent of H ealth (2000) P rotecting Children, Supporting Parents. London: Departm ent of H ealth, 372 Franks, Lord (Chairm an) (1972) D epartm ental Com m ittee on Section 2 o f the Official Secrets Act 1911, Cm 5104, 283 H om e Office (1985) Revieio o f Public O rder (W hite Paper), Cm 9510, 299 Home Office (1997) Code o f Practice on Access to Government Information, 2nd edn; revised 1998. London: HMSO; also available at http ://w w w .hom eoffice. g o v .u k /foi/ ogcode981 .htm, 266-77 H om e Office (2000) Setting the Boundaries: Reform ing the Law on Sex Offences. London: H om e Office, 387-8 H om e Office and N orthern Ireland Office (1998) Legislation Against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper, Cm 4178, 332 Intelligence and Security Com m ittee (2000) The M itrokhin Inquiry Report, Cri. 4764. London: Stationery Office, 80 Interception o f Com m unications in the United Kingdom (1999), Cm 4368, 129 Law Com m ission (1 981/85) Crim inal Law: Offences against Religion and Public Worship, W orking Paper 79 (1981); Report 145 (1985), 421 Lord C hancellor's Departm ent (1993) Infringem ent o f Privacy, Consultation Paper. London: HM SO , 187 Lord Lloyd of Berw ick (1996) Legislation Against Terrorism, Cm 3420, 332 Lord N eill o f Bladen, QC (Chairm an), Com m ittee on Standards in Public Life (1998) The Funding o f Political Parties in the United Kingdom, Fifth Report, V olum e 1: Report, Cm 4057-1; Volum e II: Evidence, Cm 4057-11, 240, 248-9 M acPherson, Sir W illiam (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Report, Cm 4262-1. London: Stationery Office, 66 N ational H eritage Select Com m ittee (1993) Fourth Report: Privacy and M edia Intrusion. HC 294-1, 187

Table o f C om m and, parliam entary and other official papers

xxxix

Philim ore C om m ittee (1974) C ontem pt o f Court, C m 5794, 206 P rom oting e-C om m erce (1999), C m 4417, 129 Royal C om m ission on C rim in al Ju stice (1993), C m 2263, 101 Royal C om m ission on C rim in al P roced u re (1981), C m 8092, 101 Royal C om m ission on the Police 1962, C m 1728, 62, 65 Scarm an, Lord (1981) The Brixton D isorders, C m 8427, 299 W illiam s, B. (C hairm an) (1979) Report o f the C om m ittee on O bscenity and Film Censorship, Cm 7772, 397 W oolf, L.J. and Tum irn, J. (1991) Prison D isturbances: A pril 1990, C m 1456. London, 161 Younger, K. (C hairm an) (1972) Report o f the C om m ittee on P rivacy, C m 5012, 187

Abbreviations Ap. A -TC & S BBC BSC C LJ Crim LR DC D PP ECHR E ctH R HL H R LJ ICCPR ITC ITV LQ R M LR N LJ O JLS PA C E PCC PL RA RIPA Sched. SI SIA C PPERA

A pplication nu m ber (to the E uropean C ou rt of H um an Rights) A nti-terrorism , C rim e and S ecu rity A ct 2001 British Broadcasting C orp oration Broadcasting Stand ard s C om m ission C am bridge Law Journal Crim inal Law Review D ivisional C ourt D irector o f P ublic Prosecutions E uropean C on vention on H um an R ights E uropean C ou rt of H um an R ights H ouse o f Lords H um an Rights Law Journal International C ov enant on C ivil and Political Rights Ind epen d ent Telev ision C om m ission Ind epen d ent T elevision Law Q uarterly R eview M odern Law Review . N ew Law Journ al O xford Journ al o f Legal Studies Police and C rim in al E vid en ce A ct 1984 Press C om plaints C om m ission P ublic Law Radio A uthority R egu lation o f Investigatory Pow ers A ct 2000 Sch ed u le Statu tory Instrum ent Special Im m igration A ppeals C om m ission P olitical Parties, Elections and R eferend um s A ct 2000

N eutral citation N eutral citation is given w here possible. The d ate o f the d ecision is follow ed by an abbreviation for the cou rt and then the nu m ber of the case, not the page num ber. C ases are published w ith num bered paragraphs. This system has been ad opted for the su p erior cou rts w ith ju risd iction in England and W ales and also by the E uropean H um an Rights R eports series. PC UKHL

Privy C ouncil U nited K ingd om H ouse o f Lords

A bbreviations

EW C A C iv EW C A C rim EW H C [case num ber] A d m in / Q B /C h /F a m

xli

England and W ales, C ou rt o f A ppeal, C iv il D ivision England and W ales, C ou rt o f A ppeal, C rim in al D ivision H igh C ourt, A d m in istrative C ourt, Q u een 's Bench, C h ancery D ivision, Fam ily D ivision.

Law R eports AC A ppeal C ases A dm in LR A d m in istrative Law Reports A ll ER A ll England Law Reports A tk A tkin 's Q u arter Session s cases BH RC B utterw o rth 's H um an R ights C ases BM L R B utterw o rth 's M edical L aw R eports Black. W Sir W illiam B lackston e's R eports Bos and P B osanqu et and P u llar's C om m on P leas R eports C & P C arrington and P ay n e's N isi Prius Reports C of D C ollection s o f D ecision s (European C om m ission o f H um an Rights) CM LR C om m on M arket Law Reports COD C row n Office D igest Ch C h ancery D ivision C ox C C C o x 's C rim in al C ases C r A p Rep C rim in al A ppeal Reports D&R D ecisions and R eports (E uropean C om m ission o f H um an Rights) D e G & Sm D e G ex and Sm iles C h ancery Reports D LR D om inion Law Reports E & B Ellis and B lackb u rn 's Q u een 's Bench Reports ECR E uropean C ou rt Reports EH R LR E uropean H um an Rights Law Reports EH R R C D E uropean H um an Rights Reports, C om m ission D igest EH R R E uropean H um an Rights Reports EM L R E ntertainm ent and M edia L aw R eports ER E nglish R eports FC R Fam ily C ou rt Reporter FL R Fam ily L aw Reports Farn Fam ily D ivision H are H are's C h ancery Reports ICR Industrial C ases Reports IRLR Industrial R elations Law Reports JP Ju stice o f the P eace reports KB K ings Bench LG R Local G ov ern m ent Reports LR Law R eports LT L aw Tim es M ed LR M edical Law Reports NI N orthern Ireland Law R eports QB Q u een 's Bench QBD Q u een 's Bench D ivisional C ourt

xlii

RTR SA SC SLT SR (NSW) St Tr TLR W LR YB

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

Road Traffic Reports South African Law Reports Session Cases Scots Law Tim es New South W ales State Reports State Trials The Tim es Law Reports W eekly Law Reports Yearbook of the European Convention on H um an Rights

Part I Values and institutions

1 Introduction and underlying values 1.1 In tro d u c tio n A group of political dem onstrators are arrested w hen they hold a m eeting on a public road, a desperately ill m an w ishes to choose the time of his death, a journalist w ith an im portant story about an alleged terrorist group is faced with prison for not disclosing her source. These are exam ples of issues about civil liberties law. In this chapter the values that underlie civil liberties law are introduced as are the broad constitutional theories, the theories of state power, which give the law its legitim acy in relation to those values. Finally, the idea of human rights is introduced since it is in relation to that idea that civil liberties law is being restated. A principal aim of this book is to integrate human rights law into the com m on law and statutory rules which m ake up the subject. 1.2 V a lu e s : d e m o c ra c y an d p riv a c y Civil liberties law is to do with the relationship betw een citizens and the state in so far as this relationship affects two features of social life presum ed to be valuable. These two 'features' are, first, 'dem ocracy' or the good of political participation. Civil liberties law is concerned w ith identifying the reasonable scope of the freedom of people to participate in political processes and seek to change or m aintain the laws, governm ent policies or public opinion. The second 'feature' is the idea of privacy. Civil liberties law is concerned with the reasonable scope o f the claim that there is a significant part of a person's life that should be determ ined by that person alone and in respect of which the state, through its laws, should have no say. From this perspective, the state also has duties, through its laws, to preserve the private part of a person's life from im proper intrusion from others, such as neighbours or the media. The current law, w hich is stated in this book, represents the rules and principles on these issues w hich have em erged from the exercise of state power in the im perfect dem ocracy that is the United Kingdom . Their reasonableness is the subject of the argum ents that surround these rules and principles. Through these argum ents, the strengths and w eaknesses, the reasons for supporting, for tolerating or for rejecting the current rules can be assessed.

4

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

F or som e w riters, d em ocracy and p riv acy are so ind ep en den t o f each other, so m u ch d ealing w ith d istin ct and unrelated m atters, that they are incapable o f uniting together into a single subject called 'civil lib e rtie s'.1 T he position, w hich is presum ed in this book, is that civil liberties law engages w ith political activ ity and p riv acy in so far as they are affected by the law and by state pow er exercised u n d er the law . From that p osition, p riv acy and d em ocracy are interrelated. T here is an essential aspect o f 'p riv acy' underlying political activity. Political activity flow s from the con ceptions that ind ividu als hold abou t w hat is good and v alu able in life and w hat ou g h t to be prom oted or restricted in society. Such 'concep tions o f the good ' w ill, as a m atter o f fact, u sually reflect the cu ltural trad itions and the collective w ays of life o f the society; m ost people assert view s that exist w ithin a fairly narrow ran ge of o pinions and possibilities. M arxists, fo r exam ple, and other cultural sociolog i­ sts w ill explain such con form ity in term s o f a broad ly d eterm inistic relatio n­ ship betw een the basic w ay o f life in society, p articularly the system o f w ealth p rod uction , and the valu es and ideas that p eople hold. Even if it is p ossible to explain in such d eterm inistic w ays w hy it is that people hold the view s they do, it rem ains the case that those view s are essentially theirs. A p erso n 's view s on religion, on the ju stification o f w ar or peace, on the best con stitutional and econom ic system , on the kinds o f people to befriend or love and so on are im portan t in any u n derstand ing w e m ay have of them as persons. W e can use the w ord 'au ton om y' to express the idea that such view s are attached to them as an im portan t part o f their personality. O u r assu m ption about w hat it m eans to be a person is that, unlike, w e believe, an anim al or an object, persons have the cap acity to reflect upon, choose and prom ote their sense o f w hat is w orthw hile and w orth pu rsu ing in life, usually for them selves, som etim es for others. T his 'au ton o m y ' m ay be true or it m ay be a fiction. In eith er event we p resum e it to be true. It is the p resum ption at the heart o f m oral d iscourse, ethics, the crim inal law and, also, o f the basic idea that som e conception of d em ocracy is a good the law should prom ote. C ivil liberties law , therefore, is about the scope and d im ensions o f the freed om people have to seek to get their ow n sense o f w hat is w orthw hile ad opted by society as pu rposes the law is to serve. 'D em ocracy' and 'p riv acy' are also linked becau se the claim s of privacy can be the subject m atter o f som e o f the m ost controversial and testing political issues. P eople m ay claim that w hat they read or w atch, how and w ith w hom they m ake love, how they treat their b od y and so on are m atters entirely for them and there is no social or political interest that ju stifies the intervention of the state. S im ilarly they m ay claim that inform ation abou t these and other m atters, such as their incom e, is personal and only to be used o r disclosed by others un der con ditions that the person controls. But these claim s can be con trad icted b y law s relatin g to obscenity, sexual offences, suicide and so on, and a significant d egree o f d em ocratic politics involves struggles, condu cted in P arliam en t, the cou rts or on the streets, about the scope o f privacy that the law should recognise. 1 Ew ing, K. and G earty, C. (2000) T he Struggle fo r Civil Liberties. Oxford: O xford U niversity Press, ch apter 1.

Introduction and underlying values

5

1 .2 .1 D e m o c ra c y D em ocracy is a highly contested concept.2 No political theory can claim to be 'dem ocratic' which does not value at least som e rights to a degree of political participation.3 H owever, it is clear that there is significant disagreem ent as to the point and core extent of such rights. There are two standard views on why political participation is valued. One view values political participation and dem ocratic principles instrum entally. It is a m eans of enabling people to obtain things they w ant for them selves or for others in society. An alternative view sees the point of participative politics not in achieving private goods but as an im portant part of the full expression of m ankind's social and public personal­ ity. Through political activity w e not only advance personal interests but, m ore im portantly, w e express the public aspect of our nature w ithout which we are incom plete and unfulfilled. W hatever the purposes, there is also disagreem ent about the core extent of dem ocratic participation. Political participation is valued to different degrees and to different extents. O ne view asserts that society as a w hole is likely to be richer, m ore peaceful and generally m ore successful if decisions about the public good are taken by educated and skilled specialists in the arts of governm ent - by political elites of one general political orientation or another. The focus is on representative institutions and practices, above all, the institutions of elections and Parliam ents and the political parties that support them. The people go about their private daily lives and are for m ost of the time politically disengaged and passive. The core requirem ent for dem ocratic participation is regular elections to choose the elites w ho will then govern and be the central actors of political life.4 Dem ocracy as a politically passive population governed by elites recruited through representative institutions is defended not only on grounds o f efficiency but also as the version of dem ocracy that best describes the situation of political disengagem ent that characterises m odern capitalist societies. It is interesting to note that the European C onvention on H um an Rights does not contain any general right of participation in public affairs but only a duty on governm ents to hold regular elections for the country's legislature.5 For m any, representative dem ocracy, in som e version or other, is inad­ equate.6 The representatives becom e too detached from the people they represent and too engaged with their own independent agenda and way of life. People are unable effectively to pursue their interests through the representative schem e. Furtherm ore, political passivity and w ithdraw al is seen as incom patible with the idea of full self-developm ent and with a healthy and progressive society. O n this view , a properly dem ocratic society is one which

2 See, for exam ple: W eale, A. (1999) Democracy. London: Macmillan; Lakoff, S. (1996) Democracy. History, Theory and Practice. Oxford: W estview Press; Carter, A. and Stokes, G. (1998) Liberal D emocracy anil Its Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press; Arblaster, A. (1994) D emocracy, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Buckingham University Press. 3 Lively, J. (1975) Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell. 4 On representative dem ocracy see: Schumpeter, J. (1982) Capitalism , Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge. 5 See Chapter 13. 6 Hirst, P. (1994) A ssociative Democracy. London: Polity Press.

6

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

valu es and gives institu tional su pport to d irect d em ocracy. P eople should be able to decide directly, w ithou t the interv ention of representative institutions, the issues w hich affect them . P eople should also be encouraged to develop 'extra-P arliam entary' form s o f political action such as pu blic cam paigning, dem onstratin g and, if necessary, peaceful acts o f civil d isobedience. Such activities are not con trary to d em ocracy bu t em bod y its spirit and p u rp o se / O ther conceptions of d em ocracy, w hich also flow from a sen se o f d issatisfac­ tion w ith sim ple representative politics, v alu e and w ish to expand the role of self-gov erning associations in governing as m any aspects o f ou r social life as possible.8 D isagreem ents abou t d em ocracy can also turn on w hether or not dem ocracy requ ires 'm ajority ru le'. M ajoritarian d em ocracy auth orises the law to pu rsu e w hatever ends are chosen by a m ajority for the tim e bein g.9 M ore usual is for 'd em o cracy ' to lim it m ajorities in term s o f fun d am ental rights o f ind ividu als, particularly ind ividu als in m inority groups o f various kinds. Fu nd am ental rights, at least to equal con cern and resp ect,10 need to be protected. M inorities cannot b e m erely ignored or treated as a m eans to the end s o f the m ajority. These are all com plicated m atters that w arrant m ore detailed treatm ent than is p ossible here. To say that civil liberties law d eals w ith the reasonable scope o f rights o f political p articipation raises question s about w hat 'd em ocracy ' requires. A rgu m ents abou t the law m ay reflect d eeper argum ents about the best, the m ost approp riate, con ception o f d em ocracy that the law ought to advance. Ju d ges faced, for exam ple, w ith a prosecu tion of political d em o n stra­ tors un der public ord er legislation m ay need, perh aps, to evalu ate the reasonablen ess of the d em onstrato rs' use o f the high w ay and the reasonable­ ness o f the steps taken by the p olice to ensure that political protests can go ahead w hen m easured against the freed om o f the pu blic to go about their priv ate lives unhind ered. Such evalu ations will reflect the p articular con cep ­ tion o f d em ocracy that is adhered to, con sciou sly or by inference, by the court.

1 .2 .2 P r iv a c y The second valu e that partially defines the scope and natu re o f civil liberties law is privacy. T h e general idea is o f som e inviolable area that is, and should rem ain, w ith in the control o f the ind ividu al p erson.11 T h is requ irem ent derives from the broad , cultural, sense o f w hat it m eans to be a person. It is the argum en t from 'au ton om y '. A bein g all o f w hose actions and d ecisions can be

7 Barber, B. (1994) Strong D em ocracy: Participatory Politics fo r a N ew A ge. Berkeley, C A : University of California Press. 8 Hirst, op. cit. 9 Lively, op. cit., ch apter 2. 10 D workin, R. (1977) Taking R ights Seriously. London: D uckw orth, ch apter 6. 11 See J.S. Mill's m uch quoted d efin itio n :' . . . a circle around every individual hum an being which no governm ent ought to be perm itted to overstep . . . there is, o r ought to be som e space in hum an existence thus entrenched around and sacred from authoritative intrusion' (P rinciples o f Political Econom y (1848; 1909) Longm an, Green & C o., book V, ch apter 9, 2). See also: W acks, R. (1995) Privacy an d P ress Freedom . London: Blackstone Press, ch apter 1; Paul, E.F. el a l (2000) T he Right to Privacy. C am bridge: C am bridge University Press; M arkesinis, B. (ed.) (1999) Protecting Privacy. O xford: O xford University Press.

Introduction and underlying values

7

interfered w ith, who has no sphere of thought, decision and actions which cannot be so interfered with, fails the test o f personhood. States m ust respect this and so ensure that privacy is protected in law. In civil liberties law, privacy acts in one of two ways. O ne is as a kind of 'trum p' argum ent. Privacy is a claim that the state should keep out of regulating a particular m atter and leave it to the individuals involved. The obvious exam ples relate to family life and to sexual life. It is for parents, and not the state or the com m unity as a whole, to bring up their children and lead them tow ards reasonable and fruitful lives. This claim is held by few, if any, in an absolute sense. There is no com pelling reason why violence against spouses, usually w ives, or against children is to any degree excused because they are private matters. On the other hand, there is a continuing argum ent on w hether the state, through law, is entitled to distribute its liberties and resources in such a w ay as to prom ote particular w ays of life or form s of fam ily existence. Should the state, for exam ple, prom ote heterosexual m arriage over other form s of family life? Such an issue can be raised in a legal context such as the law of adoption. A second purpose that a claim to privacy m ay have is that the lawfulness, the right of the state to intervene and regulate, depends on w hether the action in question takes place in public or private. Sexual conduct is often seen in this way. A sexual act in 'private' m ay be thought harm less and hence perm itted w hile the exact sam e act in 'public' (how ever defined) m ay be prohibited. Som e sexual m oralists, on the contrary, argue that certain kinds of sexual conduct are so revolting in them selves that they can be prohibited, the claim to privacy not withstanding. This issue is discussed in Chapter 22 Like 'dem ocracy', the m eaning and significance of 'privacy' is endlessly contested.12 For exam ple, there is an ongoing argum ent on w hether private property is necessary to any reasonable conception of privacy. On som e accounts, the ow nership of goods and land is an expression of personality which the state m ust respect in its dealings. An alternative view is that property is a collective product, reflecting the activities of all, and its unequal distribution is an exercise of social pow er w hich it is perfectly proper for the state to regulate and control. Sim ilar controversies relate to the 'fam ily'. Fam ily has traditionally been seen as the institutional em bodim ent o f privacy; the state, through its law , m ust respect its boundaries. From other perspectives, how ever, the fam ily is the particular form in w hich patriarchal social relations are asserted and women generally subordinated to men and m arginalised in econom ic life and civil society. On that view, the family is not 'private' but a social institution, the focus of political struggle and legal regulation. The claim of privacy becom es its opposite: a claim to exercise pow er at the expense of w om en and children free from state and legal interferences. Even the most intim ate acts, acts of sexual expression, can raise controversial political argum ents about the right of the state to forbid or prom ote certain form s of sexual expression rather than others.

12 For exam ple, Ryan, A. (1986) Property and Political Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

8

H uman Rights and Civil Liberties

1.3 C o n s titu tio n a l an d p o litic a l th e o ry The im plication of the above is that the 'values' underlying civil liberties law, the values of 'dem ocracy' and 'privacy', are the subject of ongoing argum ent and disagreem ent as to their m eaning and im plications. Part of that argum ent involves the question of to w hat regard and to w hat extent these values should be prom oted and protected by the law. An argum ent, say by judges, about w hat the law should be in any particular instance is likely to reflect, even if unw ittingly, a m ore general constitutional theory about the place of law and the values inherent in it.13 Som e general political theories would, for exam ple, sim ply deny any recognisable claim to dem ocracy or privacy. The concept of a totalitarian state (linked to Stalinism or fascism ) is that the state is in principle unrestrained in its right not only to control the conduct of politics but also to identify and enforce a particular conception of how individuals should conduct their lives, the values they should adopt and the sacrifices they should make. The absence of a sense of 'the private' m akes it hard to see how any reasonable conception of civil liberties can exist in the public discourse of state and law. A broadly conservative political disposition values the traditions of the established order. It supports and prom otes conventional political activity and gradual change. It is, however, also am enable to strong state action against any kind of ideological, radical politics w hich can be seen as a threat to gradual, ordered change. Such action can appear oppressive and in need of special justification in the context, say, of public order law or police powers. A conservative political outlook underlying the law is also likely to accept that the state need not be 'neutral' as between different views of what makes a good and worthwhile life. Supporting the traditions of the public order can involve allowing the selection and promotion of certain 'goods' as being inherent in the society and what it stands for. Thus a conservative m ay, through the law, wish to prom ote and protect particular social institutions and values such as the established church or the preference for marriage as the proper form of family life. The argum ent in favour of such protection and prom otion does not depend upon a reasoned justification from first principles but, rather, on a factual claim about the central place of such institutions in the historical and cultural identity of society.14 Liberal theory provides the strongest defence for a w ide conception of civil liberties to be enshrined in constitutional principles and positive law. Liberalism starts with a strong conception of private life: that individuals are the best judges of w hat is in their ow n interest and of w hat is a valuable and w orthw hile life. The state should only intervene in so far as a person's activities restrict the equal rights and freedom s of others. Liberalism claim s to be based on first principles: a political value is good because our reason tells us so rather than because of long acceptance as part of the traditions of society. 13 Craig, P.P. (1990) P ublic L aw and D emocracy in the United Kingdom and the United States o f America. Oxford: Clarendon Press; Loughlin, M. (1992) Public Law and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 14 For exam ple, Oakeshott, M. (1991) Rationalism in Politics and O ther Essays. Indianapolis, Indianapolis: Liberty Press; Scrutton, R. (2000) The M eaning o f Conservatism , 3rd edn. Basing­ stoke: Palgrave.

Introduction and underlying values

9

The strongest m od ern defence o f liberalism argues for a con stitutional and legal system w hich p rovid es the greatest am ou nt o f p ersonal, social and political freed om fo r ind ividu als in so far as this can be equally av ailable to all. T his aim is justified in abstract term s, not d ep en den t on the facts o f any particular history or culture, as a choice that w ould be m ade if people could choose u n d er fair and equal conditions. Such fair and equal con ditions of choice are that people know that they are choosing a legal and constitutional system w hich m u st prod uce law s w hich are fair to all w hatever their w ealth, religion, race or personal character m ight be. The choice is ju stified in so far as it is the system that w ould be chosen by m orally reasonable people seekin g to base a p olitical system on fair p rinciples but w ho do not know how they, personally, w ould be benefited .15 O ther versions of liberalism suggest that activities should be only restricted by law and state not b ecau se they are w orthless, trashy or revolting but solely becau se they are harm ful to others. L iberalism also supports a strong con ception o f political rights such as freedom o f expression and freed om o f association. This is pred om inantly as an instrum en tal m eans by w hich ind iv id u als can pu rsu e their self-interest through political and public m eans, though for m any liberals, political activity is also an em bod im ent o f the kind o f active, socially aw are, person the theory (in som e o f its versions) seeks to prom ote. The broad liberal d efen ce o f state pow er is criticised on m an y grounds. In particular, it is alleged that liberalism m isund erstand s and undervalues the extent to w hich ind ividu als have identities w hich are rooted in com m u nities and cultures and w hich determ ine, or at least strongly influence, the choices of valu es and w ays o f life av ailable to ind ividu als or w hich they claim to be their o w n .16 Partly this is an argum ent lead ing to the kind s o f con servative political assu m ptions outlined above. H ow ever, it is also the basis o f m ore progressive criticism . Liberal p erfectionism , for exam ple, asserts that it is reasonable for the state to w ish to restrict or d en igrate certain p ointless con ditions o f life, like drug ad diction, for exam ple, becau se they are incom patible w ith autonom y. They close off the p ossibility o f futu re choices. C on versely the state m ay ad vance form s o f life w hich prom ote the p ossibility o f useful and fruitful choices. Fem inist politics is a d ifferent exam ple o f the kind o f com m u nitarian and id entity-based criticism aim ed at the liberal tradition. O n this view , the liberal focus on ind iv id u al freedom and the realm o f the p rivate, protected from state intervention , can hid e oppression from the reach o f the law . T he exam ple of fam ily life and its place in the pu blic o r priv ate w orld has been given above.

1.4 Human rights The suggestion in this chapter is that civil liberties law revolves around the related valu es o f d em ocracy and privacy, that these v alu es are, in them selves, 15 Rawls, J. (1972) A T heory o f Ju stice. O xford: Oxford U niversity Press; see also Barry, B. (1995) Ju stice as Im partiality. O xford: C larendon Press. 16 For exam ple, Sandel, M.J. (1996) L iberalism an d the L im its o f Ju stice, 2nd edn. Cam bridge: C am bridge University Press; Mulhall, S. and Swift, A . (1996) Liberals an d Com m unitarians, 2nd edn. O xford: Blackwell.

10

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

con troversial and argued abou t and that u n derlyin g these argum en ts are different general con ceptions o f law and con stitutions such as those w hich w ere briefly sketched above. Q uestion s about civil liberties law , about giving effect to d em ocracy and privacy, are now overlaid w ith the concept of hu m an rights. In C h apter 2 w e discuss the w ay in w hich hum an rights law is bein g integrated w ith, or even taking ov er from , the traditional approaches o f English law to these questions, and the process is illustrated in the rest o f the book.

1.4.1 The concept of human rights The concept o f 'h u m an righ ts' relates to the idea o f certain freedom s, understood as en titlem en ts, w hich are to be enjoyed by all persons on a basis of equality, i.e. for the sufficient reason that they are p erso n s.1' T hese entitlem ents or 'rig h ts' are fun d am ental in the sense that they should be protected by the law even if those in pow er, or a m ajority o f the popu lation or o ther significant interests, w ish them to be rem oved gen erally or from ind ividu als or groups. In other w ords they should be protected even against strong argum ents that the com m on good, the collective interest, w ould be benefited w ere they rem oved. H um an rights, therefore, em bod y entitlem en ts and valu es inheren t in a kind of su p erior law , a law w hich con ditions and m u st be taken into accoun t by the processes o f m aking and pu tting the ord inary, positive, law into effect.

1.4.2 Issues and difficulties Rights and other political claim s A t the theoretical level, the notion o f hum an rights is controversial. T here is, for exam ple, a strong objection to the very idea of valu es that trum p the com m on good. It m ight be said that hum an rights are undem ocratic: they are restrictions on m ajority rule. T his is not a strong arg u m en t sin ce it depends upon an u n con vincin g accoun t o f d em ocracy as bein g solely and on all m atters m ajority d ecision m aking. T he argum en t can, how ever, be m ore com plicated. D efend ers o f hum an rights accept that rights are seld om , if ever, absolute. In great em ergencies, for exam ple, it is often accepted that at least som e rights can be m od erated or 'd erogated ' from . T here is, in principle, alw ays a need to w eigh hum an rights against the com m on good, albeit the form er 'tru m p s' the latter in all bu t extrem e situations. Even in n on-extrem e situ ations, one claim ed right m ay need to be w eighed against som e other (free speech against privacy, for exam ple). G iven this need to 'w eig h ' rights against the com m on good or other rights, a hum an rights claim looks, to critics, increasingly like any other political claim that m igh t be m ad e and ev erything turns on how these ju d g m ents o f w eight and significance are m ad e.18 D efend ers o f hum an rights respond by asserting that som e rights are indeed absolu te, or by claim ing that the results o f such 'w eigh in g s', ev en in em ergency situ ations, w ill be different, and better, if done in the term s o f a hu m an rights culture. 17 Jones, P. (1994) Rights. London: M acmillan. 18 For exam ple, Griffith, J.A.G. (1979) 'The Political C onstitution', 42 1 M LR 1.

Introduction and underlying values

11

The derivation o f hum an rights There are difficulties w ith the d erivation o f hu m an rights, w ith how such fu n dam ental en titlem en ts are identified. V ariou s possibilities can be can ­ vassed. A natu ral law approach, for exam ple, suggests that an interrogation of our natures as hum an b ein gs w ill disclose a con ception of personhood and the circu m stan ces u n d er w hich persons can flourish, and that these conceptions, to m ake sense, m u st inclu de the basic idea o f (som e) hu m an rig h ts.19 Social contract theorists, concerned w ith the origin and legitim ation o f governm ent, con clud e that legitim ate gov ernm ent is based on the con sent o f the p eople and this w ould not be given unless persons w ere secure in their basic rights. For critics, the point is that any accoun t o f the d erivation o f hu m an rights is d ep en d en t upon a prior acceptance o f a p articular, contested , theoretical point o f view such as natural law or social contract theory. T h e argum en t for hum an rights is, therefore, only as good as the gen eral political theory w hich supports it - hu m an rights, like any other v alu e system , are not given but are disclosed through a contested theoretical exercise. The en forcem ent o f hum an rights and ju dicial politics H um an rights involves the id entification o f fu n dam ental entitlem en ts w hich are supposed to b e bind in g even on legislatures and governm ents. C h aracter­ istically they are given u ltim ate effect through the courts rather than Parliam ent. In a d em ocracy, albeit an im perfect one, this can be seen as transferring ultim ate d ecision m akin g about im portan t social questions, to unelected and u n recallable judges. T h e d evelopin g hu m an rights 'ag en d a', on this account, involves the con tin uous narrow in g o f the range and type of m atters that an elected assem bly can d ecid e and a d em onstration o f increasing d istrust o f the p eo p le's representatives. Som e w ho m ake this criticism still accep t the idea o f fundam ental rights but not as m atters 'abo v e' ordinary politics and reserved for ju d g es to d ecide.20 In fact, m an y constitutional approaches to hum an rights (including in the U nited K ingdom ) still reserve to the P arliam en t the u ltim ate au th ority to enact law s even if they u n am bigu ou s­ ly violate 'h u m an righ ts'. D efend ers o f hum an rights accept the p olitical role for the judges. T h ey argue that a hum an rights culture involves a consid eration o f the lim its to w hat d em ocratic governm ents and m ajorities can do, that this involves a careful and reasoned con sid eration of the p rinciples involved and for this the courts are, ind eed , m ost suited. The content o f hum an rights A cceptin g a p articular argum en t about the w ay in w hich hum an rights are derived does not m ean that there is agreem ent about the con tent of those rights, about the identity o f those en titlem en ts w hich are so fundam ental they m u st be protected even against stro n g argum ents o f the com m on good to the contrary. T he classic statem ents o f rights, such as found in the U nited N ations D eclaration or in the E uropean C on vention on H um an Rights, list the so-called 'g reat righ ts'. These are civil and political rights inv olv ing, for exam ple, 19 See Finnis, J. (1980) N atural Law an d N atural Rights. Oxford: O xford U niversity Press. 20 W aldron, J. (1993) A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights', 13 0 //.S 18.

12

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

freed om from o ppressive state actions such as torture or u n law fu l d etention, rights o f privacy and rights to associate and to speak, particu larly in a political context. T hese rights are pred om inantly 'n eg ativ e'. T hey describe actioiis barred to state authorities. T h ey are o ccasionally 'p o sitiv e' but only in the sense o f im posing a d uty on the state to ensu re that certain actions are barred to com panies, fam ilies or ind ividuals. C ritics argue that this classic conception of hu m an rights fails to express the full ran ge of fundam ental hum an needs. T here is little reference to social rights, such as rights to hou sing or to edu cation, in the classic hum an rights docu m ents yet, for m any people, the righ t to an ad equ ate hom e m ay be far m ore significant than, say, a right to freed om o f speech. Sim ilarly the classic hum an rights agenda has little to say on protectin g the environm en t even though it is hard to think o f a m ore fun d am ental interest that ind ividu als can have than to live in a su stainab le environm ent. A different version of the argum ent about the con tent o f hu m an rights is that the classic rights instrum en ts have little to say on the 'w o rth ' o f rights. T h e po or and disadvantaged m ay have little effective opportu nity to exercise their 'g reat' rights to freed om o f expression, for exam ple. T h e arg u m en t is, then, that the state should take p ositive steps to give access to the m edia throu gh requ iring com m u nity bro ad castin g or throu gh rights o f reply and so on.21 D efend ers of the classic hu m an rights p erspectiv e argue that social and environm ental goals are likely to involve large state expen ditures and need careful ev alu ­ ation against a ran ge of issues and interests. A s such these m atters are u nsu itable for 'h ard ', obligatory, hu m an rights law enforced b y judges, and should be, indeed, the m eat o f norm al representative, d em ocratic politics and the subject o f no m ore than 'so ft', m erely aspirational, international law . It is now clear that there are significant d ev elopm ents in w hich social and environm en tal issues are high on the agenda of international law. There is a d evelopin g range o f both 'h ard ' and 'soft' international obligations on m atters such as the environm en t, econ om ic d ev elop m ent and the situ ation of children. Rights and individualism C ritics o f hu m an rights observe that the langu age o f rights can cou nterpoise the in d ividu al against the com m u nity. It is a langu age o f entitlem en ts for on eself rather than o f d uties tow ard s others, o f ind ividu al interests asserted against the claim s o f the com m on good. Rights-talk, the argum en t goes, reinforces these tensions and establish es them as conflicts in w hich the ind ividu al is likely to be victorious rather than as social d ilem m as need ing com p rom ise and settlem ent. The argum en t is used, fo r exam ple, by those w ho w ish to stress the v alu e o f com m u nity d ecision taking w hich aim s at a reasonable, con sensu s-based solu tion to social problem s. O n such a view , rights-based argum en ts w ill claim to trum p the consensu s view and, as such, are an unw elcom e and un fair d istortion o f the p olitical process. The argum ent is also put b y those w ho see rights claim s as b ein g a w eapon in the arm oury 21 For exam ple, Cam pbell, T. (1983) The Left an d R ights: A C onceptual A nalysis o f the Idea o f Socialist Rights. London: Routledge.

Introduction and underlying values

13

o f the pow erfu l.22 C om p anies, inclu d ing huge com m ercial conglom erates, enjoy at least som e 'h u m an ' rights and these can be used to inhibit the d evelopm ent and enforcem ent of the general con sensu s that em erges from representative politics. The obvious exam ple is the partial successes that tobacco com panies have had in claim ing that their rights to freedom of expression protect them from significant bans on advertising.

1.4.3 Positive law The m atters d iscussed above have focused on w h eth er the hum an rights perspectiv e is the best w ay to deal w ith im portan t issues such as how to give effect to reasonable con ditions o f d em ocracy and privacy in society. This focus is necessary becau se, throu ghou t the rest o f the book, the v alid ity o f a hum an rights ap p roach is taken for granted. The point is that in the U nited K ingdom , as in m ost o f the rest o f the w orld, there is now an instrum en t o f positive law , the H um an Rights A ct 1998, w hich aim s, in its ow n p articular w ay, to establish hum an rights and a cu lture o f hum an rights in the law . The detail of this, and its integration w ith con ven tional com m on law and statute, form the substance o f the follow ing chapters.

22 For exam ple, Ew ing, K. (1996) 'H um an Rights, Social D em ocracy and C onstitutional R eform / and other essays, in G earty, C. and Tomkins, A. (eds), U nderstanding H um an R ights. London: Mansell.

2 The institutional setting

2.1 The traditional approach in England and Wales 2.1.1 Parliament and the common law T he trad itional approach to the protection o f rights and liberties in the U nited K ingdom involves the in terrelation o f com m on law principles w ith the specific interventions, throu gh legislation, o f a suprem e Parliam ent. It has its locus classicus in the accoun t o f the rule o f law found in A.V. D icey 's Introduction to the Study o f the Law o f the C onstitution1 w hich d escribed the late V ictorian con stitution bu t w hich con tin ues to be high ly influential on the w ay the fu n d am entals o f the curren t con stitutional arrangem en ts are understood. O n this account, the prim ary background principle o f the com m on law is 'negative freed om '. This is the sense that a p erso n 's freed om to do as he or she w ills is the natural state, it is not derived from any law or act o f a sovereign. G iven this, there is an assu m ption o f law fulness: anything is perm itted unless it has been clearly forbidd en by law . D icey believed this w as likely to provide effective protection for personal and political freed om becau se any restrictions on freed om need ed to be based on ju d ge-d eclared or statu tory ru les w hich needed to be identified w ith sufficient precision in ord er to d efeat the presum ption of law fulness. A con sid eration o f the effectiveness o f both the com m on law and Parliam ent in protectin g personal and political freedom s involves a balanced ju dgm ent. P arliam ent and the com m on law have both been cap able o f establishing im p ortan t protections for civil liberties; they have both also been responsible for significant inroad s into civil liberties as w ell.

2.1.2 Parliament In D icey 's classic d efinition o f P arliam en tary suprem acy, P arliam en t can m ake or un m ake any law , there is no higher legislative auth ority and no cou rt can invalid ate an A ct o f P arliam en t.2 Im plicit in this is the absen ce o f any full 'bill o f righ ts', a con stitutional recognition o f personal or p olitical freedom s, expressed as rights, entrenched and im m u ne from legislative change.

1 D icey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the S tudy o f the Lazo o f the C onstitution. Indianapolis, IN.: Liberty Classics, part II, ch apter IV. 2 D icey, op. cit., p art I, chapters I and II.

The institutional setting

15

The strength of Parliam ent, as regards its suitability to protect the political and personal liberties of the people, is that it represents the will of the people as expressed through the electoral system . The governm ent is respon­ sible to Parliam ent and so the power of the electorate to change the m ajority party in Parliam ent, and hence the governm ent, w as, for Dicey, a defence for freedom since no governm ent could oppress the people for long w ithout risk of being voted out of office.3 The w eakness of Parliam ent in this regard is that Parliam ent represents the m ajority interest and a Parliam ent which represents the m ajority and which has unlim ited pow ers is, in principle, not the best w ay of protecting the rights and liberties of m inorities and individ­ uals. In the U nited Kingdom this problem is m ade significantly w orse by the fact that the electoral system for national elections can produce m assive Parliam entary m ajorities on the votes of under half of those w ho vote and, given that only about tw o-thirds of those w ho are entitled to vote do so, the Parliam entary m ajority m ay represent quite a small percentage of the adult population. Parliam ent is also the principal forum in which the governm ent, the executive, is m ade to account for its actions. However, the m odern Parliam ent, through the party system and m inisterial patronage, is dom inated by the executive. M inisterial accountability is generally regarded as w eak and, as a consequence, governm ent policy, including that w hich im pacts on civil liberties, m ay be inadequately scrutinised.4 There have, how ever, been significant im provem ents in the pow er of Parliam entary scrutiny over the last decades. In particular, the developm ent of the departm ental select com m ittees (now called Scrutiny Com m ittees) since 1979 has been m uch com m ented upon. G eneralisations about the w eakness of m inisterial accountability are unlikely to do justice to the com plex range of devices and institutions by which Parliam ent directly as a whole or through its com m ittees, or indirectly through its establishing of various agencies such as om budsm en, exam ines legislation and scrutinises the executive. N o clear judgm ent can be m ade on w hether or not Parliam ent really has prom oted civil liberties w here possible and protected them w here necessary. It is clear that m any of the most im portant hum an rights and liberties have been established by Parliam ent and not by the courts. The extension of the franchise to w om en, the establishm ent of anti-discrim ination law in respect of race, gender and disability and the legalisation of trade unions are exam ples of m ajor developm ents in civil liberties law done by Parliam ent often against the hostility, indifference or conceptual incom prehension of the com m on law. Yet, driven by the executive, Parliam ent has also enacted legislation which has severely restricted civil freedom in a num ber of ways. Draconian legislation has been rushed through Parliam ent w ith little interest show n in its im pact on civil liberties. The Official Secrets A ct 1911 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Tem porary Provisions) A ct 1973 are exam ples. O ther legislation has openly violated rights, such as the rem oval of citizenship and rights of residency from

3 See Craig, P.P. (1994) A dm instrative Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, chapter 1, section 2. 4 Turpin, C. (1989) 'Ministerial Responsibility - Myth or Reality', in Jowell, J. and Oliver, D. (eds), (1989) The Changing Constitution, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

E ast A frican A sians,5 or has increased the pow er of the police. M ost recently P arliam en t has given the H om e Secretary a pow er to d etain certain foreigners w ithout trial w ith appeal only to a special cou rt.6 The record is am bigu ous as w ould be expected from an institution that m ust react to the endless flow of circu m stan ces and changes o f public opinion.7

2 .1 .3 C o m m o n la w C om m on law is ju d g e m ad e and is the un d erly in g law w hich is presum ed by P arliam ent and w hich, in theory, is av ailable to cov er every possib le situation. The com m on law is su bord in ate to P arliam en t w hich m ay, and som etim es does, o verturn w ith legislation the legal rule on w hich a ju d g m en t is based. M any o f the ab solu tely basic p ropositions o f civil liberties law have their origins in d ecisions o f the courts. D eclaring the in com patibility o f slavery w ith the law in E ngland 8 and holding that the gov ernm ent w as not above the ord in ary law and could be sued for trespass, its assertion of the public good notw ithstand ing,9 are w ell know n exam ples. U su ally, how ever, the strength of the com m on law lies in the specificity and detail o f its ju d g m ents, the un d erlyin g p rinciples o f law they infer and w ith the link w ith rem ed ies rather than it does w ith prom oting m ajor social developm ents. A s w ith Parliam ent, the com m on law record is tw o-sid ed. For every great case in the cause o f liberty there have been cases in w hich the courts have failed to rise to the challenge of protectin g liberties.10 In particular, the com m on law , by speaking the langu age o f n eg ativ e liberty, has been un able to develop positive rights in the civil liberties field, such as in respect o f the law relating to political d em onstration s. The fun dam ental valu es the com m on law has trad itionally d ealt w ith are property, the enforcem ent o f agreem ents, repu tation and fair proced u res.11 As is clear from the chapters that follow , such m atters can have a significant im pact on civil liberties, but it has also m eant that the com m on law has found it difficult to m ake the law reach international standards in certain significant areas. T he inability o f the cou rts to fashion, until recently, an ad equ ately sophisticated right to privacy is the m ost obviou s exam p le.12 The com m on law has un dergone a great rev iv al d uring the second half of the tw entieth century. T he v iew that the judges pu rsu e a con servative agenda

5 C om m onw ealth Im m igrants A ct 1962; see Lord Lester of Herne Hill (2002) T h irty Y ears on: the East African Asians C ase Revisited', Public Law 52, Spring. 6 Anti-terrorism , C rim e and Security A ct 2001 - see C hapter 19. 7 See Klug, F., Starm er, K. and W eir, S. (1996) The Three Pillars o f Liberty. London: Routledge for an analysis, prior to the com ing into force of the H um an Rights A ct 1998, of the extent to w hich United K ingdom law m et international hum an rights standards. 8 S om ersett v S tew art (1772) 20 St Tr 1. y Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 W ils 275 (1765) 19 St Tr 1029. 10 Late eighteenth-century persecutions of political radicals and the legal refusal to enable trade unions to flourish or perm it votes for w om en in the late nineteenth century are exam ples. Again, it is in the detail of judicial judgm ents that the true devil lies. See Klug, Starm er and W eir, op. cit. for contem porary analysis. " N oted in ibid. 12 For exam ple, K aye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62. Such a right is now being developed as the com m on law adapts itself to the culture of hum an rights; see, for exam ple, D ouglas v H ello! 120011 2 All ER 289.

The institutional setting

17

in the w ay they develop the law and exercised their d iscretion w ithin it13 is m u ch harder to sustain today although alleg ations that the cou rts are too 'execu tiv e m ind ed ' m ay resurface in the con text o f the judicial response to terrorism after the attacks in the U nited States on 11 Sep tem ber 2001. In particular, the last d ecad e or so has seen the cou rts becom e sig nificantly m ore 'h um an rights aw are' in their ju dgm ents. This reflects cultural change but also the 'flow ing in ' o f international law , above all European H um an Rights, into the law. T h e b ringin g into effect o f the H um an Rights A ct 1998 enhan ces and specifies this process. It m akes a huge difference to the language and the ap proach o f the cou rts but w ill not necessarily bring about radical differences in outcom e. The 'rig hts aw aren ess' by the ju d g es can be found in the w ay statu tes are interpreted (see the next section ), on the d evelopm ent o f judicial rev iew (d iscu ssed in C h ap ter 3) and in the w ay in w hich the com m on law has been developed in areas such as d efam ation (see C h apter 11).

2.1.4 Statute and common law: the interpretation of statutes A cts o f P arliam ent, in all their d etail, are often central to the w ay that fu n dam ental rights and freed om s are recognised in the law o f the U nited K ingdom . Statutes m u st be interpreted and it is the job o f the cou rts to do this as they apply the general w ord s o f an A ct to the p articular circu m stan ces o f a case. The trad itional ap proach o f the courts is to recognise P arliam en tary suprem acy b y giving effect to an A ct even if, fo r exam ple, it involves a severe restriction on fu n dam ental rights and freedom s. T he w ords o f Lord Reid in M adzim bam uto v Lardner-B urke (1969) illustrate this ap proach and ind icate the d ifficulty from a civil liberties point o f view : It is often said that it w ould be u n con stitutional for the U nited K ingdom P arliam en t to do certain things, m ean in g that the m oral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that m ost people w ould regard it as high ly im p rop er if P arliam en t did these things. But that does not m ean that it is beyond the pow er o f P arliam ent to do such things. If Parliam ent chooses to do any o f them , the cou rts could not hold the A ct o f Parliam ent in v alid .14 Fu rtherm ore, the recognition o f P arliam en tary su p rem acy m eans it is im p oss­ ible to entrench or establish an A ct w hich protects fundam ental rights against express repeal. T h e cou rts have accepted the idea o f im plied repeal w hereby, in the absen ce o f express w ords o f repeal, an incon sisten cy betw een an earlier and a later statu te is resolved by the im plied repeal o f the earlier statu te1’’ or by d isregard ing it to the extent that is necessary to give effect to the later statu te.16 13 E arly edition of J.A.G. Griffith's The Politics o f the Judiciary contain the clearest statem ents of this position (for exam ple, 2nd edn (1981) London: Fontana). 14 [19691 AC 645, 723. 15 V au xhall Estates Ltd [1932] 1 KB 733; Ellen Street Estates Ltd [1934] 1 KB 590. 16 G oodw in v Phillips 11908) 7 C LR 1, accepted as representing the law of England by the Divisional C ou rt in T horb u m v Sunderland C ity C ouncil [20021 EW H C Adm in 195 [2002] 4 All ER 156.

18

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

H ow ever, a significant d ev elop m ent in the interpretation o f A cts of P arliam en t can now be d iscerned. U nless an A ct o f P arliam en t is express and u nam bigu ous on the point, it w ill not be interpreted as auth orising a serious in terference w ith fun dam ental rights and freed om s w hich are recogised by the com m on law or by international law. T his trend, w hich pre-d ates the H um an R ights A ct 1998, can be seen in the w ay the d iscretionary p ow ers o f public officials, derived from statute, are given effect and also from the w ay in w hich subord in ate legislation is interp reted .17 The cou rts are also beginn ing to recognise the existen ce o f 'constitu tional statu tes', taken to be m ore fun dam en­ tal than others, w hich cannot be im plied ly repealed by later statutes. Exam ples o f such statutes are M agna Carta, the Bill o f Rights 1688, the R epresentation o f the P eople A cts and the H um an R ights A ct.ls T h e cou rts w ill requ ire express and un am bigu ous w ord s in prim ary legislation b efo re the fun dam ental rights found in such statu tes can be rep ealed .19 C om m on law recognition o f fun d am ental valu es can also be found in the p resum ption s that are brou ght to bear on the interpretation of statutes. P resu m ptions are m atters that the cou rts assu m e to be the case in the absence o f express w ord to the contrary. M any p resum ption s are im portan t in civil liberties law , such as that the C row n is n ot bound by legislation un less the A ct expressly says so and that recognised rights cannot be rem oved other than by express w ords. O f p articular im portan ce in the civil liberties con text is the p resum ption that P arliam en t intends to legislate in a m an ner that is com p at­ ible w ith the international obligations o f the U nited K ingdom . This is d iscussed in the n ext section.

2.2 International law T he U nited K ingd om is a signatory to m an y international agreem ents w hich b ear up on civil liberties issues. T rad itionally, treaties and other international agreem ents d ealt w ith d ip lom atic m atters and the high politics o f the relations b etw een states. E conom ic and tech nological d evelopm ent and globalisation, how ever, are creatin g circu m stan ces in w hich m u tual in terd ep en d en ce be­ tw een states is b ecom in g increasingly necessary. T reaties are increasingly d ealing w ith issues w hich are not only at the heart o f the political agenda but w hich also have as their pu rpose the creation o f rights for ind ividu als. The W orld T rad e O rganisation is an obviou s exam ple o f the form er and the U nited N ations C on vention o f the R ights o f the Child is an exam ple o f the second. In the U nited K ingdom international law cannot create rights directly enforceable by the courts un less the provisions o f the treaty are enacted in an A ct of 17 See a powerful statem ent of the view in R v S ecretary o f State fo r Social Services ex parte join t C ou n cil fo r the W elfare o f Im m igrants 11996] 4 All ER 385, 402 (m aintaining the w orth of the right to claim political asylum ). The general principle is accepted by the H ouse of Lords in R v Secretary o f State fo r the H om e Dept ex parte Sim m s anti an other [1999] 3 All ER 400 (the free speech rights of prisoners); see also R v Lord C han cellor ex parte W itham [1997] 2 All ER 779 (the right of access to the court). A w arning that the courts should not be too ready to discover fundam ental rights is in R v L ord C han cellor ex parte Lightfoot [1998] 4 All ER 764. 18 Ibid. 19 Thorburn v S un derlan d C ity C ou n cil (2002] EW H C Adm in 195 [20021 4 All ER 156.

The institutional setting

19

Parliam ent. The obvious exam ple is the EC T reaty, som e o f w hich creates in d ividu al rights, and w hich is enforceable in the U nited K in g d o m 's courts only throu gh the provisions o f the E uropean C om m u nities A ct 1972. In contrast the provisions o f the E uropean C on vention on H um an R ights have not been d irectly en forceable in the cou rts becau se of the absen ce o f any such Act. Thou gh the cou rts have no au th ority d irectly to enforce treaty provisions un less these provisions have been incorporated into the law by A ct of P arliam ent,20 they do accept that treaties can have a persu asive influence on the w ay the law develops and statu tes are interpreted. The cou rts presum e a P arliam en tary intention to legislate in a m an ner that is con sisten t w ith the international obligations of the U nited K ingd om and an A ct o f Parliam ent passed after a treaty has been entered into and d ealing w ith its subject m atter is to be construed, if it can reasonably b ear the m eaning, so as to carry out the treaty obligation.21 H ow ever, the courts w ill also give effect to the clear and un am bigu ous w ords o f an A ct o f P arliam ent even if those w ords are incom patible w ith, o r involve a breach of, international law .22

2.2.1 United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights T he U nited K ingd om is a signatory to a nu m ber of high ly im portan t international agreem ents founded on the U nited N ations D eclaration of H um an Rights 1948 w hich is itself a reflection o f the U nited N ations Charter. T hese em an ations o f the U nited N ations have d one m ore than anything else to establish the langu age o f hum an rights as the p rincipal form o f d iscou rse in w hose term s civil liberties issues, such as political freed om and privacy, are now given legal effect. T h e m ain instrum en t d ealing d irectly w ith the civil liberties agenda is the International C o v en an t on C ivil and Political Rights (IC CPR). T he IC C PR identifies a range o f rights. It con tain s an obligation on states to protect these rights w ithin their bord ers, a requ irem ent o f n on­ d iscrim in ation in respect o f the enjoy m ent o f the rights, a pow er of d erogation in tim es o f em ergency from all bu t the m ost fu n dam ental o f the rights and a prohibition on anyone using their C ov enant freed om s in o rd er to restrict the freed om s o f others. T h e fu n dam ental rights and freed om s it identifies are: the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the p roh ibition o f slavery and forced labour, the righ t to liberty, the dignified treatm en t o f p risoners, the prohibition o f im prisonm ent for breach of contract, the right to freedom o f m ovem ent, the rights o f aliens, the righ t to fair trials, a ban on retrospective offences, the right to legal status, the rights to privacy, freed om o f thought, con scien ce, religion and expression , a ban on propagand a for w ar, the righ t to peacefu l assem bly and to association, the right to m arry, rights o f child ren, the right to take part in public affairs, the right to the equal protection o f the law s w ithout d iscrim in ation and the rights o f m inorities. The C ov enant perm its states to

20 See, for exam ple, R ayn er (M incing Lane) Ltd v D epartm ent o f T rade [1990] 2 AC 418. 21 G arland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751, 771 per Lord Diplock. 22 R v Secretary o f State for the H om e D epartm ent ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696.

20

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

restrict the exercise o f som e of the rights and freed om s enu m erated bu t only in so far as these restrictions are based on law , are confined to the p u rsu it of certain enu m erated purposes and m eet a threshold of necessity. The principal enforcem ent m echanism un der the IC C P R is throu gh the H um an R ights C om m ittee established by the C ovenant. States prod uce a quinqu ennial report to the C om m ittee. The C om m ittee m ay com m ent on the report on the b asis o f d iscu ssions w ith rep resentatives o f the states and observations from others, in p articu lar n on-governm ental organisations. The C o m m ittee's com m ents are publicised and it is the fear o f ad verse publicity that is the m ain sanction behind the C ovenant. The H um an Rights C om m ittee m ay, un der A rticle 40(4) o f the C ovenant, m ake general com m ents on the requ irem ents for the d ifferent articles.23 There is an O ptional P rotocol to the C ov enant b y w hich ind ividu als m ay petition the C om m ittee w ith an allegation o f a violation. T h e U nited K ingd om has not acceded to this Protocol. The C om m ittee has, in its last few review s, expressed seriou s reservations about aspects o f the protection of hum an rights in the U nited K ingdom . The situ ation, in its eyes, is m uch im proved by the com ing into force o f the H um an Rights A ct 1998; n evertheless certain con cern s rem ain. T he 2001 Report expressed con cern over such m atters as anti-terrorism legislation, racial d iscrim in ation, the treatm en t o f asylum seekers, killings by security forces in N orthern Ireland, the absen ce o f a public interest d efen ce un der the Official Secrets A ct 1989, racial violence and the und er-rep resen tation of ethnic m inorities in public life.24

2 .3

European Union law

The d irectly effective law o f the E uropean C om m u nity is integrated into the law o f the U nited K ingdom and has suprem acy over incom p atib le or incon sisten t provisions o f the d om estic law . Sim ilarly, the U nited K ingdom gov ernm ent is obliged to pu t o ther C om m u nity obligations into legal effect w hich, u n d er the E uropean C om m u nities A ct 1972, it m ay do by either prim ary or subord in ate legislation. O blig ations u n d er C o m m u nity law are enforced in the national cou rts bu t also throu gh the institutions of the European U nion, the C om m ission in particular. E uropean C o m m u nity law , although focused on the d evelopm ent o f the single m arket, clearly bears upon civil liberties issues in m any w ays, as do the other pillars, on C om m on Foreign and Secu rity P olicy and on Police and Jud icial C ooperation in C rim inal M atters, on w hich the U nion is founded. T his bearin g o f C om m u nity law and U nion policy on civil liberties m atters is m ade all the m ore sig nificant given the expan sion o f the legal basis o f com m u nity action follow ing the T reaty of A m sterdam . C iv il liberties issues can be raised both in respect o f the w ay national governm ents give effect to C om m u nity law and the w ay the

23 For exam ple, on A rticle 25 (right to participate in public affairs): G eneral C om m ent 25, discussed in Davis, H. (2000) Political Freedom . London: C ontinuum , ch apter 2. 2-1 Fottrell, D. (2001) 'D eveloping H um an Rights Protection beyond the H um an Rights A ct', 151 7008 N LJ 1688.

The institutional setting

21

institutions o f the U nion act.25 T h e use o f search pow ers in enforcin g com p etition law , restrictions on the m ovem ent o f persons and fair trials are exam ples o f such issues. The problem has been that the original treaties on w hich the d evelopm ent o f the E uropean C o m m u nity w as based did not in any d irect w ay im pose legally enforceable obligations on both states and C om m u nity institu tio ns to ad here to hum an and fundam ental rights w hen giving effect to C om m u nity law. Sp ecifically, there w as no requ irem ent to act com p atibly w ith the E uropean C on vention on H um an Rights,26 nor, u n d er those treaties, could the U nion acced e, like a signatory state, to the C on vention.2' T h e position is unchanged by the Treaties o f A m sterdam and N ice. In som e m atters bearin g on civil liberties, like sex and other d iscrim ination, the C ou rt o f Ju stice has full, T reaty-based ju risd iction to d evelop fundam ental rights. O therw ise, the E uropean C ou rt o f Ju stice has, after initial reluctance, d eveloped a ju risp ru d en ce o f 'gen eral p rinciples o f law ', w hich u n d erlie and con strain the specific m easures o f C om m u nity law . T hese general principles inclu d e a d octrine of fundam ental rights and are intended to have priority over even the fu n dam ental con stitutional rights o f m em ber states.28 T h e European C ou rt o f Ju stice has developed an ind ep en den t d octrine o f fundam ental rights w hich involves m ore than ju st the ad aptation o f the E uropean C on vention on H um an R ights (w hich rem ains highly influential29). The C ou rt is also guided by the con stitutional trad itions of m em ber states30 and by international treaties dealing w ith hum an rights o f w hich the m em ber states are signatories. Fu nd am ental rights have been asserted by the C ou rt o f Ju stice against, first, European institutions, particu larly the C om m ission. E xam p les are rights of religion,31 privacy,32 property’3 and to fair trials.34 M ore controversially the Court w ill also uphold fundam ental rights against m em ber states, but only w here they, the m em ber states, are acting in the field o f C om m unity law , not w here they are pu rsu ing ind ep en den t national objectives.35 In this con text rights to freedom of expression ,36 to private life37 and to access to the cou rts38 are exam ples of fun d am ental rights w hose relevan ce and ap plicability have been considered. There are p roblem s w ith the ad equ acy o f protection for fun dam ental rights in the E uropean U nion. In particular, the C ou rt o f Ju stice's ap proach is conditioned by the need to ensure that the overall objectives o f the C om m u ­ nity, such as a com m on m arket and econ om ic integration, are fulfilled. These policy o bjectives influence the w ay in w hich the m eaning and scop e of 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Betten, L. and Grief, N. (1998) E U Law an d H um an Rights. London: Longm an. An em anation of the Council of Europe, not the European C om m unity and Union. O pinion 2/94 [1996] ECR 1-1759 Betten and Grief, op. cit. For exam ple, H auer v Land R heinland-Pfalz (1981) 3 EHRR 140 ECJ. No Id v C om m ission [19741 ECR 491. Prais v C ouncil [19761 ECR 1185. For exam ple, N ation al Panasonic (U K) Ltd v C om m ission [1980] ECR 2033. For exam ple, H auer v Land R heinland-Pfalz (1981) 3 EH RR 140 ECJ. For exam ple, M u sique D iffusion F rançaise v C om m ission [1983] ECR 1825. For exam ple, SPU C (Ireland) v G rogan [19911 3 CM LR 849. Ibid. For exam ple, R utli v M inister o f the In terior [1975] ECR 1219. For exam ple, Johnston v C h ief C on stable o f the RU C [1986] ECR 1651.

22

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

fu n dam ental rights are interpreted 39 and the con cern is that the protection of fun d am ental rights in a E uropean con text m ay thereby be affected. T h e answ er has been to d evelop a full and properly ground ed E uropean con ception of rights. First, there has been the gradu al d evelopm ent and sp ecification in the Treaties o f a com m itm ent by the E uropean C om m u nity and the E uropean U nion to the up hold ing o f fundam ental righ ts.40 T he principal provision is A rticle 6 o f the EU Treaty, originally inserted by the M aastricht Treaty. It asserts that the European U nion is 'founded on' p rinciples o f liberty, dem ocracy, respect for hum an rights and fundam ental freed om s and the rule o f law. A rticle 46 brings these principles w ithin the ju risd ictio n o f the C ou rt o f Ju stice. A rticle 6(2) incorporates support for the fun dam ental rights found in the ECITR. A rticle 7 introd uces a sanctions procedu re for seriou s violations o f hu m an rights by m em ber states. T he E uropean U nion T reaty also includes recognition of a range o f fun dam ental social rights such as those found in the E uropean Social C harter. M ost im portantly, there is now a detailed C h arter of Fu nd am ental R ights w hich has been adopted by the U nion. T h e C h arter is not part o f the d irectly effective law o f the C om m u nity but will have influence on the C o u rt o f Ju stice and hence on the national courts w hich m u st follow the E uropean C o u rt's rulings on E uropean law. The C h arter is too new for its im pact to be assessed.

2.4 The European Convention on Human Rights 2.4.1 Introduction The bringin g into force o f the H um an Rights A ct 1998 is the m ost im portant d evelopm ent bearin g on civil liberties since the end of the Second W orld W ar. The A ct gives further effect to the European C on vention on H um an R ights in English law. Its full im pact on the su bstance o f English law rem ains to be seen. W hat is clear is that it has b rou ght into p rom in ence a body o f law , the E uropean C on vention on H um an R ights and the case law (the ju rispru d en ce) associated w ith it, and has m ade it w id ely effective throu gh ou t the law o f the U nited K ingd om , so that it m ust be referred to in E nglish law as setting standards w hich E nglish statu te and case law m ust norm ally m eet. A bove all it has affirm ed that the term s in w hich civil liberties issues are to be d ealt w ith by the cou rts is in the langu age of rights. Prior to the A ct, the C on vention and the C ou rt of H um an R ights w as already av ailable to the people o f Britain and o f con sid erable influence on the law; nothing in the A ct alters this. In w hat follow s w e discuss, first, the European C on vention and its enforcem ent through the institutions o f the C ou ncil of Europe and, second , the p articu lar w ay in w hich the H um an R ights A ct 1998 (an A ct o f the U nited K ingd om P arliam ent) operates. Finally, w e o utline the C on vention rights to w hich the H um an R ights A ct refers. T he H um an R ights

39 For exam ple, on the need to interpret the right to property in the light of the fundam ental objectives of the C om m unity: N old v C om m ission [1974] ECR 491. Ifl There w as, in 1977, a joint declaration by Com m ission, Council and Parliam ent of an intention to uphold fundam ental rights ([19771 OJC 103(1)). O ther statem ents to sim ilar effect followed.

The institutional setting

23

A ct 1998 gives the C on vention rights a pervasive and integrated influence on E nglish law and so, in this book, the d etail o f w hat the C on vention rights requ ire is d ealt w ith w ithin the sep arate chapters.

2.4.2 The general scheme The E uropean C on vention on H um an R ights41 (ECH R) is a principal creation o f the C ou ncil o f E urope, not prod uced by the E uropean U nion. The C ouncil o f E urope w as created in 1949 and has alw ays had a m uch larger m em bersh ip than the European U nion. U ntil the early 1990s its m em bersh ip w as broad ly o f w estern E uropean cou ntries but now has expanded to inclu d e R ussia and other eastern E uropean cou ntries that used to be in the Soviet bloc. W hile econom ic coop eration betw een G erm any and France w as the original basis o f w hat has now becom e the E uropean U nion, the C ou ncil of Europe sou gh t to establish a system for the protection o f rights and freed om s at the European level based on the U nited N ations D eclaration o f H um an Rights. The idea w as to have a statem ent o f rights and freedom s w hich w ould broad ly reflect the term s o f the UN D eclaration and the political culture o f E uropean states and, above all, to establish a court-based system through w hich violations o f such rights by the state parties could be d ealt with. It w as not expected that there w ould be a huge nu m ber of cases and it was assum ed that the cases that w ould be brou ght w ould relate to gross and system atic v iolation s o f rights, as is the point o f international law . The signatory states w ould be d em ocracies, albeit im perfect ones, and m ost issues w ould be p roperly dealt w ith by the national courts. T he institutions enforcing the C on vention (the C om m ission and the C ou rt o f H um an Rights) w ere part-tim e. T h ey took som e tim e to organise and it w as not until 1961 that the C ou rt o f H um an Rights pronounced its first judgm ent. An im portan t feature o f the C on vention system is the right o f individual petition by w hich an ind ividu al, com pany o r other organisation can bring a case against their ow n go v ernm ent allegin g a v iolation o f the C onvention. This feature, unusual in international law , is the p rim ary explanation for the d evelopm ent and expan sion o f the C onvention. From the 1980s onw ards the nu m ber o f applications increased d ram atically leading, in 1998, to the rem od elling o f the institutions on the basis o f a full-tim e court. The expansion o f the w ork w as added to by the enlargem ent o f the C ou ncil o f E urope after the end of the Cold W ar. It is fair to say that w hat began as an attem pt to establish fun dam ental rights in the con text o f the fear o f to talitarianism has developed into a form of E uropean con stitutional cou rt against w hich the reasonablen ess o f the m easures o f m ore or less d em ocratic societies, by no m eans under threat from totalitarian forces, are m easured. C ritics o f the system have seen this as an unw elcom e d evelopm ent that threatens the ability o f d em ocratic cou ntries to determ ine the d etail o f their ow n law s.42 D efend ers o f the system have approved the w ay in w hich, throu gh the C on vention system , international 41 The European Convention for the Protection of H um an Rights and Fundam ental Freedom s. 42 For exam ple, in M arkcx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330.

24

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

standards o f hu m an rights can be gen erally applied and high standards m aintained. For the d efenders, an ad equ ate con ception o f d em ocracy cannot be reduced to m ajority rule but m ust protect ind ividu al entitlem en ts to participate in public affairs or to m aintain their privacy against even the w ish es o f a m ajority.

2.4.3 The Convention The C on vention has been added to and am ended by a series o f Protocols. Protocol 11, w hich cam e into force on 1 N ovem ber 1998, bro u gh t about a m ajor reorganisation o f the system and a con sequ ential renu m bering o f som e of the m ain procedu ral and institutional provisions. The gen eral obligation The C on vention is signed by the governm ents of the states and signature creates an obligation on the states (the 'H igh C on tracting P arties') to 'secu re to everyone w ithin their ju risd iction the rights and freed om s defined in Section I o f the C o n ven tion '.43 T h e rights and freedom s are, therefore, to be secured for everyone, not ju st a p articular class such as citizens. States cannot d eny rights to a group by w ithd raw ing citizenship and so rem ov e them from the protection o f the Convention. The su bstan tive rights Section I includes a statem ent o f p articular rights and freedom s w hich are contained in 12 A rticles. T h ese su bstantiv e rights have been added to by a nu m ber o f Protocols. T hese substantiv e rights are the C on vention rights w hich are sched uled to and given effect by the H um an Rights A ct 1998 and they are identified later in the chapter. Su bstantive rights in the Fou rth and Seventh P rotocols have not been sched uled to the A ct. T hese are, in the Fourth Protocol, 'P rohibition of im prisonm ent for d ebt', the right to 'F reed om of m o v em en t', 'P rohibition o f expu lsion o f n ationals' and 'P rohibition o f collec­ tive expu lsion o f alien s'; the Seventh P rotocol gu arantees 'P roced u ral safe­ gu ard s relating to the expu lsion o f alien s', the 'R igh t o f appeal in crim inal m atters', 'C om p ensation for w rongful con v ictio n ', the 'R igh t not to be punished tw ice' and 'E quality b etw een sp ou ses'. The ancillary rights Section I, A rticles 13 to 18 contain rights w hich are ancillary to the substantive rights. A rticle 13 places an obligation o f the signatory states to ensu re that a rem edy is av ailable from national cou rts for a violation o f a sub stantiv e right or freedom ; A rticle 14 requ ires that the substantive rights m u st be secured w ithout d iscrim in ation; A rticle 15 allow s a state party to 'd erogate' from m ost bu t not all provisions o f the C on vention 'in tim e o f w ar or other public em ergency threatening the life o f the n atio n '; A rticle 16 perm its the states to lim it certain freedom s in o rd er to p lace 'restrictions on the political activ ity of alien s'; A rticle 17 denies the protection o f the C on vention to any state, group 43 Article 1 ECHR.

The institutional setting

25

or person w ho w ish es to use a righ t or freed om gu aranteed by the C on vention in o rd er to d estroy the rights and freed om s o f others, and A rticle 18 lim its the pow ers enjoyed by states to restrict rights and freed om s un der the C onvention. These rights are consid ered in greater detail in the section b elow d ealing w ith the C on vention rights and freed om s w hich have been sched uled to the H um an R ights A ct 1998. It should be noted that A rticles 13 and 15 are not so scheduled. N on-signature, reservation and denunciations N ot all the states w hich signed the original C on vention are signatories to all the P rotocols and if they have not signed they are not bound. Sim ilarly, states m ay, w hen agreeing to the C on vention or a Protocol, enter a specific 'reserv ation ', un der A rticle 57. T he effect is that the state is not boun d to the extent o f the reservation. R eservations m ust be specific to a particular provision. States m ay be responsible for the foreign affairs o f other territories and m u st take specific m easu res to bring the C on vention into effect in those territories. The U nited K ingdom has such resp onsibilities for the Isle of M an, the C h annel Islands and G ibraltar. A state can cease to be bound by the C on vention if it eith er leaves the C ou ncil o f Europe or if it takes step s to 'd en ou n ce' the C onvention. D enu nciation cannot take place w ithin the first five years follow ing signature.44

2.4.4 The Strasbourg institutions and procedure The great strength o f the E uropean C on vention is its system for ad jud ication and enforcem ent. O riginally there w as a tripartite system . T he European C om m ission o f H um an Rights, assisted by the Secretariat, w ould receive ap plications, decide on ad m issibility, seek facts, explanations and responses from the parties, in p articular the states, and give an opinion on w hether, in respect of ad m issible cases, there had been a v iolation o f the C onvention. The C om m ission could then bring a case to the C ou rt o f H um an R igh ts and this institution w ould then m ake the final ru ling on w hether there had b een a violation. T he C om m ittee o f M inisters o f the C ou ncil o f E urope could m ake ju d gm ents on cases w hich the C om m ission had not referred to the C ou rt and it also acted as a body through w hich enforcem ent o f ju dgm ents, by d iplom atic and political m eans, could be pursued. Protocol 11, w hich w as brou gh t into effect in N ovem ber 1998, changed the structure. T he C om m ission w as abolished and its role taken over by an enlarged, full-tim e C ou rt assisted b y the R egistry and secretaries. The role of the C om m ittee o f M inisters is unchanged . A lth ou gh abolished , the decisions and reports of the C om m ission on ad m issibility and substance rem ain an im portan t sou rce o f C on vention law. The Court The m od ern C ou rt is established u n d er Section II of the C onvention. The full cou rt has as m any ju dges as there are H igh C on tracting Parties to the 44 Article 58 ECHR.

26

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

C on vention and, generally, each P arty supplies one judge. Ju d ges m u st be of high m oral character and qualified for high judicial office. T h ey sit as ind ep en den t ind ividu als and not as representatives o f their countries. T h ey are elected b y the P arliam en tary A ssem bly from a list o f three supplied by each Party. T h ey are elected for a period o f six years and cannot be dism issed other than by a vote o f tw o-third s of the other ju d ges.45 A Plenary C ou rt o f all the ju d g es elects the P resid en t o f the C ou rt and has other organisational functions. The w ork o f the C ou rt is d one by C om m ittees o f three ju d ges, C h am bers o f seven ju d g es or a G rand C h am b er o f 17 judges. A dm issibility C ases can be b rou ght to the C ou rt eith er by a state party alleging a violation by another state p arty or by 'an y person, non-governm ental organisation or group o f ind ividu als claim ing to be the v ictim o f a violation . . / 4 T here is, nevertheless, som e ev id ence that pu tting the reasonablen ess o f the d efen d an t's action to a jury m ay still lead to acquittal or at least to com m ent by the jury. A ju ry accepted

C m 2565. R v H ill; R v H all [1989] Crim LR 136, and critical com m ent by J.C. Smith at 1 3 8 -9 . See also H ipperson v D P P (unreported), 3 July 1996 (breaking into A W E A lderm aston w ith the honest but m istaken intention of helping to prevent offences under the G enocide Act 1969). The claim by a v icar that he acted on G od's authority, w ho owned all property, w hen he w rote a biblical quotation on a concrete pillar outside Parliam ent w as rejected as being incapable of m eeting the s. 5 defence in Blake v D PP (19931 C rim LR 586, w ith less sym pathetic com m ents by J.C. Smith. ,4? R v A shford an d Sm ith [1988] C rim LR 682, critical com m ent by J.C. Smith at 6 8 3 -4 . See Ewing, K. and G earty, C. (1990) Freedom under Thatcher. London: Fontana, pp. 1 00-3. The defendants were convicted of possession of an article but acquitted of attem pting to dam age the wire. 143 144

P ublic order and political action

323

a p olitical or m oral ju stification and acquitted d efen dan ts w ho had d am aged a jet fighter to p revent its possible use by the Indon esian go v ernm ent in E ast T im or,146 and a jury held that a protester w ho had painted anti-nu clear graffiti at W estm inster, thou gh convicted, had reasonable cause for her beh av iou r.147 Ju ries have also been prepared to acquit environm en tal cam paign ers accused o f both crim inal d am age and theft after d am aging gen etically m odified crops in ord er to subvert experim ental p lan tin gs.148

17.7.7 'Watching and besetting, etc.' U nd er section 241 of the Trad e U nion and L abou r R elations (C onsolid ation) A ct 1992149 offences are com m itted w hen a person does one o f a ran ge of activities 'w ith a view to com p elling ' another person not to do or to do an act w hich the person com pelled has a legal right to do o r not to do. The forbidd en activities include: using violence, intim idating, p ersistently follow ing, hiding or d ep riving persons o f their property, hind ering, w atching or besetting and follow ing. T hese offences are not confined to activities com m itted in the con text o f strikes or other form s o f ind ustrial actio n 150 and have been used , for exam ple, against an anti-road s p rotester w ho chained him self to a crane thus hind ering the d river in his w o rk 1’ 1 and (unsu ccessfully) against anti-abortion ists picketing an abortion clinic.152 T here m u st b e ev id ence that the activity, the w atching and besetting etc., m u st have been done to com pel, not m erely to persuade, another from acting in a w ay they are legally entitled to d o .153 These are arrestable offences.

17.7.8 Remedies B inding over An alternative to arrest in o rd er to p rosecu te for an offence is that d em o n stra­ tors m ay be arrested and brou ght befo re m agistrates to be bound over to keep the peace or be o f good behav iou r for a period o f tim e. The person m ust consent to b ein g bound over and m ay (though need not) be secured by a sum o f m on ey paid into court w hich is forfeit if the o rd er is breached. A person w ho refu ses to con sent to a bind in g over ord er can be im prisoned as can a person w ho fails to com p ly w ith the term s o f the order. A s m entioned above, a person w ho is arrested or detained b y police for breach o f the peace w ill often be then bro u gh t before a m agistrate to b e bound over. T he pow er is found in the M agistrates' C ou rts A ct 1980, section 115. M agistrates have an

l4h See The Tim es, 31 July 1996, 1. For a controversial Scottish case, w hich w as overturned on appeal, see H M A dvocate v Zelter (unreported) 21 O ctober 1999. 147 Helen John's case, see C arter, H. (1999) 'A Jury Backs G ranny's A nti-nuclear Graffitti', The G uardian, 18 Decem ber, p. 11. l4s Stallw orthy, M. (2000) 'D am age to C rops - Part 1 and Part 2, Neiv Law jou rn al, 19 M ay, pp. 72 8 -9 , 26 M ay, 8 0 1 -2 . I4” This provision w as form erly section 7 of the C onspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. iso Q p p v jd rfd ( 1 9 9 5 ) T he Independent, 5 M ay. 151 p p p v (1 9 9 5 ) Independent, 5 May. DPP v F idler [1992] 1 W LR 91. 153 D p p v Fidler [1992] 1 W LR 91.

152

324

H um an Rights and Civil Liberties

ad dition al pow er un der the Ju stice o f the Peace A ct 1361 and also, it is believed, un der com m on law p ow ers from tim e im m em orial to bind over for the sam e pu rposes any person w ho is before them . T he pow er has been frequ en tly used in the con text o f p olitical dem onstration s such as anti-hu nt or anti-arm s trade dem onstrations. A s w e have seen, clarifications in the law relating to breach o f the peace enabled the C ou rt o f H um an Rights to find that the general p rinciple of bind in g over to keep the peace w as com patible w ith C on vention rights. In a hunt saboteu r case, H ashm an and H arrup v U nited Kingdom (1999),154 the C ou rt o f H um an R ights held that b ind in g o v er for good behaviou r (as d istin ct from prev enting a breach o f the peace) w as incom patible w ith A rticle 10. 'G ood behav iou r' w as not certain enough, too m uch w ithin the d iscretion of m agistrates, for a person to be able to foresee w hat b ehav iou r w as or w as not going to be acceptable to the authorities. T h e 'prescribed by law ' test w as failed. Such orders should not now be m ade. It is w orth noting that the 'prescribed by law ' requ irem ent, in this context, is not enorm ously dem anding. In C horherr v A ustria (1993)155 an arrest in A ustria o f an anti-arm s trade d em onstrator for a breach of the peace 'likely to cause ann oy ance' w as held to be w ell defined and coherent.

Bail conditions People arrested and charged enjoy, u n d er both the Bail A ct 1976 and A rticle 6 o f the C onvention, a presum ption that they should be bailed. In granting bail, m agistrates m ay im pose conditions. Political d em onstrators, accu sed o f public ord er offences, m ay be prevented from con tin uing w ith the protest w hile on bail w here there is a real risk that, by rejoining the protest, they w ill com m it further offences. Bail con d itions can seem like a p u nishm ent w ithout con vic­ tion. D issatisfaction is all the greater since the im position o f con ditions in the first place and d ecisions on w hether to rem and a d efen dan t for breach of a condition can be d one by m agistrates on the basis o f their general u n d erstand ­ ing o f the situ ation rather than on the basis o f specific, cross-exam inable ev id ence against the ind iv id u als concerned. This can lead to a sen se of griev ance and a feeling o f gu ilt by asso ciatio n .156

17.8 Public order offences 17.8.1 Harassment, alarm or distress The Public O rd er A ct 1986 replaced the pu blic o rd er offences in the Public O rd er A ct 1936 and in d oing so extended the reach o f the crim inal law. In particular section 5 created offences in relation to behav iou r w hich previously had not been crim inal. Ap. 2 5 5 9 4 /9 4 . Ap. 1 3 3 0 8 /8 7 , A 266-B ; (1993) 17 EH RR 358. 156 See, in the context of the m iners' strike R v M ansfield ju stices ex parte Starkey [1985] 1 QB 613; on the decision to rem and in a non-political case, see R (D PP) v H avering M agistrates C ourt [2001] 3 All ER 997. 154

155

P ublic order and political action

325

5. Harassment, alarm or distress (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threaten­ ing, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Police have a p o w er o f arrest w ithout a w arrant b u t only after a w arning has been given and ig n o red .157 P ersons convicted can be punished by a fine. The declared aim o f the section w as to deal w ith hooligan activity but it has been used, not alw ays successfu lly, against political d em onstrators. Persons w ho, for exam ple, p icket abortion clinics, shout at those entering, display plastic foetuses and pictures of dead fo etu ses158 or w ho p revent people entering abortion clin ics15'1 can be com m ittin g the offence as can those w ho try to p rev ent road bu ild ers d oing their w ork b y in terfering w ith the w ork of surveyors and o th ers.160 This is not a single offence bu t a range o f d ifferent offences sin ce the term s used are to be read d isju n ctiv ely .161 It is necessary to prove both condu ct (insu lting etc.) and effect (likelihood that a person be caused harassm ent, alarm or d istress). O f great im portan ce is that an offence can b e com m itted w ithou t the u se or threat o f violence and w ithout a person b ein g coerced in any w ay or put in fear for their ow n personal safety. T he d isp lay o f an insu ltin g sig n w hich, in the opinion of a court, is likely to cause a person d istress can be an offence under the section. W hether b ehav iou r is threatening, abusive, insulting o r d isord erly is to be determ ined by giving these w ords their ord in ary m eaning and cou rts should not red raft, as it w ere, the statu te by seekin g synonym s. T h is w as the view of the H ouse of L ords in Brutus v C ozens (1973)162 w hen they upheld the acquittal o f anti-apartheid d em onstrators w ho had interrupted a tennis m atch at W im bledon. H ow ever, the case is also auth ority for the view that certain behav iou r is not cap able o f being insulting. Thus affronting people or show ing con tem p t or d isresp ect for them or ann oying them , or bein g m erely ru de and offensive, are different from bein g insultin g and not w ithin the am bit o f the offence.163 L ikew ise beh av iou r w hich is ann oying to others is not, thereby, in su ltin g.164 In V igon v D P P 165 the secret film ing o f custom ers trying on

157

,5S 159 16,1 161

1