GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Untitled

Laura Millward Constitutional and Administrative Law English 63 cards

Cards in this deck (63)

  1. 1R (Wood) v Commissioner of Police of the MetropolisPrivate and family life is very broad indeed. Cannot encapsulate scope in a single idea.
  2. 2R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney GeneralForced to identify the outer limits of application of art 8. Hunting Act may well jeopardise their livelihood but it wouldnt be caused by lack of respect for article 8 rights.
  3. 3Costello-Roberts v UK Corporal punishmentReceiving cane in line with school policy is not a breach of article 3. Article 8 does cover
    "Physical and moral integrity" but this didn't breach it.
  4. 4Von Hannover v GermanyECtHR - article 8 extends to aspects relating to personal identity could cover a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context.
  5. 5R (Purdy) v DPPs. 2(1) Suicide Act - unlawful interference with art 8 rights. Court agreed, new guidelines published re prosecuting those who assist.
  6. 6R (Nicklinson and another) v MOJ5 of 9 justices held that court had constitutional authority to make a declaration that general prohibition on assisted suicide is incompatible with article 8. 3 of the 4 declined to grant a declaration of incompatibility.
  7. 7R (Conway) v Sec of State for JusticeClaimant won appeal to be allow permission to apply for declaration of incompatibility on similar grounds to Nicklinson.
    No longer active debate in parliament so court should consider again.
  8. 8R (F & Thompson) v Home Secs. 82 Sex Off life long notifications without review disproportionate interference with article 8.
  9. 9McDonald v UKReduction in care at night - article 8 engaged by LA decision. Very essence of Convention was respect for human dignity and freedom.
    States have wide margin of appreciation re allocating scare resources.
  10. 10Dudgeon v UKNI case homosexuality ban. Continuing interference with applicant's right to respect for private life.
  11. 11ADT v UKConsensual activity between 5 adult men in applicant's home was matter of private sexual behaviour protected by article 8.
  12. 12R (Gillan) v MPCSearching under terror act initially found to be compatible...
  13. 13Gillan and Quinton v UKECtHR powers under terrorism act were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse.
  14. 14R(Roberts) v MPCs. 60 powers similar argument to Gillan. This time court was satisfied that there were sufficient constraints on exercise of power. Including a requirement to give reasons to person searched
  15. 15Khan v UKListening device in hotel room re drug deal. No legislation at the time. Lead to RIPA.
  16. 16R(Wood) v MPCRetention of photographs of peaceful demonstrator - campaign against arm trade held to engage article 8.
  17. 17Kroon v NetherlandsFamily is not ltd to marriage.
    De facto family ties where partners are living together outside marriage.
  18. 18Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UKArticle 8 could not be considered as extending to a general obligation on part of state to allow non-national spouses for settlement (outside EU)
  19. 19Quila v Secretary of State for Home DepImmigration rules age ban for marriage (under 21) doesn't work to achieve aim of reducing forced marriages and is a breach of article 8.
  20. 20R (Johnson) v Home SecLiability for deportation b/c of 'accident of his birth outside wedlock' unlawfully discriminatory in breach of article 14 read with article 8
  21. 21R (Kiarie) v Home SecCertifying deportees under s. 94B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act is contrary to article 8.
  22. 22Evans v UKEmbryos. Balance between woman wanting family and sperm provider (ex) not wanting family. Found in his favour.
  23. 23Dickson v UKPrisoner artificial insemination - some circs there is a breach of article 8 for not allowing this.
  24. 24Aliev v UkrainePrisoners can't claim a breach of article 8 for not being allowed conjugal visits.
  25. 25Kalashnikov v RussiaSimilar to Aliev
  26. 26Steinfeld & Keidan v Sec of State for EdCivil partnerships and heterosexuals. Court declined to declare incomp under s 4 as being discussed in parliament.
  27. 27R (Coughlan) v N&E Devon Health AuthParaplegic, clear promise she would not be moved. Health auth proposing move violated 8
  28. 28Harrow LBC v QaziArt 8 cannot be used as a defence for tenant facing eviction.
  29. 29Man City Council v PinnockHeld that courts should take proportionality into account when ordering a tenant to leave his home.
  30. 30R (M) v Hampshire ConstabularyPolice visiting sex offenders as part of monitoring at home is not a violation of article 8 in fact justified to protect vulnerable
  31. 31Hatton v UKNoise levels around Heathrow Airport. No violation of 8 but violation of art 13 concerning the availability of remedies in domestic law.
  32. 32Malone v UKPostal and telephone interception by police violated 8
  33. 33Foxley v UKCorrespondence between F and solicitor - initially lawful justification (order) but violated 8 when continued after order ended.
  34. 34Halford v UKPhone calls from business premises held to engage article 8
  35. 35Copland v UKConfirmed Halford and said monitoring emails and internet usage by public employer engaged article 8
  36. 36Campbell v UKPolicy - may open letter but not read letter - where reasonable cause. Suitable guarantees preventing the reading of the letter should be provided (opening in presence of prisoner). Actual reading should only be permitted in exceptional circs.
  37. 37R (Daly) v Home SecBlanket policy of searching cells in absence of prisoner. Violated 8
  38. 38Segerstedt-Wilberg v SwedenStoring personal data regarding political opinions, affiliations and activities must be balanced against seriousness of interference.
    Found a violation.
  39. 39Home Sec v AP16 hour curfew and requirement to live 150 miles from family = violation of 8
  40. 40Ziya Uner v NetherlandsIf measures are in accordance with domestic law, pursuing aim of public safety and prevention of crime and are necessary in democratic society then no violation 8
  41. 41Da Silva v NetherlandsBalance should fall in favour of preserving family ties.
    Brazilian mother of daughter in Netherlands.
    Had been working illegally so refused residence.
  42. 42S and Marper v UKInitially found that retaining finger prints and DNA in UK was compatible with 8. Subsequent appeal successful because blanket and indiscriminate nature of DNA retention policy.
  43. 43R (H) v A City Council (2011)LA blanket approach of disclosing previous sexual offences interfered with rights to private life.
  44. 44R (T and Others) v GMPPre-cons
    T - 11years old - stolen bikes. Disclosed 6-8years later.
    JB - refused job - 10 years prev shoplifting
    Both - blanket nature beyond what was necessary.
    AW - serious offences never being spent. Not a blanket approach so no violation.
  45. 45R (Catt) v MPC90s, numerous political protests. Peaceful. Indirectly associated with violent organisation.
    Systems of data retention essentially proportionate.
    Supreme Court
  46. 46R (T and others) v Home SecHomophobic remarks to neighbour, harassment warning issued. Decision as Catt.
  47. 47Wainwright v UKStrip search of mother and brother with learning disabilities on visit to prison. Art 8 engaged.
    No general common law right to privacy in domestic law
  48. 48Copland v UKApplicant had complained that monitoring telephone calls, internet usage and emails by public employer. No basis in domestic law so breach
  49. 49Coco v A N ClarkThree elements to bring action under law of confidence:
    1. Necessary confidence around it
    2. Imparted in circs importing ob of confidence
    3. Unauthorised use
  50. 50Tort of Misuse of Private InfoIndirect horizontal effect. s. 6(3) HRA. Courts are public authorities.
  51. 51Douglas v HelloCourts cannot act in a way which is incompatible. Includes their activity in interpreting and developing common law.
  52. 52Campbell v MGNArticle 8 and 10 now part of a cause for action for breach of confidence.
    2 elements:
    1. Reasonable expectation of privacy?
    2. Balancing exercise between competing rights in article 8 and 10. Consider whether publication is necessary.
  53. 53Reasonable expectation of privacy?Info obviously private?
    If not would a Reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities if place in same situation as the subject of disclosure find it offensive?
  54. 54Murray v Express NewspapersReasonable expectation of privacy is broad one which takes account all circs of the case.
    JK Rowling case.
    Judge hadn't sufficiently recognised action brought on behalf of a child.
  55. 55Axon v Ministry of DefenceEqual Opp Investigation for bullying tried to stop it being reported. Not reasonable expectation of privacy.
  56. 56Re Application by JR38 for Judicial Review (NI)Photo in paper of youth involved in riot. No reasonable expectation of privacy.
  57. 57Re S (a child) 20048 year old whose mum had murdered brother. Steyn:
    Neither 8 or 10 have precedence over the other.
    When in conflict an intense focus on comparative importance of specific rights being claimed is necessary.
    Justifications for interfering/restricting must be taken into account.
    Proportionality test applied to each.
  58. 58Von Hannover v Germany1. Info - cont to debate of gen interest
    2. How well-known person concerned is and subject matter of report
    3. Prior conduct
    4. Form and consequence of publication
    5. Circs photos were taken - where person gave consent.
  59. 59HRH Prince of Wales v Assoc NewsPublishing private journals.
    Reasonable expectation of privacy.
    Strong public interest in preserving confidentiality.
  60. 60Mosely v NoWNazi kink story. Not as reported. Assessments by journalists not sufficient.
  61. 61Author of a Blog v TimesAnon blogger on policing. Tried to prevent being named... Wasn't acting in private by making a blog in the first place.
  62. 62ETK v News GroupPotentially adverse impact of publication of parent's misdeeds upon lives of children could enhance case for injunction.
  63. 63PJS v News Group1. There is no public interest in legal sense in sexual encounters
    2. Disclosure of this could = tort of invasion of privacy.
    3. Repeating could = further tort.

Information

Description
Constitutional and Administrative Law Flashcards on Untitled, created by Laura Millward on 31/01/2018.
Created by
Laura Millward
Views
0
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?