scholarly journals Deprivation of liberty and intensive care: an update post Ferreira

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behrad Baharlo ◽  
Daniele Bryden ◽  
Stephen J Brett
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Acid Test ◽  
Article 5

The right to liberty and security of the person is protected by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. The 2014 Supreme Court judgment in the case commonly known as Cheshire West provided for an ‘acid test’ to be employed in establishing a deprivation of liberty. This ‘acid test’ of ‘continuous supervision and not free to leave’ led to concerns that patients lacking capacity being treated on an Intensive Care Unit could be at risk of a ‘deprivation of liberty’, if this authority was applicable to this setting. This article revisits the aftermath of Cheshire West before describing the recent legal developments around deprivation of liberty pertaining to intensive care by summarising the recent Ferreira judgments which appear for now to answer the question as to the applicability of Cheshire West in life-saving treatment.

5. Right to liberty and right to fair trial

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the right to liberty and fair trial, which are not qualified rights but can be derogated from in times of war and emergency, and provides an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) Articles 5 and 6, the most commonly argued rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 5 on the right to liberty and security of person protects individuals from unlawful and arbitrary detention, whereas Article 6 protects the rights to fair trial in both criminal and civil cases (with added protection in criminal cases). The ECtHR has expanded protection of Article 6 through its interpretation of ‘fair’ hearing and ‘civil’ rights and obligations. The chapter examines due process rights as part of UK law, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

14. Privacy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Invasion Of Privacy ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The right of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, but English law as yet recognises no tort of invasion of privacy as such. Admittedly, a number of specific torts protect particular aspects of privacy, but this protection may be regarded as haphazard, incidental, and incomplete. Recent decisions, however, have seen substantial developments in the protection given to particular privacy interests, above all by adapting the law of breach of confidence to provide a remedy against the unauthorised disclosure of personal information. These issues are discussed in this chapter.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
Amanda McSorley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Safe Care

Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, 1998 states that: ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No-one shall be deprived of his or her liberty unless in accordance with a procedure prescribed in law.’ However, there are occasions when it is necessary and appropriate to deprive a person of their liberty in order to keep them safe from harm. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are the legal framework introduced in 2009 to ensure that this occurs only when absolutely necessary and no alternative, less restrictive measures can be utilised to ensure safe care. This article outlines the key points relating to DOLS, considering how they relate to GPs during their training and careers.

scholarly journals After the Honeymoon: The Uneasy Marriage of Human Rights and the Environment Under the European Convention on Human Rights and in UK Law Under the Human Rights Act 1998

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 317-368
Author(s):  
Karen Morrow
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) (ECHR) regime has, in the absence of specific coverage of environmental rights, developed a “creative” approach in its jurisprudence in this area, pressing a variety of other rights, notably: Article 6 (the right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (the right to privacy and family life); and Article 1 to the First Protocol of the ECHR (the right to enjoyment of property) into service. This creativity has achieved much in according indirect protection to individuals in this regard, but has also placed additional pressure on the already congested Convention system. The entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) made long-held rights under the ECHR directly accessible in domestic law in the United Kingdom. This naturally spawned a wave of litigation. One of the most prominently litigated areas concerned the pursuit of a variety of environment-based rights claims. In the intervening decade, the application of the ECHR to environmental claims in the UK courts has generated somewhat mixed results. This is in part a result of the “patchwork” approach that has developed toward environmental claims within the Convention regime itself, but it is also a product of the nature of the relationship between the ECHR and domestic law and the content and ethos of both regimes. This article will conclude by briefly considering the on-going role of the ECHR regime in environmental cases in light of subsequent developments in this area of law, notably under the Aarhus Convention.

Ageism in the NHS and the Human Rights Act 1998: An Ethical and Legal Enquiry

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nesbitt ◽  
Sayers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Age Discrimination ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Equal Right

AbstractIn the United Kingdom, the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000. This Act has implications for the National Health Service, that are speculative and to date largely untested in the Courts. The area considered here, is the way in which the Act may impact on age discrimination as it relates to provision of health care. Ageist policy and decision-making is analysed in conjunction with the Human Rights Act and Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The rationality of ageism and the justifications used to support its practice are challenged. The equal right to life-saving treatment of elderly patients is defended as inviolable, unless offset by other reasonable considerations, which as argued should not be age per se.

4. Detention in the police station

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-209
Author(s):  
Lucy Welsh ◽  
Layla Skinns ◽  
Andrew Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Police Custody ◽  
Police Station ◽  
Legal Advice ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Police Detention ◽  
The Right ◽  
Detention Officers

This chapter examines the effectiveness of the checks, controls, and safeguards provided for suspects in police detention, including for suspects considered to be vulnerable by the police. It also evaluates the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The discussions cover the powers and duties of custody officers and detention officers; length of detention without charge; suspects’ rights including the right to legal advice and the rights of vulnerable suspects; the purpose of and experiences of police detention; and deaths in police custody.

Remedies and Sanctions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Nicklin QC ◽  
Chloe Strong
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the legal remedies that may be available to those who complain that an invasion of their privacy has occurred or is threatened by the actions of the media, as well as touching briefly on the criminal sanctions that may be applicable. Regulatory remedies under the Data Protection Act are considered in Chapter 7 and the remedies available from the media regulators in Chapter 14. Whether a remedy is sought before or after publication, and whether the complaint relates to the content of an actual or proposed publication or the method by which personal information has been obtained, it is likely that any relief granted will affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In such circumstances s 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) applies. The interpretation given to this important statutory provision by the courts is considered in Section C, but this chapter begins by looking at Parliament’s intention in enacting s 12. This is not necessarily to suggest that courts should have regard to such material as an aid to construction under the rule in Pepper v Hart but rather to explain the legislative background to this highly relevant provision.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, before the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

“RAPE SHIELDS” AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-492
Author(s):  
J.R. Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Youth Justice ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right

INR. v. A (No. 2) [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1546 the House of Lords knocked a dent in the controversial “rape shield” provision, section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA). They did so wielding Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given direct effect by another piece of “flagship” legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision is important for constitutional law as well as for criminal evidence.

Seeking the principle: chancels, choices and human rights

Legal Studies ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Dawson ◽  
Alison Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parish Church ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Modern Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Chancel liability is an ancient property right, enforced by a Parochial Church Council, attaching to certain former rectorial lands. It requires a landowner to bear the cost of repair of the parish church chancel. The right poses particular problems for a purchaser, not least because it is hard to discover and is not limited to the value of the land. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has found that a Parochial Church Council falls within section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a public authority, and that chancel liability infringes article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will dispute the rationale used by the Court of Appeal, and in so doing will argue that whilst chancel liability is outmoded, widely regarded as incongruous and does not bear scrutiny in its modern context, it should nevertheless be removed on a principled basis, avoiding unwanted repercussions elsewhere in the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document