Human Rights
Question 1
Respecting ‘Article 81’ the right to privacy, for the government, is one of the most
challenging aspects of human rights, particularly when it must be balanced against
Article 10 ‘freedom of expression’ as well as the interests of the winder community.
In terms of the human rights protection - how the United Kingdom has achieved a
balance between Article 8, Article 10 and the interest of the wider community will be
illustrated below in this essay.
The ‘Human Rights Act 1998 2’ is a law which protects the citizens of the United
Kingdom from having their human rights taken away. This legislation was put into
place, so the public authorities uphold their legal obligations correctly. Examples of a
public authority could be a school, a hospital or even the government. Article 8 and
Article 10 are two of the branches of this act.
Article 8’s main focal point is the ‘right to respect for his private and family life, and
his correspondence3’. This article is often regarded as one of the most open-ended
provisions of the ‘European Convention on Human Rights 4’, as this concept has
space for potential growth and expansion. “There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law5”.
On the other hand, Article 8 has to be balanced against Article 10 ‘freedom of
expression’. Where “everyone has a right to freedom. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions… without interference by public authority” and to “exercise
these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities… in the interest of
national security… for the prevention of disorder or crime… for the protection of the
1
Govuk, 'Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8'(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7>accessed 30 April 2021
2
Uk legislation, 'Human Rights Act 1998'(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents>accessed 30 April 2021
3
Govuk, 'Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8'(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7>accessed 30 April 2021
4
Equality and human rights commission, 'What is the European Convention on Human Rights?'(Equalityhumanrightscom, 19
Apr 2017) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convention-human-rights> accessed 30 April 2021
5
Legislationgovuk, 'Human Rights Act 1998 '(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7>accessed 30 April 2021
, Human Rights
reputations of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence…”.
Though, it is evident from this article and the terminology of Article 10 that this is not
meant to be an absolute right, and that the state would be able to limit freedom of
speech under such circumstances. So, it will require a balance between the freedom
of expression and other interests such as privacy or public interests. But the issue of
how much negative or offensive language that should be accepted is raised in the
case of ‘Handyside v UK (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737 6’. In this case, a book that was
deemed obscene did not violate Article 10 because it had the right to freedom of
speech, despite the book's presence of subsections on masturbation, pornography,
homosexuality, abortion, and other topics. This was one of the first cases to address
the issue of "freedom of expression" and the case's review is still followed today
since it established a precedent.
Returning to the topic at hand, some may claim that when the rights in Article 8 are
combined, the provisions in this section are strengthened. For example, something
unauthorised done on an individual's property, such as wiretapping, may be
considered a breach because it violates the concept of "the right to respect for
private and family life" – "family life" is described as "the home" or "correspondence."
Article 8 is not limited to state operations, the breach of the act of privacy can also be
perpetrated by non-state organisations such as the press and other medias. A
positive obligation of this act is that the state has a duty to protect an individual from
the acts of others in addition to abstaining from infringing on Article 8 which is a
negative obligation. Even if the state should not intervene, despite the fact that they
have done nothing wrong, then this article will still be breached. To determine if there
is a positive state duty, the court must balance the individual's interests against the
interests of the wider community.
The case of ‘X & Y v The Netherlands (1986) EHRR 235 7’ was one in which there
was infringement. In a privately run residential home, a 16-year-old girl with special
needs was raped. If the alleged victim was not the one who filed a complaint, there
6
Handyside v UK (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737
7
Archivecrinorg, 'X AND Y V THE NETHERLANDS' (Child Rights International Network, 26 March 1985)
<https://archive.crin.org/en/library/legal-database/x-and-y-v-netherlands.html> accessed 1 May 2021
Question 1
Respecting ‘Article 81’ the right to privacy, for the government, is one of the most
challenging aspects of human rights, particularly when it must be balanced against
Article 10 ‘freedom of expression’ as well as the interests of the winder community.
In terms of the human rights protection - how the United Kingdom has achieved a
balance between Article 8, Article 10 and the interest of the wider community will be
illustrated below in this essay.
The ‘Human Rights Act 1998 2’ is a law which protects the citizens of the United
Kingdom from having their human rights taken away. This legislation was put into
place, so the public authorities uphold their legal obligations correctly. Examples of a
public authority could be a school, a hospital or even the government. Article 8 and
Article 10 are two of the branches of this act.
Article 8’s main focal point is the ‘right to respect for his private and family life, and
his correspondence3’. This article is often regarded as one of the most open-ended
provisions of the ‘European Convention on Human Rights 4’, as this concept has
space for potential growth and expansion. “There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law5”.
On the other hand, Article 8 has to be balanced against Article 10 ‘freedom of
expression’. Where “everyone has a right to freedom. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions… without interference by public authority” and to “exercise
these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities… in the interest of
national security… for the prevention of disorder or crime… for the protection of the
1
Govuk, 'Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8'(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7>accessed 30 April 2021
2
Uk legislation, 'Human Rights Act 1998'(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents>accessed 30 April 2021
3
Govuk, 'Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8'(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7>accessed 30 April 2021
4
Equality and human rights commission, 'What is the European Convention on Human Rights?'(Equalityhumanrightscom, 19
Apr 2017) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convention-human-rights> accessed 30 April 2021
5
Legislationgovuk, 'Human Rights Act 1998 '(Legislationgovuk, 2021)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7>accessed 30 April 2021
, Human Rights
reputations of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence…”.
Though, it is evident from this article and the terminology of Article 10 that this is not
meant to be an absolute right, and that the state would be able to limit freedom of
speech under such circumstances. So, it will require a balance between the freedom
of expression and other interests such as privacy or public interests. But the issue of
how much negative or offensive language that should be accepted is raised in the
case of ‘Handyside v UK (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737 6’. In this case, a book that was
deemed obscene did not violate Article 10 because it had the right to freedom of
speech, despite the book's presence of subsections on masturbation, pornography,
homosexuality, abortion, and other topics. This was one of the first cases to address
the issue of "freedom of expression" and the case's review is still followed today
since it established a precedent.
Returning to the topic at hand, some may claim that when the rights in Article 8 are
combined, the provisions in this section are strengthened. For example, something
unauthorised done on an individual's property, such as wiretapping, may be
considered a breach because it violates the concept of "the right to respect for
private and family life" – "family life" is described as "the home" or "correspondence."
Article 8 is not limited to state operations, the breach of the act of privacy can also be
perpetrated by non-state organisations such as the press and other medias. A
positive obligation of this act is that the state has a duty to protect an individual from
the acts of others in addition to abstaining from infringing on Article 8 which is a
negative obligation. Even if the state should not intervene, despite the fact that they
have done nothing wrong, then this article will still be breached. To determine if there
is a positive state duty, the court must balance the individual's interests against the
interests of the wider community.
The case of ‘X & Y v The Netherlands (1986) EHRR 235 7’ was one in which there
was infringement. In a privately run residential home, a 16-year-old girl with special
needs was raped. If the alleged victim was not the one who filed a complaint, there
6
Handyside v UK (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737
7
Archivecrinorg, 'X AND Y V THE NETHERLANDS' (Child Rights International Network, 26 March 1985)
<https://archive.crin.org/en/library/legal-database/x-and-y-v-netherlands.html> accessed 1 May 2021
