Evaluation: ECHR
+ -
Article 5
Set circumstances when it can or cannot be restricted It is a qualified right meaning there can be a deprivation of
meaning it will be necessary if there was a restriction someone’s liberties only if there is a legitimate aim
However, during a police arrest, they can restrict this right
immediately, suggesting there is no thought behind the
restriction
It can protect those vulnerable people with learning However, can sometimes be a breach of this right as seen
difficulties. (Cheshire West and Chester Council v P) and in Hillingdon LBC v Neary
uphold their liberties.
“Gilded cage is still a cage” and Guzzadi v Italy shows does
not just have to be a sentence to be a DoL, covers many
circumstances
TPIMs are less severe than control orders suggesting they However, only a matter of time in which we will see a
do not breach A5. DOL.
Secretary of State for the Home Dept v E Secretary of State for the Home Dept v JJ
Often referred to as ‘rebranded TPIMs’
Protected by Habeas Corpus ‘you may have the body’
showing that no one will be sentenced without seeing a
Judge
REFORM: Stop and Search (PACE 1984) is good in terms of However, from the McPherson Report (sparked by
ensuring public safety Stephen Lawrence’s case) it was deemed that the Met
Police work in a way which is institutionally racist.
Showing these powers are disproportionately enforced
Article 6
This is a qualified right meaning it can be limited in some However, if people genuinely wanted to bring a case to
circumstances if needed to be. court and they couldn’t are we really ensuring we meet
procedural justice?
Provides the court against floodgates of claims as seen in This is bad, however, as if people have been wanting to
limitation periods, banning vexatious litigants, and judicial launch a case but they might be out of the limitation
immunity. period for unforeseen circumstances such as costs or
delays
It provides our public bodies and corporations protection However, Osman v UK saw that this ‘banket ban’ was not
as seen in Hill v CC W. Yorkshire. This means they will not fair and shouldn’t be allowed providing that can be a
be in fear of “compensation culture” breach if denied
The idea of equality of arms is good as it ensures that But this can be seen as unfair as if people have the means
people will not have an unfair advantage (Steel and Morris to argue their case well, they should be in their rights to
v UK) fully argue that to their own extent
Having a jury in the Crown Court means that you are able The idea of the “labelling theory” suggests that when
to be tried by people like you to determine your guilt. This these D’s come for their trial they can straight away be
means that even if you are guilty by the law, but not seen as a danger to society and they are already guilty of
morally you will not be charged as seen in the Colestone going against A6(2).
Four Case
We can take reasonable steps to protect those vulnerable However, there can be too many precautions taken which
victims such as children B and P v UK and rape victims. can stop the right to a fair trial. For example, we can see
this in R v Davies which couldn’t have a fair trial due to
precautions taken
REFORM: more clarification to ensure workability so it is
fairly enforced. E.g. when a litigant can/t take a case
Article 8
If something is of the public’s interest it will mean that Hard to find a balance between Article 10 and Article 8
people can report on someone’s private life. rights meaning people’s private life is often infringed on. It
is very much up for interpretation by the courts (Axel
Springer v Germany)
It respects the individual even if they are under 18 as However, it can be very disapproved by parents as it might
shown by using the Gillick Competency in Axon v UK seem to disobey and go against parents’ authority
protecting everyone’s private life
Protects homosexual (Dudgeon v UK) and transgender
rights (AB v Secretary of State for Justice) as it reflects the
MOA
+ -
Article 5
Set circumstances when it can or cannot be restricted It is a qualified right meaning there can be a deprivation of
meaning it will be necessary if there was a restriction someone’s liberties only if there is a legitimate aim
However, during a police arrest, they can restrict this right
immediately, suggesting there is no thought behind the
restriction
It can protect those vulnerable people with learning However, can sometimes be a breach of this right as seen
difficulties. (Cheshire West and Chester Council v P) and in Hillingdon LBC v Neary
uphold their liberties.
“Gilded cage is still a cage” and Guzzadi v Italy shows does
not just have to be a sentence to be a DoL, covers many
circumstances
TPIMs are less severe than control orders suggesting they However, only a matter of time in which we will see a
do not breach A5. DOL.
Secretary of State for the Home Dept v E Secretary of State for the Home Dept v JJ
Often referred to as ‘rebranded TPIMs’
Protected by Habeas Corpus ‘you may have the body’
showing that no one will be sentenced without seeing a
Judge
REFORM: Stop and Search (PACE 1984) is good in terms of However, from the McPherson Report (sparked by
ensuring public safety Stephen Lawrence’s case) it was deemed that the Met
Police work in a way which is institutionally racist.
Showing these powers are disproportionately enforced
Article 6
This is a qualified right meaning it can be limited in some However, if people genuinely wanted to bring a case to
circumstances if needed to be. court and they couldn’t are we really ensuring we meet
procedural justice?
Provides the court against floodgates of claims as seen in This is bad, however, as if people have been wanting to
limitation periods, banning vexatious litigants, and judicial launch a case but they might be out of the limitation
immunity. period for unforeseen circumstances such as costs or
delays
It provides our public bodies and corporations protection However, Osman v UK saw that this ‘banket ban’ was not
as seen in Hill v CC W. Yorkshire. This means they will not fair and shouldn’t be allowed providing that can be a
be in fear of “compensation culture” breach if denied
The idea of equality of arms is good as it ensures that But this can be seen as unfair as if people have the means
people will not have an unfair advantage (Steel and Morris to argue their case well, they should be in their rights to
v UK) fully argue that to their own extent
Having a jury in the Crown Court means that you are able The idea of the “labelling theory” suggests that when
to be tried by people like you to determine your guilt. This these D’s come for their trial they can straight away be
means that even if you are guilty by the law, but not seen as a danger to society and they are already guilty of
morally you will not be charged as seen in the Colestone going against A6(2).
Four Case
We can take reasonable steps to protect those vulnerable However, there can be too many precautions taken which
victims such as children B and P v UK and rape victims. can stop the right to a fair trial. For example, we can see
this in R v Davies which couldn’t have a fair trial due to
precautions taken
REFORM: more clarification to ensure workability so it is
fairly enforced. E.g. when a litigant can/t take a case
Article 8
If something is of the public’s interest it will mean that Hard to find a balance between Article 10 and Article 8
people can report on someone’s private life. rights meaning people’s private life is often infringed on. It
is very much up for interpretation by the courts (Axel
Springer v Germany)
It respects the individual even if they are under 18 as However, it can be very disapproved by parents as it might
shown by using the Gillick Competency in Axon v UK seem to disobey and go against parents’ authority
protecting everyone’s private life
Protects homosexual (Dudgeon v UK) and transgender
rights (AB v Secretary of State for Justice) as it reflects the
MOA
