1COR Resources 


Human Rights & Public Law Update 
Search Resources:
Advanced search



Our privacy policy explains how we use cookies. By using this site, we have assumed your agreement to their use.

Politics/Public Order


(1)Novartis Pharmaceuticals Uk Ltd (2) Andrew Roy Grantham v (1) Stop Huntingdon Aminal Cruelty (SHAC) by its representative Max Gastone (2) Greg Avery (3) Natasha Avery (4) Heather James

[2009] EWHC 2716 (QBD)

An injunction against animal rights protesters could not be altered to increase the restriction on their protest without a disproportionate interference with the protesters’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.


The fact that evidence before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission might have been procured by torture inflicted by foreign officials without the complicity of the British authorities was relevant to the weight of the evidence but not to its admissibility. It should only exclude evidence if it concluded on the balance of probabilities that it had been obtained by torture.


Article 5 of Schedule 1 of the HRA 1998 was displaced by a Security Council Resolution so that detention without charge of the claimant with dual British and Iraqi nationality was not unlawful and the refusal to return him to the UK was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.

Accame v Italy

Representative persons or groups do not qualify as "victims" under Article 34 for the purpose of bringing an action in Strasbourg

Al Rawi & Ors v the Security Service & Ors [2010] EWHC 1496 (QB)

A closed hearing has been ordered to see whether two key security service documents are to be disclosed to the claimants in the Al Rawi torture case.


The detention of 3000 peace demonstrators around Oxford Circus was justified under Article 5(1)(c)

Aziz v Cyprus

Article 13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention

BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC) and SA (Iranian Arabs-no general risk) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 41(IAC)

Guidance from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on the factors the Home Office should take into account when deciding asylum applications and appeals based on political activities here in the UK

Bennedetto Craxi v Italy

Relatives of a deceased person had a legitimate interest in seeking vindication of his rights under Article 8 even though they themselves had suffered no prejudice of their privacy interests

BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 366

Another control order has been ruled unlawful and quashed by the court of appeal

BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 366

Another control order bites the dust

CD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1273

Control orders and human rights to family life: not always incompatible

Commission for Equality & Human Rights v Griffin, Lumby, Darby
[2011] EWHC 675 (Admin)

CEHR ordered to pay costs of court proceedings to two members and a former member of the BNP

Critical Mass

Monthly mass cycle rides, starting from the same meeting point at the same time each month but following a different route on each occasion, did not constitute processions that were commonly or customarily held for the purposes of the Public Order Act 1986 s.11.

Da Silva v Portugal

Invective which does not pass the bounds of acceptable criticism is part of political life and the suppression of publication of such material is a disproportionate interference with Article 10


A football banning order was not a penalty for the purposes of Article 7 and the right to freedom of movement could not be considered under Article 8


The restrictions imposed upon individuals subject to non-derogating control orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. The control orders were in fact derogating control orders which the Secretary of State had no power to make and should be quashed.

Kurdistan Workers Party

Designation of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act should be adjudicated by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, not the ordinary courts


The police acted lawfully in preventing coach passengers reaching the site of a demonstration at which a breach of the peace was likely, but acted unlawfully in escorting the coaches back to London without stopping when other action could have been taken with less impact on the passengers' rights to freedom of action.


Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, had not been acting in his official capacity when he made certain "intemperate" remarks to a Jewish journalist. The restraint imposed upon him by the code of conduct of the Greater London Authority therefore amounted to a disproportionate infringement of his free speech under Article 10.

Mahajna v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2481 (Admin)

Israeli Arab activist's detention was (mostly) lawful


A blanket policy of retention and use by the police of DNA samples and fingerprint evidence after a suspect had been cleared of the offence that gave rise to the collection of such evidence was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998

Milosevic v Netherlands

All the applicant's complaints about the status and composition International Criminal Tribunal rejected for non-exhaustion of local remedies since he could have pursued these claims in the Netherlands courts

Munim Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin)

The prosecution of a group of people who had shouted slogans at a parade of British soldiers, was not a breach of their right to freedom of expression

Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (No. 1) v the United Kingdom – 31411/07 [2011] ECHR 211

The Strasbourg Court has rejected radical preacher Abu Hamza’s claim that his trial on terrorism and incitement charges was unfair.

Porter v UK

Proceedings taken against persons in public office leading to the imposition of a surcharge for misconduct did not amount to a criminal charge under Article 6.

Pro Life

The BBC and other broadcasters were entitled to refuse to broadcast a party election broadcast by the Prolife Alliance on the ground that it was offensive to public feeling.

R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 152 (Admin)

Reports made by the US to the UK relating to the treatment of a suspected terrorist should not be included in a judgment. In the balance between the public interest in national security against the public interest in open justice as safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability, security and the interest in shared intelligence arrangements with the US should prevail.

R (Moos and Anor) v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin)

Climate Camp protesters did not threaten breach of the peace, says High Court

R (on the application of Philip James Woolas) and The Parliamentary Election Court [2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin)

Woolas loses election court challenge, court clarifies constitutional role

R v Anthony

The common law offence of causing a public nuisance did not offend Article 7 of the Convention and the interference with the defendants' rights under Article 8 and 10 was both justified and proportionate.

R(on the application of Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65

The convention of mutual confidentiality between intelligence services was not absolute so that a summary of reports made by the US to the UK relating to the detention and treatment of a suspected terrorist should be included in a judgment

Refah Partisi v Turkey

The freedom of association guaranteed by Article 11 could not deprive the authorities of a State the right to protect its institutions from the anti-democratic activities of an association which jeopardised those institutions

Robert Elwyn Watkins v Philip James Woolas [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB)

MP loses seat under Representation of People Act

Saadi v Italy (Application No. 37201/06)

Deportation measures with regard to an individual suspected of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts could not be carried out if there was a risk that he would face treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving state.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v (1) AF (2) AM (3) AN (Respondents) : AE (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) & Justice (Intervener)
[2009] UKHL 28

It was a breach of the Convention right to a fair trial to hold someone under a non-derogating control order without sufficient information about the allegations against him even where the case against the "controlee" was based on closed materials, the disclosure of which would compromise the country’s national security.


The prohibitions on harassment imposed by legislation and common law constituted a justifiable restriciton on animal rights activists' interests under Articles 10 and 11

Stankov v Bulgaria

A separatist organisation which had been systematically banned from holding meetings and ceremonies had suffered a disproportionate interference with its Article 11 rights


Where publicity following the grant of anti-social behaviour orders was intended to inform, reassure, assist in enforcing the orders and deter others, it was a justifiable and proportionate interference with the subjects' rights to privacy under Article 8

Streletz v Germany

Conviction of German border guards for activities authorised by the previous regime did not offend the prohibition on retrospective criminal legislation under Article 7

Tabernacle v Ministry of Defence

[2009] EWCA Civ 23

Byelaws of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which prohibited camping in certain “Controlled Areas", violated the rights of peace protesters to freedom of expression and association under Article 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The Mayor of London v. Brian Haw & others [2011] EWHC 585 (QB)

Not a breach of Articles 10 and 11 to grant a possession order in respect of Parliament Square Gardens


There is no right to consultation either under Article 6 or 8 for a person in respect of whom a local authority is considering making an application to the magistrates' court for an anti-social behaviour order


Copyright © 1998-2014  One Crown Office Row, Temple, London EC4Y 7HH
Web: www.1cor.com Tel: 020 7797 7500, Fax: 020 7797 7550
Information on this site is published subject to this disclaimer and privacy policy.

Website internet development system,
technical design and hosting by Enstar
Visual design by The Helm Creative