Overview of Human Rights and Statutory Interpretation in English Law

Introduction

The English law is referred to the common legal system present in England and Wales that comprises of civil and criminal law with each having separate procedures and courts. The law regarding human rights in essential as they guarantees liberty, peace, security and others to people living in the society. In this assignment, the human rights and freedom present in the English law is explained and the way police, court and government protect our human rights are discussed with case examples. Lastly, the rules of statutory interpretation in English law are explained.

1. Explaining rights and freedom protected by Human Rights Act with case examples

The Human Rights Act 1998 has set various fundamental rights and freedoms which can be enjoyed by each and every individual living in the UK and came into force in October, 2000. The Act has incorporated the rights that are initiated in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and are later incorporated into domestic British law (www.legislation.gov.uk, 1998). The Act has set out series of Articles out of which Articles 1-13 are referred to offer protection to conventional human rights and freedom of the people of the UK. Article 1 informs that the state is liable to secure the conventional rights of the people in their personal jurisdiction (www.legislation.gov.uk, 1998). The Human Rights Act itself is being implemented by all the states in the UK and this is main way to acting as per the article which can be ensured from the case examples presented for the later articles.

Article 2 in the Act refers Right to life which means nobody and not even the government has the right to end an individual’s life. This also informs that the government is liable to take proper measure to safeguard the life of individuals by developing legislation to protect them and they as well as the public authorities are required taking steps in vulnerable situation to ensure one’s safety of life. Moreover, the state is liable to investigate suspicious death as well as custodial death. The UK individuals have the right under the Article to demand investigation for any death of their family member where the state is involved (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). In separate manner, Protocol 13 under Article 1 in the Act in relation to the right has made death penalty illegal in the UK (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For example, in the case of Rabone and Anor vs Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012), it was seen that Rabone was suffering from depression and has attempted to suicide on various occasions. After her initial assessment by the hospital, she was examined to be at moderate risk of self-harm but her father was concerned as asked the hospital not to grant her early leave. However, on request of Rabon against the wish of her parents she was later released by the hospital under two days and on that day she killed herself. The Supreme Court declared that the Trust has the responsibility to protect Rabon from risk of life as per the Article 2 of Human Rights Act and they are guilty for the act as they did not take steps to prevent her from risk (justice.org.uk, 2012).

The Article 3 informs that all individual have the right to protect themselves from mental or physical torture, degraded or inhumane punishment and extradition or deportation in case they are immense risk of facing inhumane punishment or torture in the other country. It offers duty on the public authorities to avoid inflicting such treatment and orders the state to intervene and investigate allegation regarding any such treatment made by any individuals living the UK (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For example, in case of Vinter and others vs the UK (2013), the court ruled that there is violation of Article 3 of Human Rights Act as life imprisonment without any parole of Vinter and other prisoners are amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment by the state. Therefore, the state requires reviewing their sentences to ensure meeting of the legislation (swarb.co.uk, 2013).

Article 4 of the Act provides protection of the right of the individuals so that they are not held into slavery or servitude or made to do forced labour. The article mentions that slavery is referred to the condition in which someone treats a person like their property. The servitude is the situation during which the person works and lives in the premises of others and is unable to leave them. The forced labour informs an individual is forced to work without their agreement under punishment and threat (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). Article 6 offers the right to individuals living in the UK to have a public and fair trial when they are charged with criminal offence and has to attend court. Moreover, the trial is required when the public authority is seen to make a decision which has an effect on their civil obligations or rights (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). (Refer to Appendix 1)

Article 5 has the focus to protect an individual's freedom from being unreasonably detained in opposition to protect personal safety. This means that an individual is given the right of personal freedom and they are not to be detained or imprisoned without any good reason (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For example, in case of J.N vs the United Kingdom (2016), J.N arrived in the UK in 2003 from Iran and applied for asylum that was rejected and deportation order was issued in 2005 and he was detained. Later, in 2008 he refused to sign a disclaimer regarding his consent to return which extended his detention. In 2009, J.N made application for bail to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal which was dismissed on the account that the detention can be ended by signing the disclaimer. The Court ruled in 2016 that after 2009 J.N detention was done unlawfully as the authorities in the UK has failed to act with reasonable expedition and diligence (otssolicitors.co.uk, 2016). Article 7 informs that an individual cannot be charged with criminal offence if that was not the crime committed by them. The public authorities are to clearly explain what criminal offence is to be individual and it is unlawful for the court to offer heavier punishment to the culprit than was present at the time the crime is committed (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). (Refer to Appendix 1)

Article 8 protects individuals by offering them right to respect their private and family life at home and in correspondence (emails, letters, etc). (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For instance, in case of PJS vs News Group Newspaper (2016), it was seen that the News Group Newspaper was intended to publish extra-marital information about PJS in their newspaper. However, PJS wished to get anonymised privacy injunction on the intended publication regarding his personal information of extra-marital sexual encounter. The Supreme Court decided for upholding the decision of injunction with a majority of 4-1 as otherwise, it would lead to violation of the article 8 of Human Rights Act (www.supremecourt.uk, 2016). Article 9 offers individual the freedom to change their beliefs or religion as per their wish. The public authorities cannot interfere in this right except situation for protecting public safety, public order, health and freedoms of other individuals in the society (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For instance, in case of Ewedia vs the UK (2013), it as seen that British Airways prevented Ewedia who was Christian by religion to wear visible crucifix while in her customer service role. This lead to the fact that the action was unjustified and disproportionate and it breached Article 9 where her beliefs are not allowed to portray with freedom. The court concluded that wearing visible crucifix at work do not hurt the corporate image of British Airways and the company is putting too much weight in the employee which led them to hear the case in support of the claimant (www.equalrightstrust.org, 2013).

The Article 10 offer freedom of expression to the individuals according to which the people are able to express themselves and hold opinions freely with interference from the government. It also protects the freedom of the individual to receive information from others (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). Article 11 offers right to form as well as be part of political party, trade union or any other voluntary group or association. Moreover, nobody has the right to force others to get into meetings or assembly for protesting or supporting a cause. However, the right can be prevented by public authorities to protect national security, avoid disorder or crime and others (www.legislation.gov.uk, 1998). (Refer to Appendix 1)

Article 12 informs that individuals who are of marriageable age are free to marry and start a family (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For example, in case of O'Donoghue and others vs the UK (2010), it was found that according to a scheme O’Donoghue and his partner Mr Iwu require to pay fee for marrying in Church of England being immigrants whereas this was not applicable for others. The court deemed the action violation of Article 12 as no charges are to be set while marrying in Church of England as per the law (www.equalrightstrust.org, 2010). Article 13 ensures that people's right is not violated and are able to get proper remedy is already covered by the design of the entire Human Rights Act (www.claiminghumanrights.org, 1998). Article 14 ensures that all the rights mentioned in the Act are to be applied to individuals without any form of discrimination (www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998). For example, in the case of Carson and others vs the UK (2010), it is informed that Carson and others who are British nationals and have worked in the country but have presently immigrated to Australia, Canada and South Africa. They are not provided pension with link to the UK inflation in comparison to other pensioners. The Court reported that this is violation of Article 14 as the individuals are being discriminated after their emigration to other countries (swarb.co.uk, 2010).

2. Evaluating the way government, police and courts protect the rights and freedom

The Human Rights Act 1998 put in effect all the human rights set by the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK. The Act informs all UK courts are to apply the law in such a way so that human rights and freedom are protected to most end (www.legislation.gov.uk, 1998). Thus, the UK courts accordingly interpret and implement the human right laws to protect the human rights of the people to most extent. It is evident from the case of Eweida vs UK in 2012 where the court protected the right to freedom of thought, religion and conscience of Eweida by allowing her to visibly wear crucifix being a Christian that was barred by her company to wear at work (www.equalrightstrust.org, 2013). The UK courts by implementing rule of statutory interpretation protect the human rights of the people and avoid raising question regarding any piece of legislation (Mowbray, 2015). This is evident from the case of Smith vs Hughes in 1960 where the defendants faced charged under Street Offences Act 1959 where they being prostitutes were soliciting from windows which can be seen publicly. Thus, the defendants raised question that they were soliciting from confined places, in turn, questioning the legislation was resolved and they faced charges (webstroke.co.uk, 2014).

The government protects the human rights and freedom of the people by developing legislation for protecting each right (Walsh, 2016). This is evident as the UK government develop Equality Act 2010 which informs no discrimination on the basis of any aspect is to be made against anyone in the UK in turn protecting the right to prohibition of discrimination (www.legislation.gov.uk, 2010). The violation of the law would result in legal action against individuals who are discriminating thus protecting the right to prohibition of discrimination. Moreover, the government guarantee the rights and freedom of the public by presenting them in written format within the Constitution. This is evident as all the human rights are protected by the UK government by adding them to Constitution of the country (Sen, 2017).

The police protect the human rights and freedom of people by taking actions against offenders who are taking part in violating other people’s rights and delivering support services to people to ensure their human rights are protected. They also help by enforcing law to detain people who are violating or misusing human rights (Decker et al. 2015). This is evident from the case of Gough vs the UK (2014) where the police detained Gough for being inappropriately (naked walking in streets) acting in society thus protecting the misuse of rights to freedom of expression (blogs.coventry.ac.uk 2014, 2014). However, the police also fail to protect the rights and freedom of people when they execute their duties irresponsibly (Pallister‐Wilkins, 2015). This is evident from the case of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis vs DSD and others (2018) where the court ruled that the police violated the victim’s right by being unable to effectively investigate sexual assaults. In some cases, it is seen that the police failed to protect the human rights of the people because they executing their role according to their perceived interpretation of the individual (plexuslaw.co.uk, 2018). This is evident from the case of J.N vs the United Kingdom (2016) where the police detained him illegally and did not offered him his right to liberty and security while living in the UK to avail bail from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (otssolicitors.co.uk, 2016).

3. Describing 3 key rules of statutory interpretation by using case examples and the way they are applied by courts

The statutory interpretation is the process applied by courts in which they interpret and applies legislation. There are three main statutory interpretation rules which are Literal rule, Golden rule and Mischief rule. The literal rule informs that the interpretations of the statutes are to be done by using ordinary and natural meaning of words (www.inbrief.co.uk, 2018). This is required for offering clear understanding to all in the court even if the results are absurd and the rule is applied first in the court before any other interpretation rule. One of the famous examples for literal rule is the case of Fisher vs Bell (1960) where Bell was charged under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 as it is offensive to offer weapons of offensive nature for sale. Bell actually displayed a flick knife on his shop window where it was accompanied by a price ticket. The court concluded that displaying something on the shop window do not technically offer sale but is merely perceived as treat. It is the shopper who makes the offer to shop and thus offer for sale is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of it in the contract law. Therefore, no violation of the Weapons Act was made by Bell (www.e-lawresources.co.uk, 1960).

The Golden rule is the rule of the statutory construction that is used for avoiding the consequences of literal interpretation of words of statute when such interpretation is able to manifest absurdity or results to a situation which is obnoxious for policies in the public (www.inbrief.co.uk, 2018). In Adler vs George (1964), the defendant was seen to have entered the RAF station that was a prohibited place as per the Official Secrets Act 1920. Thus, he was prosecuted on the context that he obstructed one of the members of Her Majesty's forces who was on duty in relation to the station "in the vicinity" of the place. Thus, by applying the golden rule, George was found guilty as “in the vicinity” means it is interpreted as near or in the prohibited place. The mischief rule is seen to allow the judge develops more discretion than the other two rules of statutory and it leads them to identify the mischief or the gap which the statue has intended to cover (swarb.co.uk, 2017).

The mischief rule was first used in Heydon’s case in 1584 where the Barons of the Court of Exchequer informed that to successfully apply the rule four things are to be considered. They are the type of common law before development of the Act and the nature of defect and mischief that resulted not to approve the common law is to be identified at the first. Later, the remedy developed by the Parliament to resolve the problem is to be appointed and actual reason of remedy is to be determined (www.revolvy.com, 2018). Thus, applying this rule it as found that the grant to wares was in protection by relevant provision of Act of Dissolution but the lease was void for Heydon. (Refer to Appendix 2)

Conclusion

The above discussion informs that the Article 1-13 of Human Rights Act protects the human rights and freedom of the people in the UK. The court by implementing legislation protects human rights and the government by developing legislation acts to protect the human rights of the people. The three key rules of statutory interpretation are liberty, golden and mischief rule.

References

• blogs.coventry.ac.uk 2014, Gough vs the UK, https://blogs.coventry.ac.uk/covlaw/gough-v-united-kingdom/ [Accessed on: 22 January 2019]
• Decker, M.R., Crago, A.L., Chu, S.K., Sherman, S.G., Seshu, M.S., Buthelezi, K., Dhaliwal, M. and Beyrer, C., 2015. Human rights violations against sex workers: burden and effect on HIV. The Lancet, 385(9963), pp.186-199.
• justice.org.uk 2012, Rabone and Anor vs Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Available at: https://justice.org.uk/rabone-anor-v-pennine-care-nhs-foundation-2012/ [Accessed on: 19 January 2019]
• Mowbray, A., 2015. Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 15(2), pp.313-341.
• otssolicitors.co.uk 2016, J.N vs the United Kingdom, Available at: https://otssolicitors.co.uk/news/jn-v-united-kingdom-%E2%80%93-lengthy-immigration-detention-periods-do-violate-european-convention [Accessed on: 23 January 2019]
• Pallister‐Wilkins, P., 2015. The humanitarian politics of European border policing: Frontex and border police in Evros. International Political Sociology, 9(1), pp.53-69.
• plexuslaw.co.uk 2018, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis vs DSD and others, Available at: https://plexuslaw.co.uk/commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis-v-dsd-and-another/ [Accessed on: 19 January 2019]
• Sen, A., 2017. Elements of a theory of human rights. In Justice and the Capabilities Approach (pp. 221-262). Routledge.
• sherloc.unodc.org 2012, C.N vs United Kingdom, Available at: https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/case-law-doc/traffickingpersonscrimetype/gbr/2012/case_of_c.n._v._the_united_kingdom.html? [Accessed on: 22 January 2019]
• swarb.co.uk 2010, Carson and others vs the UK, Available at: https://swarb.co.uk/carson-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-16-mar-2010/ [Accessed on: 24 January 2019]
• swarb.co.uk 2013, Vinter and others vs UK, Available at: https://swarb.co.uk/vinter-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-9-jul-2013/ [Accessed on: 21 January 2019]
• swarb.co.uk 2013, DG vs State for Work and Pensions, Available at: https://swarb.co.uk/dg-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-ii-utaa-24-sep-2013/ [Accessed on: 19 January 2019]
• swarb.co.uk 2016, Dallas vs the United Kingdom, Available at: https://swarb.co.uk/dallas-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-11-feb-2016/ [Accessed on: 19 January 2019]
• swarb.co.uk 2017, Adler vs George, https://swarb.co.uk/adler-v-george-qbd-1964/ [Accessed on: 21 January 2019]
• Walsh, C., 2016. Psychedelics and cognitive liberty: Reimagining drug policy through the prism of human rights. International Journal of Drug Policy, 29, pp.80-87.
• webstroke.co.uk 2014, Smith vs Hughes, Available at: https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/smith-v-hughes-1871 [Accessed on: 24 January 2019]
• www.claiminghumanrights.org 1998, Article 13, Available at: https://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_13.html [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.elaw.org 2003, Appleby vs the UK, Available at: https://www.elaw.org/content/european-court-human-rights-appleby-v-united-kingdom-application-no-4430698-200356-european- [Accessed on: 22 January 2019]
• www.e-lawresources.co.uk 1960, Fisher vs Bell, Available at: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Fisher-v-Bell.php [Accessed on: 23 January 2019]
• www.equalrightstrust.org 2010, O’Donoghue and others vs UK, Available at: https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Case%20report%20O'Donoghue%20v%20UK_Final.pdf [Accessed on: 23 January 2019]
• www.equalrightstrust.org 2013, Ewedia vs the UK, Available at: https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Case%20Summary%20Eweida%20and%20others%20v%20UK.pdf [Accessed on: 17 January 2019]
• www.inbrief.co.uk 2018, Statutory Interpretation, Available at: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/statutory-interpretation/ [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.legislation.gov.uk 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents [Accessed on: 22 January 2019]
• www.legislation.gov.uk 1998, Article 1, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/II [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.legislation.gov.uk 1998, Article 11, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/10 [Accessed on: 12 January 2019]
• www.legislation.gov.uk 2010, Equality Act 2010, Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk, 1998, Article 12, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-12-right-marry [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 2, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 3, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-3-no-torture [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 4, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-4-no-slavery-or-forced-labour [Accessed on: 24 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 5, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-5-right-liberty [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 6, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-fair-trials [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 7, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-7-no-punishment-without-law [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 8, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-private-and-family-life [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 9, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-religion-or-belief [Accessed on: 17 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 10, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-free-expression [Accessed on: 13 January 2019]
• www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk 1998, Article 14, Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-14-no-discrimination [Accessed on: 24 January 2019]
• www.revolvy.com 2018, Heydon’s case, Available at: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Heydon%27s-Case [Accessed on: 20 January 2019]
• www.supremecourt.uk 2016, PJS vs News Group Newspaper, Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0080-judgment.pdf [Accessed on: 17 January 2019]

Appendices

Appendix 1

Case Example of Article 4:

For example, in case of C.N vs United Kingdom (2012), it was informed that C.N who was a Ugandan woman was forced by her relatives S and K to work as live-in carer for an elderly Iraqi couple and received no payment. Moreover, S and K who lives in London have taken hold of her passport and continuously threatened her not to speak with anyone and work as servitude. The court informed that there is violation of Article 4 of Human Rights as no individual is allowed to live and work on premises where they are unable to leave as they are not owned by anyone (sherloc.unodc.org, 2012).

Case Example of Article 6:

For example, in case of DG vs State for Work and Pensions [ESA] (2010), it was informed that DG appealed against the decision of refusal of Employment and Support Allowance [ESA] to him that was made after the medical examination. Later, DG though requested the Jobcentre Plus for contacting his GP who was a nominated representative too but was not contacted. This lead DG to appeal in the First Tier Tribunal where the decision was taken on the advice of Jobcentre plus and the case was dismissed. The Upper Tribunal informed that DG is required to have a fair hearing as per the Article 6 of Human Rights as the decision taken in the lower court was based on the advice from Jobcentre plus without considering any investigation for DG’s health (swarb.co.uk, 2013).

Case Example of Article 7:

For example, in case of Dallas vs the United Kingdom (2016), Dallas was seen to have conducted internet research for the criminal case which she was trying as a juror making her execute contempt of court. However, Dallas mentioned that the law regarding the contempt of court was not sufficiently clear when she executed the research and challenged the charges against her. The Court examined the case and reached the decision that the law for contempt of court was sufficiently clear when Dallas executed the act. Thus, it is no violation of Article 7 as Dallas is provided proper explanations before regarding the actions that are mentioned to be contempt of court (swarb.co.uk, 2016).

Case Example of Article 10:

For instance, in the case of Gough vs the UK (2014), it is informed that Gough on several occasions walked naked and was arrested many times for breaching peace and contempt of court by avoiding dressing during his prosecution for which he thought his freedom of expression is violated. The court declared that Gough was well aware that his conduct was contrary to the public behaviour in the modern democratic society and his conduct may act to be offensive to unwarned individuals in the public. Therefore, the measures taken were necessary and not the violation of Article 10 as it do not allows individuals to impose their antisocial behaviour in the public and then claim their freedom of expression is violated (blogs.coventry.ac.uk, 2014).

Case Example of Article 11:

For instance, in case of Appleby vs the UK (2003), it was seen that Appleby who formed an environmental group wished to campaign for a proposal from the City of Sunderland College which is located in the vicinity of Washington Town Centre developed by the UK government. The public authorities present there did not allowed for the campaign to be organised which made Appleby feel violation of Article 11 is done. However, the Court informed that no violation of Article 10 is done when public authorities refuse gathering as it is for the protection and safety of others (www.elaw.org, 2003).

Appendix 2:

Mischief statutory interpretation rule:

In Smith vs Hughes (1960), it is found that the defendants are prostitutes who under the Street Offense Act 1959 were charged due to offensive solicitation in public place. This is evident as they were seen to solicit from windows of private premises seen by the public. The court by applying the mischief law concluded that the defendants are involved in violating the Act even though under literal interpretation the place was private (webstroke.co.uk, 2014).