Human Rights Act

Human Rights Act 1998 – is an Act that gives legal effect in the UK to certain fundamental rights and freedoms contained in

The rule of law is one of the fundamental principles of UK’s unwritten or uncodified constitution .The key idea of the rule of law is that the law should apply equally to all, rulers and ruled alike. This in the words of the 19-century constitution expert, A.V.Diecy ensures a ‘government of law ' and not a ‘government of men ‘. The alternative to the rule of law is there for arbitrary government. In this way, the rule of law establishes the relationship between government and the people. AS John

Murray v Express Newspapers , a case similar to that of Wellers also saw the lack of consent being a major flaw with the published article however as stated before article 8 is a qualified right and was balanced with that of article 10 where it was found that there nothing embarrassing or publicly detrimental to their public appearance and therefore article 10 was granted allowing them to freely be able to publish the story. It has been found that a celebrities’ right to privacy is also highly debated since it is not illegal to photograph a celebrity as long as it does not harm their public appearance, it is found that if they are in the public eye then it is not considered their private life since this is the life they signed up to when they become a celebrity . Therefore, suggesting that since it wouldn’t be detrimental to the Pitt family and Mr Evans may have some rights when producing the article. After balancing both articles 8 and 10 for the Brad Pitt case it suggests that although there are no suggestions of

The interpretation of “privacy” under the PCC Code was considered in R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission . The applicant was the well known television journalist, Anna Ford. She looked for authorization to apply for judicial review of the PCC choice dismissing her protest about distribution of photos of her and her accomplice on a disengaged yet open shoreline abroad. Silber J refused permission on the basis of the “broad discretion” given to media regulators and the “extended deference given by the courts” to their

Also, Gawker Media’s legal representatives expressed concern about freedom of the press in the United States if the court ruled in favor of Bollea. This lawsuit is not only important because of the emotional damage that the videotape has caused Bollea, but also because of Americans’ privacy and the precedent that the lawsuit’s verdict established for future similar cases.

Kirby strengthens his judgment with pointing out the oddity if s 51(xx) existed as a ‘constitutional deus ex machina’ for the Commonwealth to use to solve all of the law-making issues surrounding industrial regulations. As his Honour shows, this would render all the judgments and evolution of s 51(xxxv) meaningless, since the parliament could just use s 51(xx) to cover all of its needs under that head of power. Evidently, it would seem absurd if the framers of the Constitution intended for the

Developments in the Law Surrounding an Action for Breach of Confidence In this essay I will argue that the developments in the law surrounding an action for breach of confidence have not drawn an equitable and acceptable balance between the privacy of, and free expression about, public figures due to the evolutionary nature of common law. Furthermore, due to the unwillingness of the judiciary to address an independent tort of privacy it may well be time for the Government to legislate. I will address this by considering the development of the laws of breach of confidence prior to the introduction of the Human Rights Act in 2000, and by looking at how they have addressed the balance between free

Picture 3 Human Right Act 1998 This consist of all public bodies such as police, hospitals, court, local government, and other bodies which dealing with all public functions to obey with the contracted right. This means that someone can take the case to the domestic court there is no need to go to the European court to sue the case. This play the right of freedom for the individual in U.K like freedom from slavery, torture, right of security and liberty and other right. Picture 4 Privacy Act 1974 It requires agencies to notice the system of their public by record the publication in the Federal Register.

In light of the above statement by Lord Reid, it is evident that UK courts do not have the power to strike down an act of parliament as unconstitutional due to a variety of factors. Having a political constitution in the UK the efficiency of the Government overpowers the strict separation of powers and upholds the sovereignty of parliament, leading to the courts being unable to go beyond the power of Parliament and striking down acts that are unconstitutional. Majorly unlike that of the legal constitution of the United States, who allow the courts to strike down any Act they deem unconstitutional. This essay will look at the why the courts cannot deem an act of parliament unconstitutional in comparison to that of the United States.

Furthermore, the data in inquiry was "sensitive personal data" for the reason that it pertained to the health of Campbell. As a consequence, it was concluded by the court that except that Daily Mirror could make the most of the freedom in the Data Protection Act given to the publication of press, the scholarly as well as arty data in section 32, there had been an infringement of the Data Protection Act for which Ms Campbell go to be compensated (Cozens, 2002). The decision is a milestone as it ascertains that anybody in the public eye, may it be by means of preference or else unintentionally has a right of protection for his or her personal life. Thus, the case purposefully proves to be one more step in the proposition to set up a privacy law in the UK. However, one another implication of this case decision, that did not have a jury hearing, was on the subject of whether or not the fair right of privacy allows the celebrities to maneuver their public impression to their own benefit as this would bring about “celebrities particularly rushing off and obtaining injunctions as soon as they get any sort of whiff of a story about their private life that they don't want the public to know” (CNN, 2002). This claim is also very much

Lord Woolf, for example, has expressly stated that if Parliament ‘did the unthinkable’ and introduced laws that clearly undermine the rule of law then it should be noted that even the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is subject to certain limits ‘which it is the courts’ inalienable responsibility to identify and uphold. Similarly, Baroness Hale threatens that the court might even reject any attempt to undermine the rule of law by removing governmental action affecting the rights of the individual from all judicial powers’. It is understandable from these statements that the courts are now willing to question the supremacy of parliament. Also, they now regard the rule of law superior to parliamentary sovereignty as they would strike down later if it conflicted with rule of law. One must find a noticeable change of attitude from the judges towards the rule of law as in Manuel v Attorney General and Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Bruke the judges expressly stated that the courts do not exercise the authority to invalidate an Act of Parliament. This is indeed a significant change in judicial thinking away from a formal approach to the rule of

The Parliament which benefitted from unlimited legislative powers was made up of the Queen, House of Lord and House of Commons, hence there was negative and positive aspects to the principle of parliamentary supremacy. Positively, all Acts of Parliament would have to be obeyed by the courts. However, with regards to the negatives, it meant that “no person or body of persons who can… make rules which override or derogate from an Act of Parliament”. Therefore the UK courts cannot derogate from, or ignore in any way an Act from Parliament as there are no external constraints on what upon the capabilities of parliament.

The landmark case of Entick v Errington marks the triumph of the principle of legality, which provides that a public body, in exercising its power endorsed by authority, must be able to identify the precise legal source of that power. The courts are vested with the duty to correct any abuse of power by the executive and the judges are free to exercise this jurisdiction independently. Since then the courts have not wavered in their effort in correcting any abuse of power by the executive . In practical terms, the courts are rather vigilant in refining the principle of judicial review, a mechanism through which compliance by public authorities with the law can be enforced. Even though judicial review is a modern invention , its effectiveness in identifying unlawfulness is too substantial to be neglected.

One is entitled to his or her own privacy, whether it is personal, social or a legal right. Likewise, one is also entitled to freedom of expression. Courts have a difficult time balancing the rights of the Press to their freedom of expression and the rights of individual’s privacy when they collide. There needs to be an analysis on which of these interest take the greater weight when they encounter with one another.

A conundrum arises when balancing the contradicting rights. The UK has a reputation for protecting individuals privacy, as seen in Douglas v Hello. On the contrary, there is also an ‘extraordinary protection’ afforded to freedom of expression in the UK, especially to the Press.