Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

I sault UK Supreme Court

Scroll to see replies

Original post by NYU2012

(1) Only where relevant tort or employment law already exists exists
(2) The HRA gives merely interpretative effect to Article rights; they are not substantively incorporated; they cannot ground a cause of action.

That's nice, but what you're not arguing is completely different than what you were arguing before and, much like the next section, makes me highly question your actual familiarity with this area of law.

The claim I made was that, in fact, private persons or bodies are under no obligation to respect article rights. You disagreed. The argument you've offered 'in favor' of your position, in fact, does not argue against what I claimed.

Your argument merely says that courts have an interpretative obligation to, wherever it is possible and only so far as it is possible to do so, interpret legislation and common law as convention-compatible as possible. Great, but that doesn't claim that private bodies or persons have an obligation to respect others convention rights. Those are two entirely different claims.

In admitting that courts have such an interpretative obligation, you're simultaneously admitting that my statement that private bodies owe no such obligations is correct.

Are you sure you've argued anything before the Court of Appeal? If the state actor is acting in their capacity as part of 'public authority' and breaches an article right, then yes, it is actionable.

HRA 6(1): 'It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right'

HRA 7(1): 'A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a)bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal'

I highly doubt your claimed expertise given your clear failure to know that it actionable to claim against a state actor, so long as that actor meets the definition of 'public authority', for breach of convention rights.

Here is a simple case where your argument falls to bits. The privacy law as it is now called was entirely constructed by the courts - largely one judge - Eady J. Newspapers are clearly not state institutions. And nor was privacy an existing entitlement. As to interpretative effect in the HRA, since Lord Bingham courts have treated the ECtHR as authoritative indeed very nearly binding. That is the practical effect not the theoretical one which you being an academic are more at home with. This is what happens when people study law at university. If you can not see the the courts interpretation of the Convention confers indirectly the same obligations on non state actors then you will never make a lawyer.

Reply 21

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Original post by mojojojo101

Whom is not the point and never will be, all cases should be investigated fully and fairly.

Lots of people were adamant that the US government wouldn't spy on it's own citizens and that turned out to be very far from the truth.

OK, then you can personally pay the costs of every court case, lets see if you would do that.

Also, what if the person in question threatens the human rights of the people here? Send them back.