Human Rights and English Law Trivia Quiz

Answer: Strasbourg

A Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948. This was followed by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms proclaimed by the Council of Europe in 1950. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg enforces the European Convention, but there has also been an attempt to embody these human rights principles within the English Law (please see below).

It is not surprising that the atrocities of World War II and the subsequent war crimes trials lead to human rights being of central importance in law making at an international level. (By the way, contrary to a widespread misconception in Britain, this court is NOT an institution of the European Union).

Answer: The Human Rights Act 1998

This 1998 Act introduced many aspects of European human rights law into U.K. law, but it does not enshrine the European Convention in domestic law. The 1998 Act is a lawyers' paradise to determine what new rights have been created in English law and how this law must be influenced by fundamental human rights principles. We were extremely slow in amending our law in this way and some might say that when we did so, our efforts were very half-hearted.

Answer: Right of a Trade Union to operate a "Closed Shop"

Please see Articles 2, 4 and 6 of the Convention. However, Article 11 "The Freedom of Association" has been held incompatible with a trade union's "closed shop" (please see Young, James and Webster v UK (1980)). In this case the Strasbourg Court decided against British Rail being able to dismiss employees who were not trade union members where a "closed shop" existed.

The freedom to join or not to join a trade union is part of our human rights under the Convention.

Answer: Yes

This is part of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the adoption of an optional Protocol No.6. Outside peacetime things may be different and there is always the changed situation where "martial law" is imposed in a security emergency.

Answer: Yes

Please see Soering v UK (1989). Here, the European Court decided that the "death penalty" would not stop the person's extradition, but the risk of that person being on "death row" for a number of years was a breach of Article 3 (Right to be free from "torture and from inhuman and degrading treatment") of the Convention and thus denied extradition from being granted.

This is an interesting case that highlights a conflict in law between Western countries.

Answer: No

The U.K. has issued a reservation to this human right to only implement it in so far as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable expenditure (please see Campbell and Cosans v U.K. (1982)). Also, this Article is basically only dealing with elementary education.

Answer: no

Article 6 of the European Human Rights Act gives the "right to a fair trial" and this has always included the right not to have to self-incriminate yourself. For instance, in criminal law you always have the right to remain silent if arrested (although the Court nowadays can draw adverse inferences from this silence).

However, please see Saunders v UK (1997) where such self-incrimination as breathalysers, blood and other tests are considered not to be a breach of human rights. This concept does not fit easily with case law in this area and it seems that judges are interpreting the law with an element of public policy in mind.

It seems that the law, as it stands, with breathalyser, blood and other tests will be upheld as good law.

Answer: yes

Please see Linens v Austria (1986). Article 10 of the Convention allows "Freedom to receive and impart ideas and information". Here a successful defamation action by prominent politicians was held to be a violation of Article 10. The Court clearly felt that the public interest demanded the right to speak out more openly than against more private individuals. Democracy is a very basic human right and may help in these circumstances.

Answer: yes

Please see X v Commission of the European Communities (1995). Convention Article 8 refers to personal privacy. In this court case, a prospective employee was required to take a blood test (after refusing an AIDS test) which showed up as HIV positive and he was refused a job.

The Court held this was in violation of his rights under the Convention. Thus the right to keep your health matters private may be protected by Human Rights Law in some circumstances.

Answer: no

The Court will balance up the rights of the defendant against those of the witness(es) before deciding if cross-examination is permissible. Under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act cross-examination is not allowed. This type of curtailment of the defendant's right to cross examination in person is often seen in cases involving alleged serious sexual offences.