Topic

‘Taking the Next Step? Achieving Another Bill of Rights’

Author/Academic

Colin Harvey

Viewpoint

Examines the debate over the potential implementation of a new UK constitutional Bill of Rights in terms of what it may mean in practice.

Source

(2011) 1 European Human Rights Law Review 24–42

Topic

‘The Right to a Fair Trial and the Arbitration Act 1996: Apparent Conflicts Leave the English Courts Unmoved’

Author/Academic

Paul Stothard

Viewpoint

Assesses the approach of the courts to the application of Art 6 ECHR to commercial arbitration proceedings in England and Wales, falling under the courts supervision by virtue of the Arbitration Act 1996. Considers the HRA 1998 and the right of access to a court under Art 6, commercial arbitration, and civil rights, the waiver of Art 6, case law guidance on the impact of Art 6 on arbitration, and Art 6 and the court’s supervisory procedure. Argues that it is unlikely that Art 6 can be regarded as a basis to challenge an arbitration agreement.

Source

(2008) 29(1) Business Law Review 2–6

Topic

‘The Executive, the Parole Board and Article 5 ECHR: Progress within “An Unhappy State of Affairs”?’

Author/Academic

Patricia Londono

Viewpoint

Discusses the Court of Appeal decisions in: (1) R (on the application of Brooke) v Parole Board (2008) on whether the Parole Board was sufficiently independent to meet the requirements of Art 5(4) and (2) ECHR; and (2) R (on the application of Walker) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2008) on whether failure to provide offenders imprisoned for public protection with rehabilitation programmes to assist them to demonstrate that their detention was no longer necessary was unlawful and their continued detention after expiry of their minimum term infringed Art 5.

Source

(2008) 67 Cambridge Law Journal 230–233

Topic

‘Negligence Liability for Failing to Prevent Crime: The Human Rights Dimension’

Author/Academic

Iain Steele

Viewpoint

Comments on the Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex (2008) on whether a man who allegedly told police of threats made against him by a former partner could sue them in negligence after he was attacked by that person on the grounds that they did nothing to protect him. Reviews the court’s approach to the principles set out by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) and its analysis of the subsequent impact of the HRA 1998 on common law negligence actions against the police. Notes the forthcoming appeal to the House of Lords (as it was at that time).

Source

(2008) 67 Cambridge Law Journal 239–241

Topic

‘May Day, May Day: Policing Protest’

Author/Academic

ATH Smith

Viewpoint

Discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) on whether the police had been justified in depriving the claimants of their liberty, by cordoning them within an area for seven hours along with over 1,000 protestors, on the ground that it was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. Considers whether the defendant was required to prove that the claimants had behaved unlawfully or had threatened to breach the peace. Assesses whether the deprivation of liberty was such that it breached the claimants’ rights under Art 5 ECHR.

Source

(2008) 67 Cambridge Law Journal 10–12