Outline the UK Governments current proposed response to the decision in S and Marper v UK and evaluate to what extent this proposed response will remedy the problems identified in that case
Outline the UK Government’s current proposed response to the decision in S and Marper v UK and evaluate to what extent this proposed response will remedy the problems identified in that case. Since 1995 police in the UK have been allowed to indefinitely store DNA profiles of people who are arrested or charged (regardless of the outcome) due to the creation of the government-launched National DNA Database (NDNAD). In February of 2006 the benefits and issues surrounding the expansion of the NDNAD were summarised by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology and made available to the public. This subsequently led to a decision being made by the European Court of Human Rights which concluded that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland dictated that since 1995, should any individual be arrested for a recordable offence, he or she should have a DNA sample taken and a digital profile stored in permanence on the NDNAD[1], regardless of whether or not they are charged or later acquitted.[2] Whilst many member states in the Council of Europe permit the retention of DNA profiles the United Kingdom was the singular member state which explicitly condoned the systematic retention of DNA profiles in such a manner. In the case of S and Marper Vs
Bellinger v Bellinger case note
Bellinger V Bellinger Facts of the case Bellinger v Bellinger is a case concerning the validity of the marriage of a transsexual woman. The appellant, Elizabeth Ann Bellinger was a post-operative male to female transsexual. In 1981, Bellinger married a male partner, several months after having an operation to remove the testicles and penis and create an artificial vagina but still 'without ovaries or any other biological characteristic of a woman',1 her first claim was to seek that this marriage was deemed valid. Furthermore, the appellant sought a declaration of incompatibility . The incompatibility lay between S11[c] of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that provides a marriage is void if 'the parties are not respectfully male and female'2 and Article 8 (right to respect private and family life) and Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Johnson J and the court of appeal both declined to grant the petition. However a 'fresh claim was brought in response to two decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered in July 2002, Goodwin v United Kingdom and I v United Kingdom, in which the Corbett criteria was unanimously rejected by the Court'3. These rulings, with Bellinger led the way to legislative reform for recognising the gender of transsexuals in the UK. Legal issues and
In human rights there is no right which is more fundamental than others. Discuss.
In human rights there is no right which is more fundamental than others. Discuss. Human rights can generally be defined as "those rights, which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings."1 However, such a general definition poses a number of questions regarding whose 'nature' is to be used as a yardstick in establishing a list of such rights. It is likely that human rights find their origin in natural law. Natural law theorists had developed the idea that human beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights. According to "[t]his theory a natural order exists in the universe ... [e]verything has its own qualities and is subject to the rules of nature to achieve its full potential."2 Hence, anything that prevents a person from achieving his full potential is contrary to this higher order. Today human rights are largely protected through national constitutions and through various international conventions, treaties, charters, and declarations. The brief for this assignment calls for an examination on whether their exist any distinguishing criteria between human rights. I propose to base my discussion, in the main, on the text of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, that is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)3. One frequently reads that all rights are equal or interdependent. Thus, it
Aboriginal rights in Canada
Noor Sharif May 12, 2008 HUMR1001 Zaineb Amery The Controversy of Colonization The colonization of the Americas has its attributes as well as its failures. The innovations and technologies of the Americas would most likely have not been available today if it weren't for the settlement of the Europeans. However, one could argue that more damage was done than positive effects. Christopher Hitchens asserts that "it is sometimes unambiguously the case that a certain coincidence of ideas, technologies, population movements and politico-military victories leaves humanity on a slightly higher plane than it knew before. The transformation of the northern part of this continent into "America" inaugurated a nearly boundless epoch of opportunity and innovation and thus deserves to be celebrated with great vim and gusto..." (Minority Report). While Hitchens has some truth to his argument, it is more significant that the negative effects of colonialism outweighed the positive outcome. The lives of aboriginals were distorted and changed overnight, communities of innocent inhabitants were invaded, and the rights of the aboriginals were violated. Hitchens cannot disregard all the suffering that came with colonization. He must also recognize that history could have had a more successful outcome if the indigenous population were included in the new world. North American society developed
Over the last 25 years, there has been a significant movement towards more open government which is largely, but not wholly, attributable to decisions under the European convention on Human Rights" Discuss.
Mike James [hUMAN RIGHTS LAW] ________________ Open government, in short is the concept that, a government will conduct itself in a transparent and fair manner hence allowing the public to scrutinize its initiatives and decisions. It is most significant in the domain of state secrecy which is in direct conflict with the concept of open government as it legitimizes the suppression of information from the public domain. The suppression of information is linked to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights which guarantees the right of free speech and the right to receive and impart with information freely. However Article 10 is not an absolute right and it allows members to the convention the right of derogation where national security and public safety are at risk. The law must therefore provide a means of balancing the individual's right to guard his or her privacy against the public's right to know about matters of general importance. Yet over the past two decades, British governments have been reluctant to create a specific civil obligation to protect personal privacy. It was argued that privacy is too vague a concept for legal protection[1]. But the enactment of the 1998 Human Rights Act has changed this situation. The Act requires that the government respect both the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, although it leaves it to the courts
Criminal Law Offences Act
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act No 32 of 20071 that has been going through major reforms since the passing of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was finally passed into legislation by President Mbeki on 16 December 2007.2 The new Sexual Offences Act has largely been created from amended Acts since the last existing Sexual Offences Act.3 The new Act is a major turning point for the protection of children and other vulnerable members of the society who include the mentally disabled and women.4 The editor of the Herald may be right to say that the Act is likely to violate the rights of an individual in some extent but the broader picture is that it advocates for the protection from sexual abuse of children particularly in a volatile environment like South Africa with one of the highest rates of sexual abuse and rape,5 but I differ to agree with him as I see the new Act as a tool for uplifting the rights of individuals who were victimised prior to the passing of the new Act.6 The Sexual Offences Act7 defines a child as an individual under the age of 18 years but in relation to consensual acts8, as an individual who is at least 12 years old but under the age of 16 years. A child's consent is important in relation to all the decisions she makes and in South Africa the age of consent of the girl child is 16years as compared
![Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. (Public Interest Case)](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/82502/listing/82502_1.jpg)
Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. (Public Interest Case)
Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. (Public Interest Case) Between 1964-70, whilst a Minister of the Labour Government, Richard Crossman kept diaries of Cabinet proceedings. It was his intention to publish the diaries, giving the public a detailed account of government affairs. Following Crossman's death in 1974, the diaries were left to a number of literary executors, including the defendants to ensure its publication. In January 1975, extracts of the diaries were published in the Sunday Times. This though was without the approval of the Cabinet Secretary, as was the normal practice for such material. Subsequently, the Attorney-General bought action for two injunctions. Firstly, to prevent the publication of the diaries by the literary executors, and secondly, to enjoin the Sunday Times from any publication of extracts. The Attorney-General's arguments were based on the convention of collective responsibility and the ensuing doctrine of confidentiality. It was contended that the contents of the diaries were confidential, thus publication would be contrary to public interest and the convention of collective responsibility. The action for injunction though, was significant as there was no precedent in this area. Whilst the equitable doctrine of confidence had developed so not to allow profit from the disclosure of information received in confidence over
Human Rights Convention violation: Art. 2, 3, 8 and 10
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was formed with the guidance from the Council of Europe in 1950 to protect the fundamental freedoms that are taken for granted and human rights. States who are members of the Council are party to the ECHR with joining members expected to follow suit. Cases from the United Kingdom could only be heard in Strasburg until the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 which is a statute to re-enforce the values laid out in the convention. There are a number of possible article violations one would look to address, the first being a violation of article 2; the right to life. This article in essence provides that the Government and public authorities or state agents must protect the right to life. This may require, for example, that the police have to protect someone whose life is under immediate threat. It could also be used to argue that a patient should be able to get treatment that would save their life or in the case of Pretty v United Kingdom1 in which assisted suicide was the issue. Generally, there will be a breach of Article 2 if someone is killed by a state official for example the police or prison officers. The only circumstances where there will not be a breach are set out in the second part of the article. However, where a death occurs in each of these three circumstances the responsible official will have to show that
Human Rights Act 1998: Are all human rights absolute and inalienable?
Transfer-Encoding: chunked Week 6 Assignment Introduction The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates the majority of rights within the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the UK legal system. Some rights therein are considered to be absolute and inalienable such as the prohibition on torture, whereas others such as the right to liberty are derogable in times of emergency. Legal and anthological scholars have introduced the dual concepts of cultural relativism and universalism into the human rights debate. While both positions have their strengths in leading to the enhancement of human conditions, cultural relativistic positions have also been used in relation to the subordination of women. Hence, it is revealed that culture itself is never absolute, and when constructed by institutions, such cultural defence is unable to undermine the opposing notion of the universality of human rights. The Human Rights Act The introduction of the HRA was intended to receive the ECHR into domestic law.[1] Section 3(1) HRA requires that legislation must be interpreted by national courts as compatible with Convention rights.[2] Section 2 HRA requires that the national judiciary should take account of any relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence.[3] Section 4 enables a court to make a declaration of incompatibility if it is not possible to construe the relevant legislation to
Death Penalty Arguments
Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty Imagine, a person walking down a dimly lit hallway with their hands and feet chained with heavy shackles that restrain them from taking strides no longer than a foot. This person has just finished their last meal and is being lead by security guards to a confidential room where only a selected number of people are allowed in. He is seated into a wooden chair and asked "Any last words you'd like to say before we continue?" This is the fate of a criminal on death row. The death penalty is a controversial topic that has been put up for debate. The debate has been going on for many years and yet there is no end in site. Most likely, one has seen the topic splattered across the front page of the morning newspaper. If not, then they must have been fooled by the death penalty's many nicknames including execution and capital punishment. Those are only a few of the disguises the death penalty uses to conceal itself in the public eye. For as long as there has been capital punishment, there was always the dispute that came along with it. The question is: should the death penalty be abolished? This is a matter of opinion but there are a vast number of reasons why the death penalty should not be outlawed. The death penalty is the best method of punishing atrocious criminals while still fulfilling a moral standard. First of all, the death