Proposed police super-database breaks the law and has no legal basis, but the Home Office doesn’t care – Matthew White

19 10 2018

The announcement from human rights organisation Liberty that it would boycott the UK Home Office’s consultation on the Law Enforcement Data Service, a new super-database for the police, is an indication of how far from acceptable the project is. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Savva Terentyev v Russia, Conviction for inciting hatred against the police violated blogger’s freedom of expression – Dirk Voorhoof

11 10 2018

In Savva Terentyev v. Russia the ECtHR has applied a very high level of free speech-protection for aggressively insulting and hostile comments about police officers, published on a weblog. The ECtHR observes that some of the wording in the blog post was offensive, insulting and virulent, but it found that the (emotional and sarcastic) comments as a whole could not be seen as inciting to hatred or violence. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Mariya Alekhina v. Russia, Pussy Riot, the right to protest and to criticise the President, and the Patriarch – Dirk Voorhoof

18 09 2018

In its judgment of 17 July 2018 the ECtHR has found various violations of the rights of the members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot. The ECtHR found violations under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) ECHR (right to fair trial), in relation to the conditions of their transportation and detention in the courthouse, their pre-trial detention, the treatment during the court hearings (being exposed to public view in a glass dock surrounded by armed police), and restrictions to legal assistance. Read the rest of this entry »





Big Brother Watch v UK: What are the implications for the Investigatory Powers Act? – Graham Smith

14 09 2018

Yesterday I was transported back in time, to that surreal period following the Snowden revelations in 2013 when anyone who knew anything about the previously obscure RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) was in demand to explain how it was that GCHQ was empowered to conduct bulk interception on a previously unimagined scale. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: ML and WW v Germany, Article 8 right to be forgotten and the media – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Aidan Wills

4 07 2018

In the case of ML and WW v Germany ([2018] ECHR 554) (available only French), the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights dismissed an Article 8 “right to be forgotten” application in respect of the historic publication by the media of information concerning a murder conviction. Read the rest of this entry »





Do Companies have a right to reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, Part 2 – David Acheson

21 06 2018

The first part of this post considered the question of whether Art 8 of the Convention protects corporate reputation and concluded that the Court’s case law does not provide any good justification for this. Read the rest of this entry »





Do Companies have a right to reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, Part 1 – David Acheson

19 06 2018

In contrast to the frequent discussion of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence establishing that individual reputation falls within the scope of the Article 8 right to ‘private and family life’, the possibility that corporations could claim a Convention right to reputation – under either Art 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 (‘A1P1’), the right to property – has not attracted a great deal of attention from commentators. Read the rest of this entry »