Assignment: Human Rights Law Case Analysis
Part A
In light of recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), including the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC] 9 April 2024 (Application No. 53600/20), critically discuss whether the ECtHR is overdeveloping the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) beyond its natural limits.
Part B
Question 1
Emma has recently broken up with Ryan, but he refused to accept it. Furious, he began sending her aggressive voice messages, telling her, “You’ll regret this.” A few days later, Emma found her car tyres slashed and a message spray-painted onto her garage door reading, “Last chance—talk to me, or else.” Concerned for her safety, she reported the threats to the police. Ryan was brought in for questioning at a police station based in Portsmouth, but he refused to answer and only responded with “no comment.” As the interview continued, an officer grabbed Ryan’s arm and pulled him close to mutter, “If I were you, I’d be very careful from now on.” Ryan smirked at the time, but later admitted the comment unsettled him. The police released Ryan with a warning.
Later that week, a bystander witnessed an argument between Emma and Ryan outside her house. As the confrontation escalated, Ryan shoved Emma to the ground, causing her to hit her head on the pavement and fall unconscious. The bystander immediately called the police, but due to ambulance shortages, emergency services took nearly 40 minutes to arrive. By the time paramedics reached her, Emma had died.
Meanwhile, the police launched a search for Ryan, who had fled the scene. Officers eventually spotted him running towards an abandoned warehouse and ordered him to stop. He refused and attempted to climb a fence to escape. One officer fired a warning shot at Ryan, but he continued to climb the fence. After another verbal warning, the officer shot another two warning shots in quick succession, one of which accidentally hit Ryan in the shoulder. Ryan lost his grip of the fence and fell around 5 feet to the ground below, suffering a fractured wrist.
Despite bleeding from his shoulder and complaining of blurred vision, Ryan was taken into custody for questioning. One of the officers knew Emma and was particularly upset at what had happened. When other officers were out of the room, this officer twisted Ryan’s injured arm until he confessed to pushing Emma. Ryan was then taken to hospital and treated for his injuries where he made a full recovery. An internal police review was conducted into the case, but no significant wrongdoing was found, and the investigation was quickly closed.
Advise Ryan and Emma’s mother on whether they could bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, and if so, whether there is a substantive breach of Article 2 or 3 ECHR.
Question 2
A large music festival is taking place in Hyde Park, London, attracting thousands of attendees. Given concerns about public safety and drug-related incidents, additional police officers are deployed to monitor the event. Facial recognition cameras have been installed at entrance gates and nearby transport hubs, scanning attendees against a database of individuals with drug-related or public order convictions from the past three years. This information is added to the watchlist and used to identify individuals who may be of interest to the police.
Ali, a local student, is returning home from a university trip when he unknowingly walks past one of the cameras near Marble Arch station. The system flags him as a person of interest, and police officers stop him as he exits the station. Confused, Ali asks why he is being questioned. The officers explain that they are trying to prevent troublemakers from entering the festival. Ali insists he has no interest in the festival and is just passing through. However, the officers say they would still “like to have a word” with him. Ali, feeling frustrated, tries to walk away but is stopped, and an officer grabs his arm. They inform him that he cannot leave until they complete their inquiries. After a 15-minute questioning session and a pat-down search, it turns out that Ali was flagged due to a previous fine for drink driving. The officers apologise and release him. When Ali asks for his name to be removed from the watchlist, the officers explain that this is not possible.
Inside the festival, Tom manages to push his way to the front of the crowd during a performance by a well-known DJ. Excited by the music, he starts climbing onto the barrier, trying to crowd-surf, despite multiple security warnings against it. Festival security personnel tell him to get down, but Tom refuses, shouting, “This is a festival, let me enjoy it!”. As security moves toward him, he shoves an officer’s arm away, insisting that he isn’t doing anything wrong. The disturbance causes several other festival-goers to react, some cheering him on while others complain that he is disrupting the show. Concerned that the situation might escalate, a police officer steps in and decides to remove Tom from the crowd.
Instead of ejecting him from the festival, the officer escorts Tom to a room near the security checkpoint to calm down. Tom argues that he has done nothing wrong and demands to leave, but security informs him that they are acting in the interest of public safety. After 90 minutes, he is finally allowed to return, but by then, his favourite artist’s set is over.
Frustrated after being detained, Tom heads to a pub outside the festival grounds and drinks heavily. Later that evening, he stumbles into a group of festival-goers and starts arguing with them. A passer-by calls the police. When officers arrive, Tom, still angry from his earlier experience, begins swearing at them. As a result, he is arrested for a public disorder offence, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police van. While being transported, Tom vomits all over himself due to excessive alcohol consumption. The officers pull over to assist him and ask him to remove his soiled shirt, which they then discard in a nearby bin due to its condition. Tom is placed back in the van and taken to the police station, where he is held overnight. The next afternoon, he is released at 4 PM. Upon his release, the officers provide him with a replacement t-shirt from lost property. No further charges are pursued, but Tom is given a formal warning about his behaviour.
Advise Ali and Tom on whether they could bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, and if so whether there is a substantive breach of Article 5 or 8 ECHR.
Question 3
Liam works as a researcher for a local authority in Birmingham. He has a strong belief in alternative health theories, including the idea that vaccines are harmful and unnecessary. While he often discusses his views casually with colleagues during lunch breaks, he also recently brought up these views in a company-led health and safety seminar, questioning the effectiveness of workplace vaccination policies. After receiving complaints from multiple employees who felt uncomfortable with his remarks, Liam is called into a formal disciplinary meeting. His manager presents him with a document requiring him to refrain from discussing anti-vaccine views at work and to confirm that he supports the company’s health and safety policies. Liam refuses to sign the document, arguing that his beliefs should not impact his employment. As a result, he is dismissed for violating workplace conduct policies.
Frustrated, Liam takes to social media to air his grievances. He makes multiple posts, including one that states “This local authority is a joke” and another calling his manager a corrupt fraud who should be executed. Several employees report his posts, and the police become involved. He is subsequently charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 for sending offensive and threatening messages online.
Following the backlash from Liam’s case, the local authority introduces a new neutrality policy. This policy states that all employees must maintain a neutral stance on personal beliefs in the workplace, prohibiting the display of religious symbols or personal ideologies in the office. Arjan, a long-time employee, is informed that in line with the new policy he is no longer permitted to wear a turban, which he wears pursuant to his religious beliefs. Arjan refuses to remove his turban, arguing that the policy unfairly targets religious expression. Despite his objections, he is dismissed for failing to comply with the new policy.
Wanting to raise awareness about inclusivity, Arjan and Liam begin to protest outside the local authority offices. They distribute leaflets promoting acceptance and workplace diversity. Sarah, a senior employee at the local authority, sees one of these leaflets and takes offence at the idea of diversity initiatives being promoted outside the workplace. The next day, Sarah arrives at work wearing a t-shirt that says “Take Back Our Office” and begins distributing flyers depicting people of different religious backgrounds being escorted out of a corporate building. Employees report her behaviour, and she is later convicted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 for promoting grossly offensive and discriminatory content.