Charter of Fundamental Rights

Introduction to Human Rights – UK Human Rights Blog:

"it would seem that the much wider Charter of Rights is now part of our domestic law. Moreover, that much wider Charter of Rights would remain part of our domestic law even if the Human Rights Act were repealed." (R(AB) v Secretary of State [2013] EWHC 3453 (Admin), at [14])

 This instrument, which was given legal effect by Article 6(1) TEU (the Lisbon Treaty), is controversial because it contains a range of rights some of which mimic those in the European Convention of Human Rights, others which go beyond the scope of the ECHR by appearing to grant social and economic rights to citizens of the EU, including the right to health care (Article 35), access to services (Article 36) and social security (Article 34).  These are aspirational “rights” whose effect on the EU legislature has yet to be played out.

 Although it has full Treaty force, the Charter does not extend the competence or powers of the EU (Article 51(2) of the Charter and  Article 6(1) TEU).  The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has long established the rule that the human rights aspect of Community law is only binding on member states when their actions engage EU law (Case 5/88 Wachauf and Case C-260/89 ERT ).  However, EU law reaches far into the relationship between state and citizen and as a result the UK has filed an “opt-out” protocol in respect of the Charter, Article 1 of which states that it

does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms (Protocol No 30 of 2007)" 'via Blog this'

Today's The Anniversary Of A Landmark Freedom Of The Press Case

Today's The Anniversary Of A Landmark Freedom Of The Press Case - RightsInfo: "The key consequence of the decision in Sunday Times v UK is that newspapers can publish stories on court cases where it is in the public interest for them to do so. On the other hand, it is also important that there should never be a ‘trial by newspaper’ or, now, trial by Google, Facebook or Twitter.

‘Trial by newspaper’ is the phrase used to describe the impact of television and media coverage on a person’s reputation before their trial in a court of law. It is important that this does not happen because it might look like the media coverage is able to affect the legal proceedings in some way, which could undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system.

It could also cause jury members or parties to legal proceedings to pre-judge the case, which potentially denies parties a fair trial." 'via Blog this'

Court of Appeal injuncts revelation of celebrity's extramarital threesome

Court of Appeal injuncts revelation of celebrity's extramarital threesome - Lexology: "The Court of Appeal has granted a privacy injunction (its first since 2011) to prevent the Sun on Sunday revealing details of a well-known entertainer’s extramarital threesome (PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 100)." 'via Blog this'

The real Whittingdale scandal: a cover up by the UK press

The real Whittingdale scandal: a cover up by the UK press | openDemocracy: "As Culture Secretary, with a brief that includes media policy, Whittingdale has a powerful influence over press regulation, the mooted privatisation of Channel 4 and above all the future finances of the BBC.

So far his key policy decisions have included:

 * Serial attacks on the BBC’s independence and influence

 * Backing for the Treasury’s assault on the public service broadcaster's finances

 * Unilaterally blocked legislation recommended by the Leveson Inquiry into the press, passed by all three major political parties in parliament in 2013 


* Personal support for the press industry’s new non-Leveson compliant regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, IPSO.

 Whittingdale, according to one Whitehall source, became “The culture secretary Rupert Murdoch dreamt of, and the cabinet insider those who fought Brian Leveson’s recommendations prayed they would get.” 

Keeping Whittingdale right where he is, rather than ousting him, perfectly suits those in Fleet Street who view Leveson as a commercial threat to business-as-usual." 'via Blog this'