header-logo header-logo

25 May 2016 / Alec Samuels
Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Rights to fight

The right to privacy & family life versus the right to free expression: which is to prevail? Alec Samuels reports

The judge is often asked to order that certain matters or information should not be published; the media usually oppose the request. How is the judge to decide between the right to privacy and family life versus the right to free expression? Article 8 or Art 10? Certain propositions, arguable and rational, and supported by authority, are likely to be advanced by the parties: neither article has precedence, there is no hierarchy, the judge has to balance the competing claims.

There must be strong, even compelling, reasons for interfering with a convention right. The judge must bring an intensive focus to bear on the comparative importance of both rights.

Open justice is a fundamental principle in the court setting. The protection of children always ranks as a high priority.

Contemporary 

In contemporary society the judge is unlikely to order the suppression of the reporting of human relationships and affairs, especially of celebrities in the public

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
back-to-top-scroll