UK Breaches of Human Rights Law

Although the UK has taken well known steps to incorporate internationally recognised human rights law into domestic legislation there are still cases where it is found to have breached human rights. Whilst many cases are resolved within the UK’s own legal system, there continue to be cases which go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for a final decision. We look at some cases where the UK has been found, by the ECHR, to have violated human rights law.

Sexuality of People Serving in the UK’s Armed Forces

In 2000 the ECHR found that the UK had violated the human rights of several homosexual soldiers who had been dismissed from the armed forces because of their sexuality. The ECHR ordered the UK to pay substantial damages to the individuals involved. The fact that the soldiers had been questioned about their sexuality, and then dismissed because of it, was held to be a breach of their right to privacy. This case lead to the law on the sexuality of those who can serve in the UK’s armed forces being changed. The UK is now amongst those countries who allow gay members of the armed forces to be open about their sexuality.

UK Widowers’ Entitlement to Benefits

A 2002 human rights case was brought against the UK regarding a widower’s entitlement to receive bereavement benefits. Until 2001 a man whose wife had died was not entitled to receive the lump sum and weekly bereavement payments which a woman whose husband had died would receive. A widower who had given up work to care for his children after the death of his wife in 1996, and who was refused the bereavement benefit, took his case to the ECHR. The ECHR held that the widower had been discriminated against on account of his gender and ordered that he be paid £25,000 in damages. By then the law in the UK had already been changed meaning that, today, a bereaved spouse of either gender has equal entitlement to bereavement benefits.

The Ban on Prisoners Voting in the UK

The UK’s law preventing prisoners from voting in elections was called into question by a 2005 ECHR case. An ex-prisoner started the case which used human rights law to challenge the UK’s ban on prisoners voting. The ECHR held that the ban may constitute a breach of an individual’s right to free elections. In 2008, with the UK’s law on prisoners voting unchanged, the UN commented that the ban may constitute a breach of human rights. Although the UK is usually prompt in adapting to ECHR rulings, as at March 2010, the ban remains. However, there have been suggestions that the law may be changed to allow some, less serious, categories of prisoner to vote.

Monitoring of Private Correspondence by the UK Government

A 2008 case was brought to the ECHR by several civil rights organisations. This questioned the legitimacy of the UK government’s use of phone-tapping and the monitoring of emails between the UK and Ireland from 1990 to 1997. The civil rights groups claimed that some of their correspondence had been monitored by the authorities. The law at that time gave a very wide remit for the UK authorities to monitor correspondence and the very existence of that law was said by the ECHR to pose a threat to rights and freedoms. The ECHR was concerned that the law was open to abuse and held that the monitoring constituted a breach of the right to private correspondence. The UK government considered the case to be so sensitive in terms of national security, that it would neither confirm nor deny what had actually taken place. However, it did concede that it was reasonable for the ECHR to assume that some of the groups’ correspondence had been viewed.

Stop and Search under the UK’s Terrorism Act

In 2010 the ECHR found that the stop and search procedures used by the UK police pursuant to the Terrorism Act 2000 were illegal because they did not require the police to have grounds for suspicion before using them. The ECHR found that this was open to abuse and constituted a breach of an individual’s right to private and family life. Many rules and laws introduced to combat terrorism have been challenged under human rights law. The measures needed to protect the UK against the threat of terrorism are considered to be much greater than those required to combat ordinary crime and there have been concerns from many sectors of society that this has been used as an excuse to take away long-held rights and freedoms.