- Klass v FRG (1978) 2 EHRR 214 at 227.
- Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330; Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 149.
- R v Inspectorate of Pollution ex p. Greenpeace [1994] 1 WLR 570, CA.
- Hansard, 24 June 1998, Vol. 314, cols 1083 to 1086.
- See Art. F.2 TEU; Grief, “The Domestic Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights as Mediated through Community Law” [1991] PL 555; and R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex p. First City Trading Ltd [1997] 1 CMLR 250, QBD.
- R v Lord Chancellor ex p. Witham [1998] QB 575, QBD.
- R v Ministry of Defence ex p. Smith [1996] QB 517, CA.
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737 at 753, ECtHR.
- Buckley v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 101 at 129, ECtHR.
- Articles 8 to 11 expressly indicate the types of countervailing public interest that can justify exceptions. Other articles, such as Art. 12, where the principle of proportionality is implicit may allow the pursuit of wider legislative objectives.
- See, most recently, R v Chief Constable of Sussex ex p. ITF [1998] 3 WLR 1260. Of course EC cases are primarily concerned with the protection of economic rights (albeit central or fundamental in nature) and thus the intensity of review may be argued to be necessarily lower.
- Chosen according to usual nomination procedures with the Attorney-General being the ‘catch-all’ respondent.
- This must be a relevant circumstance as expressly contemplated under s. 8(3)(a) of the HRA.
- See e.g. Maharaj v AG of Trinidad & Tobago [1979] AC 385, PC; Fose v Minister of Safety and Security (1997) 2 BHRC 434, SA SupCt; Simpson v Attorney General [1994] 3 NZLR 667; Attorney-General of Quebec v Guimond(1996) 138 DLR (4th) 647 (Can SupCt).
Judicial Review
Volume 4, 1999 - Issue 1