This post is sponsored by my friends in Scotland at Photo booth
Now to discuss National legislation and Judgments
In the Beggs v Scottish Ministers (Reported in 2015 Scottish Law Times Report page 487)
Lady Stacey envisaged that the whole argument isn’t based on opening a letter is a breach of LPP. it’s about the practices in prison are not good enough to stop this happening. its a criticism of the policy. Article 8 breach was found, however it was accepted there are exceptions. In regards to the policy she stated that:
‘They took too long to instruct the mail handling officers on the address of the UK Information Commissioner and also failed to instruct the persons handing out the mail on the appearance of mail from a double envelope, or failed to stamp the envelope when it was taken out of the outer envelope.’
This aligns to the inherent limitations of Article 8 point above. If this right did not have exemptions the court would not have needed to analyze and argue over the efficiency of prison systems. Opening and reading LPP mail would have been enough.
Before Beggs there had been 88 complaints about mail handling at HMP Edinburgh jan 2013- June 2014. Beyond legal judgments and textbooks, the reality is thus that LPP is routinely ignored. This hardly suggests that it is a cornerstone and shows the inherit limitations to Article 8 cannot make LPP a fundamental Right. We may want it to, but it can’t.
Further Limitations to Article 6 are found in
Continue reading “Part 3”
This second part was hosted by my friends in Notary public London
Now lets look at the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union)
Article 6 may not have explicit exceptions the same way Article 8 does. To hold its value up the CJEU have explicitly said sometimes LPP has to be argued against, in the context of Money Laundering.
In the Belgian Bars v Council of Ministers  it was asked if the Money laundering directive would lead to a breach of Article 6 of ECHR. The court held that,
“the obligation to report information to the authorities responsible for the prevention of money laundering stipulated in article 6 paragraph 1 from the second directive on money laundering, considering also the provisions of article 3 paragraph 3, do not breach the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by article 6 of ECHR and by article 6 paragraph 2 from the EU Treaty”.
Continue reading “Part 2 !”
This debate is sponsored by my good friends at Personal Injury Birmingham
“This House believes the duty of confidentiality of lawyers/professional legal privilege/the professional secret is a cornerstone of human rights.”
Onto my first point, if we examine the word “cornerstone” it means, ‘something of great importance that everything else depends on’. It could be described as a fundamental rule.
There is not text in the European Convention of Human Rights regarding legal profession privilege. It is an important value to be balanced under Article 8 + 6 but its not a cornerstone of Human Rights.
Before we look at the limitations found in the European Court of Human Rights, lets look at how Article 8 is a limited right which is not a great starting point for cornerstone argument.
Article 8 (2) limitations such as: Necessary democratic society and…prevention of disorder or a crime…protection of health or morals
In the Campbell v UK (reported in 1993 in the European Human Rights Report p.137)
On the facts it was held there was a breach of Article 8, but as point of law it was explained that in exceptional circumstances that mail could be read. The court stated that:
Continue reading “My Employment law debate!”