No abstract

This article examines the development of a remedy for unauthorised publication of personal information that has resulted from the fusion of breach of confidence with the limited ‘horizontal’ application of Article 8 of the ECHR via the Human Rights Act. Its analysis of Strasbourg and domestic post‐HRA case law reveals the extent to which confidence has in some areas been radically transformed into a privacy right in all but name; however it also seeks to expose the analytical and normative tensions that arise in the judgments between the values of confidentiality and privacy as overlapping but not coterminous concepts, due in part to the failure to resolve decisively the horizontal effect conundrum. This judicial ambivalence towards the reception of privacy as a legal right into English law may, it will argue, also be seen in the prevailing judicial approach to the resolution of the conflict between privacy and expression interests which, it will suggest, is both normatively and structurally inadequate.

This article considers the use of control orders in the United Kingdom as an example of one of the most important legal aspects of the “war on terror”: the development, alongside the criminal justice approach, of a pre-emptive system. It argues that in relation to such orders the executive has in effect sought to redefine key human rights in a manner that, at its most extreme, amounts to covert derogation, and that both Parliament and the judiciary have been to an extent drawn into and made complicit in this process. It highlights key aspects of this story in order to illustrate some broader points about the role of judges, Parliament, and the rule of law in response to such exceptional measures. It argues that the attempted minimization of the ambit of rights, the spreading use of secret evidence, and the damaging constitutional impact of excessive judicial deference, are of great significance beyond UK counterterrorism law and can help illuminate both the opportunities and the dangers in constitutional dialogue.Cet article étudie les ordres de contrôle au Royaume-Uni à titre d’exemple d’un des aspects les plus importants de la réponse juridique à la « guerre contre le terrorisme » : le virage d’une justice pénale réactive vers la création d’un système préemptif parallèle. Les auteurs soutiennent qu’en ce qui a trait à ces ordres, l’exécutif tente de redéfinir les droits fondamentaux de la personne, ce qui, dans les situations extrêmes, revient à y déroger secrètement. Ils ajoutent que tant le Parlement que l’appareil judiciaire ont d’une certaine manière été associés à ce processus et en sont devenus complices. L’essai souligne certains aspects de cet enjeu afin d’illustrer des questions plus larges sur le rôle des juges, du Parlement et de la primauté du droit face à de telles mesures exceptionnelles. Les auteurs soutiennent que cette tentative de réduire la portée des droits, l’utilisation croissante d’éléments secrets de preuve ainsi que les effets dommageables de la déférence judiciaire excessive sur la constitution ont une importance qui s’étend au-delà des lois anti-terroristes britanniques. Ces enjeux peuvent jeter de la lumière tant sur les bienfaits que sur les dangers du dialogue constitutionnel

This article analyses the Article 50 TEU debate and the argument that for the UK Government to trigger the formal withdrawal process without explicit parliamentary authorisation would be unlawful, because it would inevitably result in the removal of rights enjoyed under EU law and the frustration of the purpose of the statutes giving those rights domestic effect. After a brief survey of Article 50, this article argues first of all that the power to trigger Article 50 remains within the prerogative, contesting Robert Craig's argument in this issue that it is now a statutory power. It then suggests a number of arguments as to why the frustration principle may be of only doubtful application in this case, and in doing so it re‐examines one of the key authorities prayed in aid of it ‐ the Fire Brigades Union case.

No abstract