Interaction between human rights law and administrative law
Interaction between Human Rights Law and Administrative Law
Administrative Law governs the actions and decisions of government agencies and public authorities. It ensures that decisions made by public officials comply with the law, are fair, reasonable, and follow due process.
Human Rights Law protects fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals from infringement by the state or other actors.
The interaction happens because administrative decisions often affect individuals’ human rights. For example, decisions on immigration, detention, freedom of expression, or privacy all involve administrative bodies and have human rights implications.
Key Points in this Interaction:
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions: Courts can review decisions of public bodies not just on administrative law grounds but also for compliance with human rights. If a decision violates human rights, it can be challenged.
Human Rights Act (e.g., UK HRA 1998): Incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law, requiring public authorities to act compatibly with human rights.
Balancing Acts: Courts often balance public interest (e.g., national security) with individual rights.
Procedural Fairness & Substantive Rights: Human rights law influences both the procedure (fair hearings, access to justice) and substance (right to privacy, freedom from torture) in administrative decisions.
Detailed Explanation of 4-5 Key Case Laws
1. R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
Facts: Daly was a prisoner whose legal correspondence was being searched by prison authorities. He claimed this violated his right to legal professional privilege and privacy.
Issue: Does the prison policy of searching legal correspondence breach human rights, and was the administrative decision lawful?
Judgment: The House of Lords held that the blanket policy of searching prisoners' legal mail without sufficient safeguards was disproportionate and violated Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private and family life). This case emphasized the need for administrative policies to be proportionate and respectful of human rights.
Significance: It clarified that administrative actions affecting human rights must be proportionate and necessary, reinforcing the human rights oversight in administrative decisions.
2. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61
Facts: The UK government issued an Order in Council to remove the Chagos Islanders from their homeland for military purposes. The Islanders challenged this on human rights grounds, including right to property and right to family life.
Issue: Was the government’s exercise of power lawful and compatible with human rights?
Judgment: The House of Lords recognized the government’s wide prerogative powers but highlighted the conflict with the right to family and private life under Article 8 ECHR. However, the court upheld the government’s order on grounds of national security and public interest, demonstrating tension between human rights and administrative discretion.
Significance: Showed limits of human rights protections when balanced against governmental powers in administrative law, especially regarding national security.
3. R (on the application of Al-Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26
Facts: Al-Skeini family challenged the UK’s responsibility for deaths caused by British soldiers in Iraq, arguing that UK had jurisdiction and thus human rights obligations under Article 2 (right to life).
Issue: Does UK administrative law and human rights law extend jurisdiction extraterritorially?
Judgment: The House of Lords ruled that the UK government had jurisdiction for certain acts of its forces overseas and was therefore bound by Article 2 to investigate deaths. This extended human rights protections into administrative decisions made abroad.
Significance: Expanded the reach of administrative accountability under human rights law beyond domestic territory.
4. R (on the application of Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66
Facts: Limbuela, an asylum seeker, was detained and deprived of support, which the UK government argued was lawful.
Issue: Did the administrative decision to deny support breach the right to life and human dignity?
Judgment: The House of Lords held that denying support to destitute asylum seekers in a way that exposes them to destitution breaches Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). The administrative decision was unlawful.
Significance: Demonstrated how administrative decisions on welfare and detention must respect human rights and avoid inhuman treatment.
5. Golder v United Kingdom (1975) 1 EHRR 524
Facts: Golder was a prisoner who sought access to legal advice to bring a civil suit. He was denied, claiming violation of right to a fair trial.
Issue: Does administrative refusal to allow legal access violate Article 6 (right to fair trial)?
Judgment: The European Court of Human Rights held that denial of access to legal remedies violated Article 6. This established that administrative decisions affecting access to justice engage human rights law.
Significance: Highlights how administrative law processes must allow individuals to exercise their human rights, particularly access to justice.
Summary
Administrative decisions must be compatible with human rights.
Courts use human rights principles (like proportionality, fairness, dignity) when reviewing administrative acts.
Human rights law acts as a check on administrative power, ensuring protection of fundamental freedoms.
Cases like Daly, Bancoult, Al-Skeini, Limbuela, and Golder illustrate how courts balance government interests and individual rights within administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments