Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Damages for Violations of Human Rights Law in the United Kingdom

  • Chapter
Damages for Violations of Human Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 9))

  • 991 Accesses

Abstract

In the United Kingdom (UK) damages for the violation of human rights law are available through the unique standalone mechanism provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The HRA has been designed to replicate at the national level the treatment a claimant would receive before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Courts contemplating an award of damages under the HRA must therefore consider the principles set out in the HRA itself, including other remedies granted, and the consequences of the award, as well as the principles applied by the ECtHR. However, despite the numerous principles applying to the award of damages under the HRA, there remain very few reported cases where damages have been awarded. There is also very little academic discussion of this body of jurisprudence. It has been suggested that it would be more appropriate for a tort model for damages to be adopted, but it is not clear that this would constitute a more effective remedy. Real justice for victims could be better achieved were national courts to contemplate in more detail the rationale for damages awards in this context, and pay closer attention to developments at the ECtHR level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill (Cm 3782) (London, TSO, 1997) at [1.19].

  2. 2.

    Articles 2–12 and 14 of the ECHR, Arts. 1–3 of Protocol No.1 to the ECHR, and Arts. 1 and 2 of Protocol No.6 to the ECHR (as read with Arts. 16–18 of the ECHR).

  3. 3.

    Included within the definition of public authority in section 6 are ‘any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature’. Therefore, private bodies, exercising public functions, perhaps pursuant to a contracting out arrangement, are obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights in the exercise of these functions.

  4. 4.

    ‘If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.’

  5. 5.

    Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, [2004] QB 1124, [57].

  6. 6.

    Anufrijeva, ibid, at [53].

  7. 7.

    Anufrijeva, ibid, at [53].

  8. 8.

    ‘Unlawful act’ is defined in section 8(5) as ‘unlawful under section 6(1)’.

  9. 9.

    Lord Chancellor, HL Deb, Vol 582, col 1232 (3.11.1997).

  10. 10.

    See, for example, R. (Bernard) v London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC (Admin) 2282.

  11. 11.

    Anufrijeva, op cit, at [55].

  12. 12.

    R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann.

  13. 13.

    This makes provision for section 3 of the HRA allowing courts to adopt a Convention rights compatible interpretation ‘so far as it is possible to do so’.

  14. 14.

    Section 10(2) HRA.

  15. 15.

    [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68.

  16. 16.

    A v United Kingdom , Grand Chamber, ECtHR, 19.2.2009.

  17. 17.

    Section 8(2) HRA.

  18. 18.

    Lord Chancellor, HL Deb, Vol 583, cols 854–55 (24.11.1997).

  19. 19.

    Supreme Court Act 1981 section 31(4).

  20. 20.

    Anufrijeva, op cit, at [55].

  21. 21.

    Dobson v Thames Water Utilities [2009] EWCA Civ 28, [2009] 3 All ER 319.

  22. 22.

    Dobson v Thames Water Utilities [2011] EWHC 3253 (TCC).

  23. 23.

    Floodgates arguments have their roots in the law of tort. See, for example, X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633.

  24. 24.

    Bernard, op cit, at [58].

  25. 25.

    Bernard, op cit, at [59].

  26. 26.

    Bernard, op cit, at [39]. See also W v Westminster City Council [2005] EWHC (QB) 102.

  27. 27.

    Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406.

  28. 28.

    Per Lord Hoffmann at [51].

  29. 29.

    Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Kodellas (1989) 60 DLR (4th) 143 per Bayda CJS at 162. This concerned the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which empowers the court to award appropriate and just remedies for the infringement of rights.

  30. 30.

    Op cit.

  31. 31.

    See also Bernard, op cit, [58]–[59].

  32. 32.

    Attorney General’s Reference No.2 of 2001 [2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 AC 72 per Lord Bingham at [24].

  33. 33.

    R. (M) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 3667 (Admin).

  34. 34.

    ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’

  35. 35.

    HL Deb, Vol 583, col 477 (18.11.1997).

  36. 36.

    Attorney General’s Reference No.2 of 2001, op cit, at [175].

  37. 37.

    See, e.g.: R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545 and Re S [2002] UKHL 10, [2002] 2 WLR 720.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR Grand Chamber, 19 February 2009.

  39. 39.

    HM Advocate v R [2002] UKPC D3, [2004] 1 AC 462 at [58].

  40. 40.

    R. (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 23, [2013] 2 WLR 1157 at [34]–[38].

  41. 41.

    7 July 2011.

  42. 42.

    See also the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Al-Jedda v United Kingdom , 7 July 2011.

  43. 43.

    At [29]. See also the judgment of Lord Dyson in Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72 at [84].

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Vacher v France (1997) 24 EHRR 482. The ECtHR may also award costs, expenses and interest.

  45. 45.

    See, for example, Allenet de Ribemont v France (1996) 22 EHRR 582 and Svinarenko v Russia, 17.7.2014. In O’Keeffe v Ireland, 28.1.2014 the Grand Chamber awarded a global figure of €30,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from violations of Arts. 3 and 13. It had been found that the system of primary education failed to protect the applicant from sexual abuse by a teacher. She had already been awarded €305,104 at the national level.

  46. 46.

    R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14, [2005] 1 WLR 673 at [9].

  47. 47.

    See also the observations made by the Court of Appeal in Anufrijeva, op cit at [53].

  48. 48.

    See, for example, X v Latvia, Grand Chamber, 26.11.2013 and Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland, Grand Chamber, 6.7.2010.

  49. 49.

    See, for example, Maktouf v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Grand Chamber, 18.7.2013 and Vinter v UK, Grand Chamber, 9.7.2013. Damages were awarded to a serving prisoner in Idalov v Russia, 22.5.2012.

  50. 50.

    Papamichalopoulos v Greece (1996) 21 EHRR 439 at [38]. See also Anufrijeva, op cit, at [59].

  51. 51.

    Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25 per Lord Blackburn at 39.

  52. 52.

    Vacher v France , op cit.

  53. 53.

    (1997) 23 EHRR 313 at [86].

  54. 54.

    29.6.2011.

  55. 55.

    See also Cudak v Lithuania, Grand Chamber, 23.3.2010 and Ramanauskas v Lithuania, Grand Chamber, 5.2.2008.

  56. 56.

    Incal v Turkey , 9.6.1998.

  57. 57.

    Selçuk and Asker v Turkey , 24.4.1998. See also Kurić v Slovenia, Grand Chamber, 12.3.2014.

  58. 58.

    See, for example, Vistiņš v Latvia, Grand Chamber, 253.2014 where pecuniary damages of €339,392 and €871,271 were awarded.

  59. 59.

    Gas & Electricity Markets Authority v Infinis plc [2013] EWCA Civ 70.

  60. 60.

    See further Tabori (2013)194.

  61. 61.

    Pine Valley Developments v Ireland (1993) 16 EHRR 379.

  62. 62.

    Young, James and Webster v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 38.

  63. 63.

    (1988) 10 EHRR 293.

  64. 64.

    Greenfield, op cit, at [64]. See also Guiso-Gallisay v Italy, ECtHR, 22.12.2009 where damages of €45,000 were awarded for the loss of opportunity occasioned by land being unavailable for a period in violation of Art. 1 Protocol No 1.

  65. 65.

    Varnava v Turkey , 18.9.2009.

  66. 66.

    Halford v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 523

  67. 67.

    Incal v Turkey , 9.6.1998.

  68. 68.

    Doustaly v France , 23.4.1998.

  69. 69.

    Estima Jorge v Portugal , 21.4.1998.

  70. 70.

    Aydin v Turkey (1998) 25 EHRR 251.

  71. 71.

    Papamichalopoulos v Greece (1996) 21 EHRR 439; Ališić v Bosnia, 16.7.2014.

  72. 72.

    Keegan v Ireland (1994) 18 EHRR 342.

  73. 73.

    R. (KB) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC (Admin) 193, [2004] QB 936 at [72].

  74. 74.

    Cazenave de la Roche v France , 9.6.1998.

  75. 75.

    Vasilescu v Romania, 22.5.1998.

  76. 76.

    Papageorgiou v Greece , 22.10.1997.

  77. 77.

    Aydin v Turkey (1998) 25 EHRR 251.

  78. 78.

    Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v Greece (1998) 25 EHRR 198; Al-Jedda v United Kingdom , 7.7.2011.

  79. 79.

    (1998) 25 EHRR 251.

  80. 80.

    21.10.2013.

  81. 81.

    12.5.2014.

  82. 82.

    The awards were to be distributed by the Cypriot Government to the individual victims.

  83. 83.

    24.10.1997.

  84. 84.

    At [77]. See also R. (Richards) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC (Admin) 93.

  85. 85.

    7.6.2012.

  86. 86.

    Tekin v Turkey , 9.6.1998.

  87. 87.

    Anufrijeva, op cit and KB, op cit.

  88. 88.

    Selçuk and Asker v Turkey , 24.4.1998.

  89. 89.

    (1997) 23 EHRR 553 at [113].

  90. 90.

    13.12.2012.

  91. 91.

    Op cit.

  92. 92.

    At [50].

  93. 93.

    R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14, [2005] 1 WLR 673.

  94. 94.

    At [19] per Lord Bingham.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Clayton (2005) 436.

  97. 97.

    Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 865 (QB).

  98. 98.

    At [97].

  99. 99.

    Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72.

  100. 100.

    Per Lord Dyson at [60].

  101. 101.

    At [87].

  102. 102.

    At [89].

  103. 103.

    R. (B) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2072.

  104. 104.

    [70]–[71]. See also R. (Waxman) v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 133 (Admin) where damages of £3,500 were awarded against the Crown Prosecution Service for a breach of Art. 8 resulting from its failure to pursue a prosecution against a man harassing her.

  105. 105.

    OOO v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 1246 (QB).

  106. 106.

    R. (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 23, [2013] 2 WLR 1157 at [13].

  107. 107.

    See also R. (Richards) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC (Admin) 93 where it was held that it was not necessary to award damages to a prisoner for a lack of independence and impartiality, contrary to Art. 5(4) in release arrangements as there was no causal link between the breach of his Convention rights and his detention.

  108. 108.

    Mills v HM Advocate [2002] UKPC D2, [2004] 1 AC 441.

  109. 109.

    Attorney General’s Reference No.2 of 2001 [2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 AC 72 at [24] per Lord Bingham.

  110. 110.

    R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14, [2005] 1 WLR 673.

  111. 111.

    The claimant had also been denied legal representation in breach of Art. 6(3)(c).

  112. 112.

    Greenfield, op cit, [11]–[17].

  113. 113.

    Greenfield, ibid, at [26]–[29].

  114. 114.

    Anufrijeva, op cit, at [75]. It also held that similar considerations applied to the processing of asylum claims and the procedure for admitting the relatives of a refugee.

  115. 115.

    R. (Bernard) v London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC (Admin) 2282.

  116. 116.

    Bernard, ibid, at [34]–[41].

  117. 117.

    W v Westminster City Council [2005] EWHC (QB) 102.

  118. 118.

    R. (Mohammed) v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2010] EWHC 1228 (Admin).

  119. 119.

    Re P [2007] EWCA Civ 2, [2007] 1 FLR 1957.

  120. 120.

    Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB).

  121. 121.

    At [231].

  122. 122.

    At [235].

  123. 123.

    R. (Wilkinson) v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2005] UKHL 30, [2005] 1 WLR 1718.

  124. 124.

    [27]–[28] per Lord Hoffmann.

  125. 125.

    See, for example, Varuhas (2009) 750; and Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, Law Com No. 266/ Scot Law Com No.180 (2000).

  126. 126.

    Steele (2008) 614.

  127. 127.

    Fairgrieve (2001) 706–709.

  128. 128.

    Leach (2005) 148. See also Loucaides (2008) 182.

  129. 129.

    7.7.2011.

  130. 130.

    See, e.g., R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Amin [2003] UKHL 51, [2004] 1 AC 653.

  131. 131.

    17.7.2014.

  132. 132.

    16.11.2010.

  133. 133.

    See also McFarlane v Ireland, 10.9.2010, where €5,500 was awarded to a released prisoner for violation of the Art.6 reasonable time guarantee and Art. 13; and Cudak v Lithuania, 23.3.2010, where €10,000 was awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained from breach of the Art. 6 right of access to court.

  134. 134.

    7 November 2013.

  135. 135.

    See also X v Austria, 19.2.2013 where a violation of Art. 14 with Art. 8 was found as the adoption of one partner’s child by the other partner was prohibited where it was a same sex couple. A joint award of €10,000 was made to all three applicants. In Konstantin Markin v Russia, 22.3.2012 an award of €3,000 non pecuniary damages was made to the applicant who had been refused parental leave as he was male.

  136. 136.

    In Catan v Moldova and Russia, 19.10.2012, €6,000 was awarded to each of the applicants for the breach of Art. 2 Protocol No.1 resulting from the closure of Moldovan language schools.

  137. 137.

    16.3.2010.

  138. 138.

    21.1.2011.

  139. 139.

    See also Hirsi Jama v Italy, 23.2.2012 where non pecuniary damages of €15,000 each were awarded for violations of Arts 3 and 13 and also Art. 4 of Protocol 4.

  140. 140.

    Shelton (2002) at 838.

  141. 141.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RemedyAndReparation.aspx last accessed 1 Dec. 2014.

References

  • Clayton, Richard. 2005. Damage limitation: The courts and the Human Rights Act damages. Public Law 3: 429–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairgrieve, Duncan. 2001. The Human Rights Act 1998, damages and tort law, Public Law: 695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, Philip. 2005. Beyond the bug river – A new dawn for redress before the European court of Human Rights. European Human Rights Law Review 2: 148–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucaides, Louikis G. 2008. Reparation for violations of human rights under the European convention and restitution in integrum. European Human Rights Law Review 2: 182–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill (Cm 3782) (London. TSO, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, Dinah. 2002. Righting wrongs: Reparations in the articles on state responsibility. American Journal of International Law 96: 833–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, Jenny. 2008. Damages in tort and under the Human Rights Act: Remedial or functional separation. Cambridge Law Journal 67(3): 606–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabori, Tom. 2013. Growth industry: Article 1 of the first protocol to the ECHR. Judicial Review 18(2): 194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Law Commission (Law Com 266) and The Scottish Law Commission (Scot Law Com No. 180). 2000. Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varuhas, Jason. 2009. A tort-based approach to damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. Modern Law Review 72(5): 750–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Merris Amos

Authors
  1. Merris Amos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merris Amos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, Gdańsk University, Gdańsk, Poland

    Ewa Bagińska

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Amos, M. (2016). Damages for Violations of Human Rights Law in the United Kingdom. In: Bagińska, E. (eds) Damages for Violations of Human Rights. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation