Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 25.5 MB]
Categories:
Human Rights, Civil Liberties & Public Law
European Law
Criminal Law
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

Positive duties under the ECHR have the potential to improve the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system and provide accountability for inadequate policing and prosecution. The post-HRA position represents a radical departure from the immunity from suit imposed in the sphere of negligence. This has remained relatively unexplored territory in the UK courts and there is a significant body of Strasbourg caselaw which has barely made its way into the domestic arena. The primary duty upon states under the ECHR is the negative obligation to refrain from inflicting loss of life, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and other breaches of the Convention upon individuals. Additionally, there are a range of obligations upon states to take positive action in certain circumstances. Four categories of positive obligations can be identified: the enhanced investigative duty, the systemic duty, the operational duty (duty to protect) and the duty to investigate and prosecute. This two-part podcast series with Nogah Ofer from Bhatt Murphy Solicitors will examine the positive obligations identified above focusing in particular on the operational duty and the duty to investigate and prosecute and their implications for day to day policing and prosecution in the contexts of Articles 2, 3, 4 and to some extent 8.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand how positive obligations under the ECHR have the potential to improve the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system and provide accountability for inadequate policing and prosecution;
  • Be familiar with the range of obligations upon states to take positive action in certain circumstances: the enhanced investigative duty, system duty, operational duty and the duty to investigate and prosecute;
  • Have considered the positive obligations in detail, some pertinent domestic and European authorities and their implications for day to day policing and prosecution in the contexts of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the ECHR.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Introduction
Legal Principles
Practical Guide
Sources and References:
  • Ay v Turkey (1996);
  • Beganovic v Croatia (2009);
  • Chahal v UK (1996);
  • Edwards v UK (2002);
  • Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police (1995);
  • Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v Georgia (2007);
  • Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988);
  • Jankovic v Croatia (2009);
  • Jordan v UK (2003);
  • Keenan v UK (2001);
  • Kurt v Turkey (1999);
  • MC v Bulgaria (2004);
  • Milanovic v Serbia (2010);
  • Morrison v IPCC (2009);
  • OOO and others v Commissioner of Police (20 May 2011);
  • Opuz v Turkey (2009);
  • Osman v UK (1998);
  • Osmanoglu v Turkey (2008);
  • Pretty v UK (2002);
  • R (Adam) v SSHD (2005);
  • R (AM) v SSHD (2009);
  • R (Amin) v SSHD (2003);
  • R (AP) v HM Coroner for Worcestershire (2011);
  • R (B) v DPP (2009);
  • R (D) v SSHD (2006);
  • R (Humberstone) v Legal Services Commission (2010);
  • R (Morrison) v IPCC (2008);
  • R (P) v Secretary of State for Justice (2009);
  • R (Rabone) v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010);
  • Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2;
  • R (Savage) v South Essex NHS Trust (2010);
  • Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia (2010);
  • Saadi v Italy (2006);
  • Secic v Croatia (2007);
  • Siliadin v France (2006);
  • Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex (2008);
  • Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire(2008);
  • Vasilyev v Russia (2009);
  • Z v UK (2002).

In this two-part CPDcast Nogah Ofer from Bhatt Murphy Solicitors discusses the role of the European Court of Human Rights in terms of protecting the rights of victims of crime and providing accountability for inadequate policing and prosecution.

Date recorded: 24th February 2012

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com