Page 313 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
Waiver
Convention rights can be ‘waived’. This is likely to be particularly important in relation to
fair trial rights and the rights of employees of standard public authorities. However, such
waiver is only effective if it is established in an unequivocal manner and is attended by the
minimum safeguards commensurate with the importance of the right. Under the HRA the
waiver will have to be:

Clear and unequivocal
Made in the absence of constraint, and
Made in ‘full knowledge’ of the nature and extent of the right.

In addition, the court may refuse to accept that a right has been waived if there are
compelling policy considerations to the contrary.

19.3.2 Right to respect for private life (Article 8)
Article 8 states:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this
right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the
economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.

The concept of ‘private life’ in Article 8 is open-ended. It does not just include the notion of
an ‘inner life’, but also ‘the right to establish and develop relationships with other human
beings’. It does not exclude the activities of a professional or business nature (Niemetz v
Germany (1992)).

The right to respect for private life includes:

The right to personal identity (Gaskin v United Kingdom (1989)) or sexual identity
(Cossey v United Kingdom (1990))
The right to personal sexuality (Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981))
The collection of personal information (Z v Finland (1997))
The right to physical and moral integrity (A v United Kingdom (1998))
The right to choose mode of dress and appearance (Sutter v Switzerland
(1984)).

A businessman’s or professional’s office may constitute a ‘home’ for the purposes of Article
8 (Niemetz v Germany (1992)). Interference with the home also includes blighting the
276