The Human Rights Act protects everyone’s human rights; young and old, rich and poor, yours and mine. Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities.

Hopefully this will never happen to you but if it did, you might find you need to rely on the Human Rights Act to help you.

Here are some examples cases which have used the Human Rights Act.

Investigations and inquests

A number of cases have highlighted the government’s duty to carry out an effective and open inquiry into people’s deaths where state agencies may have been partly responsible.

Naomi Bryant

For example, in an ongoing case, Verna Bryant is using Article 2 (the right to life) to ensure that a public inquest will be held into the death of her daughter, Naomi, who was murdered by a dangerous prisoner already serving a life sentence but released on licence, with inadequate supervision, at the time of the murder. Find out more about the inquest.


Paul Wright

We advised the family of Paul Wright who died in prison following an asthma attack, and used the Human Rights Act to help secure a public inquiry into his death. Find out more about Paul's case.

Without an open and public investigation into such deaths, it is impossible for the public to know what went wrong and what lessons should be learnt.

Children in detention

Staff in juvenile detention centres are rightly allowed to physically restrain children where necessary to prevent injury, escape or property damage. However, the Government changed the rules to allow staff to use painful methods of restraint such as rib and thumb “distraction”, and the nose “distraction” technique simply to maintain “good order and discipline”.

In July 2008, the Court of Appeal quashed the new rules when it found that to permit the use of force against vulnerable children for the vague purpose of “good order and discipline” breached the children’s right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and their right to a private life (Article 8).

Dignity for the disabled

In 2003 two severely disabled sisters and their parents used the Human Rights Act to challenge their local council’s decision not to allow any staff ever to lift them manually, but only in a hoist.

The High Court emphasised that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protected the dignity of the sisters, their right to participate in the life of the community and to have access to an appropriate range of recreational and cultural activities.

Article 3 (the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment) might well be relevant, for example, in circumstances where the consequences of failing to lift the sisters manually might result in them remaining sitting in bodily waste or on the lavatory for hours, unable to be moved.

The council had to balance its duties to the sisters with its health and safety duties towards their carers, but a blanket ban on any manual lifting would not be lawful.

Protecting a patient in hospital

A has cerebral palsy. Because of the risk that he might choke on his food, the NHS trust responsible for his care refused to allow his carers to feed him orally. Instead he was fed through a tube directly into his stomach. Despite the risk he wished to be able on occasions to eat normally and to enjoy his food. Relying on Article 8 (respect for the person) Liberty persuaded a specially established ethical panel to agree to his request.

Protecting a worker

C was sacked from her job in airport security after she was refused counter-terrorism clearance. She had no idea why she might be thought to be a risk and was not given any reasons. Liberty took judicial review proceedings relying, among other arguments, on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing). During the case, it became obvious that the decision to sack her was made on flimsy grounds. The Department of Transport conceded that the process was flawed and paid C compensation. It has also now altered its procedures.

Challenging restrictions on freedom

On behalf of F, a 14 year old boy, Liberty brought a challenge to the police’s power, in designated areas, to take young people under the age of 16 home if they were out after 9 p.m. Among other arguments, Liberty relied on F’s rights under Articles 5, 8 and 14 (liberty, respect for the person and right not to be discriminated against). The Government conceded that the power could only be used against those engaged in anti-social behaviour and not against people like F who were law-abiding.

Protecting the right to protest

Five protesters held a peaceful protest during the Queen's visit to Wakefield. Silently, they held up posters demanding fair pensions for all. They were arrested and held at the police station for 5 hours. Liberty obtained damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment because the arrests were a disproportionate interference with the protesters' Article 10 rights (peaceful protest).