Article 3 protects you from:

• torture (mental or physical)

• inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and

• deportation or extradition (being sent to another country to face criminal charges) if there is a real risk you will face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country concerned.

As you would expect, public authorities must not inflict this sort of treatment on you. They must also protect you if someone else is treating you in this way. If they know this right is being breached, they must intervene to stop it. The state must also investigate credible allegations of such treatment.

What is torture?

Torture occurs when someone deliberately causes very serious and cruel suffering (physical or mental) to another person. This might be to punish someone, or to intimidate or obtain information from them.

What is inhuman treatment?

Inhuman treatment or punishment is treatment which causes intense physical or mental suffering. It includes:

• serious physical assault

• psychological interrogation

• cruel or barbaric detention conditions or restraints

• serious physical or psychological abuse in a health or care setting, and

• threatening to torture someone, if the threat is real and immediate.

What is degrading treatment?

Degrading treatment means treatment that is extremely humiliating and undignified. Whether treatment reaches a level that can be defined as degrading depends on a number of factors. These include the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and the sex, age, vulnerability and health of the victim. This concept is based on the principle of dignity - the innate value of all human beings.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

Your right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way is absolute. This means it must never be limited or restricted in any way. For example, a public authority can never use lack of resources as a defence against an accusation that it has treated someone in an inhuman or degrading way.

Using this right – example

A young man with mental health problems was placed in residential care. During a visit, his parents noticed bruising on his body. They raised the issue with the care managers but their concerns were dismissed. They were also banned from visiting their son. The parents raised their son’s right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way and their right to respect for family life. The ban on visits was revoked and the bruising on the young man’s body was investigated.

(Example taken from ‘The Human Rights Act: Changing Lives’, British Institute of Human Rights, 2006.)

What the law says

Article 3: Prohibition of torture

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6 protects your right to a fair trial

You have the right to a fair and public trial or hearing if:

• you are charged with a criminal offence and have to go to court, or

• a public authority is making a decision that has a impact upon your civil rights or obligations.

In this context, your civil rights and obligations are those recognised in areas of UK law such as property law, planning law, family law, contract law and employment law.

It is a good idea to get further advice if you think the right to a fair and public hearing might apply to your case.

What is a fair and public hearing?

You have the right to a fair and public hearing that:

• is held within a reasonable time

• is heard by an independent and impartial decision-maker

• gives you all the relevant information

• is open to the public (although the press and public can be excluded for highly sensitive cases)

• allows you representation and an interpreter where appropriate, and

• is followed by a public decision.

You also have the right to an explanation of how the court or decision-making authority reached its decision.

What rights do you have at a criminal trial?

You have the right to:

• be presumed innocent until you are proven guilty

• be told as early as possible what you are accused of

• remain silent

• have enough time to prepare your case

• legal aid (funding) for a lawyer if you cannot afford one and this is needed for justice to be served

• attend your trial

• access all the relevant information

• put forward your side of the case at trial

• question the main witness against you and call other witnesses, and

• have an interpreter, if you need one.

Everybody must have equal access to the courts under the Human Rights Act. This includes a right to bring a civil case (a case between individuals or organisations), although this right can be restricted in some situations (see below).

See also the right to no punishment without law.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

The right to a fair and public hearing does not always apply to cases involving:

• immigration law

• extradition

• tax, and

• voting rights.

There is also no automatic right to an appeal (an application to a higher court for the reversal of the decision of a lower court).

The right of access to the courts can be restricted, for example, if you:

• keep bringing cases without merit

• miss the time-limit for bringing a case.

There are times when the public and press are denied access to a hearing. This can happen in the interests of protecting:

• morals

• public order or national security

• children and young people, or

• privacy.

The courts might also decide to exclude the public or press if they think that their presence is not in the interests of justice.

What the law says

Article 6: Right to a fair and public hearing

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

• to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him

• to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

• to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require

• to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him

• to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Example case - DG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2010]

DG appealed against a decision to refuse him Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which was taken after a medical examination. Even though DG requested Jobcentre Plus to contact his GP (also his nominated representative), neither the GP nor DG’s social worker were approached for evidence. At the first stage of the independent tribunal process (the First Tier Tribunal), DG waived his right to put his case in person at an oral hearing. This decision was based on advice from Jobcentre Plus. The appeal was dealt with on paper and dismissed.

When DG appealed this decision, the Upper Tribunal found that DG did not have a fair hearing of his appeal as required by Article 6. This decision took into account the bad advice from Jobcentre Plus, the claimant’s mental health problems and the failure of both the Department for Work and Pensions and the tribunal to communicate with his GP.

(Case summary taken from ‘Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for public authorities’. Download the publication for more examples and legal case studies that show how human rights work in practice.)

Article 7 of the Human Rights Act

Article 7 means you cannot be charged with a criminal offence for an action that was not a crime when you committed it.

This means that public authorities must explain clearly what counts as a criminal offence so you know when you are breaking the law.

It is also against the law for the courts to give you a heavier punishment than was available at the time you committed an offence.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

The right to no punishment without law is absolute. This means that it cannot be restricted in any way.

However, the Human Rights Act does make an exception for acts that were ‘against the general law of civilised nations’ at the time they were committed. It was this type of provision that allowed war crimes and crimes against humanity to be prosecuted following the Second World War.

What the law says

Article 7: No punishment without law

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

Example case - R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Uttley [2004]

A man convicted of various sexual offences, including rape, was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He was released after serving two-thirds of his sentence, subject to licence conditions (rules that must be followed after early release from prison) that applied for three-quarters of the original sentence. Had he been convicted and sentenced at the time the offences took place, however, the legal provisions then in force would have entitled him to temporary release without conditions. He argued that his licence conditions represented a heavier penalty than was applicable at the time his offences were committed, and that his right to no punishment without law had been breached.

The House of Lords disagreed. They held that human rights law would only be infringed if a sentence exceeded the maximum penalty available under the law in force at the time the offence was committed. That was not the case here because, even at the date of the offences, the maximum sentence for rape was life imprisonment. The intention of the right to no punishment without law was not to punish an offender in exactly same way as would have been the case at the time of the offence. It simply ensures that a person is not punished more heavily than the maximum penalty applicable at the time of the offence. In this case, the imposition of licence conditions did not make the sentence heavier than it would have been under the earlier regime.

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private life, your family life, your home and your correspondence (letters, telephone calls and emails, for example).

What is meant by private life?

You have the right to live your life privately without government interference.

The courts have interpreted the concept of ‘private life’ very broadly. It covers things like your right to determine your sexual orientation, your lifestyle, and the way you look and dress. It also includes your right to control who sees and touches your body. For example, this means that public authorities cannot do things like leave you undressed in a busy ward, or take a blood sample without your permission.

The concept of private life also covers your right to develop your personal identity and to forge friendships and other relationships. This includes a right to participate in essential economic, social, cultural and leisure activities. In some circumstances, public authorities may need to help you enjoy your right to a private life, including your ability to participate in society.

This right means that the media and others can be prevented from interfering in your life. It also means that personal information about you (including official records, photographs, letters, diaries and medical records) should be kept securely and not shared without your permission, except in certain circumstances.

What is meant by family life?

You have the right to enjoy family relationships without interference from government. This includes the right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact.

‘Family life’ can include the relationship between an unmarried couple, an adopted child and the adoptive parent, and a foster parent and fostered child.

See also the right to marry.

What is meant by home?

The right to respect for your home does not give you a right to housing. It is a right to enjoy your existing home peacefully. This means that public authorities should not stop you entering or living in your home without very good reason, and they should not enter without your permission. This applies whether or not you own your home.

See also the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

• protect national security

• protect public safety

• protect the economy

• protect health or morals

• prevent disorder or crime, or

• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.  

Using this right - example

A physical disabilities team at a local authority decided to use support workers to help service users enjoy social activities, including visits to pubs and clubs. But when a service user asked to be accompanied to a gay pub, the scheme manager refused on the grounds that the support workers were not prepared to attend a gay venue. Recognising the human rights angle, an advocate working on behalf of the service user challenged this decision based on the right to respect for private life.

(Example provided by the British Institute of Human Rights.)

What the law says

Article 8: Right to privacy

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.

Example case - Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002]

This case heard in the European Court of Human Rights explored issues for transsexual people in relation to their rights to private life and to marry. The judgment was a landmark decision for the treatment of transsexual people, a group which had not been recognised in UK law as:

• their acquired gender

• able to hold a birth certificate showing their acquired gender, and

• able to marry someone of the opposite gender.

The Court ruled that this treatment violated both the right to private life and the right to marry. The UK Government later introduced the Gender Recognition Act 2004, creating a mechanism to enable all these things.

See the publication ‘Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for public authorities’ for more examples and legal case studies that show how human rights work in practice.

Article 9 protects your right to freedom of thought, belief and religion

It includes the right to change your religion or beliefs at any time.

You also have the right to put your thoughts and beliefs into action. This could include your right to wear religious clothing, the right to talk about your beliefs or take part in religious worship. Public authorities cannot stop you practising your religion, without very good reason – see the section on restrictions below.  

Importantly, this right protects a wide range of non-religious beliefs including atheism, agnosticism, veganism and pacifism. For a belief to be protected under this article, it must be serious, concern important aspects of human life or behaviour, be sincerely held, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

Public authorities cannot interfere with your right to hold or change your beliefs, but there are some situations in which public authorities can interfere with your right to manifest or show your thoughts, belief and religion. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to protect:

• public safety

• public order

• health or morals, and

• the rights and freedoms of other people.                     

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

Using this right – example

The European Court of Human Rights has found that a person cannot be forced to demonstrate views or behaviour associated with a particular religion. This means, for example, that public authorities should take care when using procedures that involve the swearing of oaths. A requirement to swear on a religious text, such as the Bible, would breach human rights law. An alternative form of affirmation should be available that isn’t connected with religion.

(Example taken from Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for public authorities.)

What the law says

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Example case - R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others [2005]

A group of parents and teachers tried unsuccessfully to use Article 9 to overturn the ban on corporal punishment of children in schools. They believed that part of the duty of education in the Christian context was for teachers to assume the parental role and administer physical punishment to misbehaving children. The House of Lords rejected the case because the parents’ rights under Article 9 were restricted by the need to protect children from the harmful effects that corporal punishment might cause – a punishment that involves deliberately inflicting physical violence. The House of Lords concluded that the vulnerability of children made the legislation necessary and that the statutory ban on corporal punishment in schools pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate.

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

• published articles, books or leaflets

• television or radio broadcasting

• works of art

• the internet and social media

The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.

Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

• protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety

• prevent disorder or crime

• protect health or morals

• protect the rights and reputations of other people

• prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence

• maintain the authority and impartiality of judges

An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred.

However, the relevant public authority must show that the restriction is ‘proportionate’, in other words that it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned.  

Using this right – example

This right is particularly important for journalists and other people working in the media.

They must be free to criticise the government and our public institutions without fear of prosecution – this is a vital feature of a democratic society.

But that doesn't prevent the state from imposing restrictions on the media in order to protect other human rights, such as a person's right to respect for their private life.

What the law says

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Example case - Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom [1991]

The Guardian and The Observer newspapers published excerpts from Peter Wright’s book Spycatcher, which included allegations that MI5 had acted unlawfully.

The government obtained a court order preventing the newspapers from printing further material until proceedings relating to a breach of confidence had finished.

But when the book was published, The Guardian complained that the continuation of the court order infringed the right to freedom of expression.

The European Court of Human Rights said that the court order was lawful because it was in the interests of national security.

However, it also said that that wasn't enough reason to continue the newspaper publication ban once the book had been published, because the information was no longer confidential anyway.