Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: A Review of Case Law Related to Forensic Psychiatry and Prisoners in the United Kingdom

Martin J. R. Curtice and John J. Sandford
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online June 2009, 37 (2) 232-238;
Martin J. R. Curtice
MB, ChB, MRCPsych, LLM
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John J. Sandford
MB, ChB, MSc, MRCPsych, DCH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    The Principle of Proportionality and Article 8

    Proportionality Clinical intervention should balance the severity of the effect of the intervention with the severity of the presenting clinical problem (i.e., it should be a proportionate response to a clinical scenario).
    Proportional interference When considering whether an interference with a convention right is proportionate, the burden lies on the state to justify its action. The interference must go no further than is strictly necessary to achieve its permitted purpose; the more substantial the interference the more that is required to justify it (i.e., a sliding-scale approach to its use).
    Proportionality test for the use of Article 8 What is the interest that is relied upon (i.e., private and family life, home and correspondence)? Does the interest correspond to a pressing social need? Is the interference proportionate to the interest? Are the reasons given by the suthorities relevant and sufficient?
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Article 8 Principles for Clinical Practice

    Main aim of Article 8 To protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, but in doing so, to strike a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the interest of the community as a whole.
    Article 8 engagement The Court will first assess whether paragraph 1 applies, and if it does, Article 8 will be engaged; then the components of paragraph 2 will be analyzed to assess whether the Article has been violated.
    Article 8(2) violations There will be a violation unless the three criteria are met: the interference must be in accordance with the law, a necessity in a democratic society and in pursuit of one of the specified objectives. The onus is on the state to establish that these are met; otherwise there will be a breach.
    In accordance with the law This is a three-pronged notion: there must be a specific legal rule or regimen that authorizes the interference; the citizen must have adequate access to the law in question, and the law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee the circumstances in which the law would or might be applied.
    Necessary in a democratic society This is a two-pronged notion and implies that an interference corresponds to a pressing social need and that it is proportionate to the legitimate goal. European institutions have stated that the typical features of a democratic society are pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness.
    Article 8 specified objectives These are national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder and crime, protection of health and morals, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others. These exceptions will be interpreted narrowly.
    Margin of appreciation Domestic states have different accepted clinical practices and standards; hence, the margin of appreciation is accepted as being very wide to reflect this. Therefore, clinical decisions which are proportional, therapeutically necessary and in keeping with accepted clinical practice are very unlikely to be outside this margin.
    Private life This concept covers the right to develop one's own personality and to create relationships with others. It contains both positive and negative aspects.
    Positive obligations The state has an obligation to provide for an effective respect for private life.
    Negative obligations The State should refrain from interference with a private life.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 37 (2)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 37, Issue 2
June 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: A Review of Case Law Related to Forensic Psychiatry and Prisoners in the United Kingdom
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: A Review of Case Law Related to Forensic Psychiatry and Prisoners in the United Kingdom
Martin J. R. Curtice, John J. Sandford
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2009, 37 (2) 232-238;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: A Review of Case Law Related to Forensic Psychiatry and Prisoners in the United Kingdom
Martin J. R. Curtice, John J. Sandford
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2009, 37 (2) 232-238;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998
    • Summary
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Toward Aspirational Forensic Mental Health Practice
  • Ethics Challenges in Correctional Mental Health
  • Methamphetamine-Associated Psychosis and Criminal Responsibility
Show more Analysis and Commentary

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law