Protocols in UK Law

However, given the purpose and genesis of the legislation, and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, that cannot of itself justify an argument that there has been an infringement of the Article 1P1 rights of the owner of an SSSI whose value has been substantially diminished as a result of the amendments effected by the 2000 Act.

It is well established that a reasonable relationship of proportionality under Article 1 does not import a test of strict necessity (as Mr Holgate has argued). The fact that there may be other even better methods of achieving the same ends does not necessarily mean that any particular measure is disproportionate under Article 1: see James v the UK [1986] 8 EHRR 123; Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden [1991] 13 EHRR 309.

Whatever its purpose, the operation of the provision in circumstances such as the present is truly bizarre. The diligent road-builder who completes his project in time is penalised by liability for compensation; the inefficient road-builder is rewarded by evading liability altogether. Not only do they suffer the inconvenience and disturbance of a protracted maintenance period, but they lose their right to any compensation for the effects of the use which they are already experiencing.

The law of self-defence in England and Wales is different in the criminal law from the civil law. In the first place, when a defendant in criminal proceedings is being prosecuted for an assault or homicide, it is for the prosecution to prove that the act was not done in lawful self-defence. In the civil law the burden of proving self-defence lies upon the defendant. In the second place, in a criminal court, the prosecution must disprove self-defence to the criminal standard of proof.

In the absence of the statutory provision with which this appeal is concerned Vicky would be entitled, like any other sub-contractor, to be paid the contract price in accordance with its contract with the contractor without any deduction in respect of its own tax liability. However it became notorious that many sub-contractors engaged in the construction industry "disappeared" without settling their tax liabilities, with a consequential loss of revenue to the exchequer.

The claimant's right is largely but not entirely extinguished. It could be exploited and would presumably have some small value if sold for leisure interest rather than commercial use. Given the extent of the restriction imposed, which eliminated at least 95% of the benefit of the right, it is to be considered as closer to deprivation than mere control, and that balance is relevant when considering the proportionality of the measure challenged.

They have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No.1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate.