Correction
| Date | 01 March 2002 |
| Published date | 01 March 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050204900124 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
8801-In Court 20/2/02 9:26 am Page 7
interference with his right to respect for
family, using private transport and main
his private and family life under ECHR
roads. This compromise proposal fairly
Article 8.
and reasonably reflected the competing
interests involved and their respective
Confirming that Article 8(1) applies
values. Though the applicant would not
in such circumstances, the High Court
have complete freedom to find work and
recognised that the Home Secretary should
there remained some possibility of the
give weight to the concerns and anxieties
victim’s family experiencing a chance
of the victim’s family and that their
encounter with their daughter ’s killer, the
sensibilities fall within the “rights and
revision met the requirements of
freedoms of others” (under Article 8(2))
proportionality. The lack of any detail
that may justify an infringement of the
from the applicant regarding his “close
rights conferred by 8(1). The judge noted,
friends” precluded that factor being given
however, that the specified wide exclusion
any real weight and his inability to watch
zone had been adopted from a Victim
his local football team, while regrettable,
Liaison Report but had not received
was of insufficient weight to count
detailed or sufficient consideration from
against the proposal. The revised terms
the victim’s family’s point of view – for
of the licence condition were thus upheld.
example, their street was partly outside the
R (on the application of CRAVEN) v HOME
zone and the victim’s mother ’s workplace
SECRETARY (2001, unreported).
lay just outside the zone – or the
applicant’s circumstances. The condition
Note: This important and interesting
was unreasonable and disproportionate to
judgement has real implications...
To continue reading
Request your trial