Most recent :
|
Landmark Challange to National UK ban on smoking now imminent
|
|
|
|
UK Independence Party MEP speaks out over Inland Revenue rules
|
|
|
Search Speeches and Articles
| |
| News and Articles |
|
|
Landmark Challange to National UK ban on smoking now imminent
|
Proposed Judicial Review in relation to the Health Act 2006 (“the HA”) and the Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007 (“the Regulations”).
Freedom 2 Choose is an un-funded volunteer group of licensees and members of the public operating on donations. It is important to understand that their campaign is not about the promotion of smoking; many of the members are not and have never been smokers.
Fundamentally, F2C are about fighting against injustice and erosion of freedom and personal liberties. Freedom 2 Choose has a petition of 16,500 signatures and is still growing in number with online support from public hitting about 35,000 approximately.
A pre-claim letter before action was sent on 12th June 2007 by the solicitor on behalf of Freedom2Choose to The Attorney General and The Secretary of State for Health referring to a proposed judicial review of the compatibility of certain Convention rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”), namely:
a) Article 1 of the first Protocol as they involve a restriction on the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The provisions amount to a control on the use of property. Those restrictions are disproportionate.
b) Article 8 by failure to respect the right to privacy of all those individuals who wish to make use of the facilities of public houses and social and members clubs and to smoke there and constitutes an infringement of their rights under Article 8(1) ECHR and that restriction is not justifiable. Here we rely on the decision of the Court of Appeal in R(Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General [2006] (legal challenge against fox hunting), which raises identical human rights issues. This case is currently awaiting to be heard by the House of Lords.
In simple terms, our various client groups that Freedom2Choose represent, wish to live their personal lives as they choose without interference from the State.
c) The interpretation or validity of regulation 11of the Regulations prohibiting smoking in taxis for hire to the public. It is argued that the Regulations are unclear, ambiguous and contrary to the intention of Parliament and therefore must either be interpreted so that it does not prohibit the driver of the vehicle from smoking at a time when the vehicle is not, in fact, carrying members of the public or: if it is not capable of being so interpreted, then the Regulation is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the First Protocol.
Ormerods Solicitors
15.06.07
|
| Back to content list
To print this story click here. The story will open in a pop up window, Click on File and then click print, you can then close the pop up window.
|
|
|
|
