The Court of Appeal laid down principles relating to s 12 HRA 1998.

The question was whether the owners and proprietors of a care home who took people on behalf of a local authority was a public authority for the purposes of s 6 HRA 1998.

The provision of care and accommodation by a private company, as opposed to its regulation and supervision under statutory rules, is not an inherently public function and falls outside the ambit of s 6(3)(b).

The House of Lords was asked to interpret s 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in a manner which is consistent with Art 6 ECHR. The section concerns the admissibility of evidence in rape cases relating to consent.

The test when applying the interpretative obligation under s 3 HRA 1998, is whether the evidential material was nevertheless so relevant to the issue of consent that to exclude it would endanger the fairness of the trial under Art 6. Where that test is satisfied the evidence should not be excluded.

The claimant was a prisoner who applied for judicial review of the deputy controller’s decisions, contending that they infringed his right to a fair trial under Art 6 ECHR, as scheduled to the HRA 1998. He sought damages for violations of Art 6.

The House of Lords laid down significant principles concerning awards of damages under s 8 HRA 1998.

This case concerned several powers granted to the Secretary of State by the Transport and Works Act 1992, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Highways Act 1980, and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The claimants sought declarations of incompatibility under s 4 HRA 1998 on the ground that they were incompatible with Art 6 ECHR.

The impugned powers of the Secretary of State were not incompatible with Art 6(1).