The Consumption of Too Much Sugar - Essay Example

Research shows that the consumption of too much sugar early in the morning causes people to loose concentration later in the day. The government decides to take action. And introduces the “healthy breakfast (fictional) bill” to the commons. The minister introducing the bill makes a statement that it complies with the European convention of human rights. The bill proposes that all civil servants, NHS staff and police officers will have to eat unsweetened porridge for breakfast. Failure to do so will be a criminal offence. S31 of the Bill authorizes random blood sugar tests, and home inspections. You are contacted by Corinne, who is a nurse who enjoys eating chocolate flavoured cereal. She has heard about the proposed legislation and is worried. If the Bill becomes law, and her employers try to stop her from eating coco pops, will she be able to challenge this in the courts? If so, how would the courts approach her claim. Advice Corrine, with reference to the European convention of human rights, and the human rights act. If the proposed Bill becomes law and the employees of Corinne stop her from eating coco pops, then Corrine can challenge this in the courts. Under the Human Rights Act, 1998 of United Kingdom, Corinne can appeal in UK courts against the Bill. The Human Rights Act, 1998 is an act of the Parliament of United Kingdom, which gives effect in United Kingdom to the rights contained in the articles of European Convention on Human Rights. The Act is meant to provide remedy to the aggrieved parties in the UK courts itself without their having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg Germany. European court of Human Rights is the supra-national court of last resort for human rights. On the Appeal of Corinne against the new law in the UK courts, the UK courts will interpret the new law to check whether it is compatible with the articles of the European Human Rights Convention or not. The Human Rights Act of 1998 makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the European Human rights convention, unless such an incompatible act is supported by an Act of the Parliament (Ovey, Clare; White, Robin C. A. ,2006). Now the proposed “healthy breakfast” bill proposes that all the civil servants, NHS staff and police officers will have to eat unsweetened porridge for breakfast. This proposal is based on a research that shows that consumption of too much sugar early in the morning causes people to lose concentration later in the day. The bill further proposes that failure to do so will be a criminal offence. Section 31 of the bill authorizes random blood sugar tests and home inspection. This proposed bill, if passed into an act, will be a blatant violation of the European Human Rights Convention. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, makes the right to “privacy, family life and correspondence” a fundamental right under the European Convention on Human rights (Juncker, Jean-Claude ,2006). Article 8 further says that there should be no interference by a public authority in the private lives of the individuals unless this interference is justified on the grounds of national security, public safety, national economic well-being or prevention of disorder and crime. The breakfast that an individual takes comes in the domain of his private life. Interfering in it is a clear violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This interference can also not be justified on the grounds of any of the exceptional circumstances mentioned above. The proposed bill, if passed into an Act, is underpinned on the results of one research that says eating sugar in the morning leads to low concentration levels lower in the day. Firstly, relying on the results of one research for deciding on matters of national policy is grossly inadequate. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the results of the research are true and consumption of too much sugar in the morning causes people to lose concentration later in the day, then also the Act will be a violation of the Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. What is the correlation between low concentration and performance levels of the civil servants, police officers and NHS staff ? It has been wrongly presumed that low concentration automatically translated into low performance levels by the civil servants, police officers and NHS workers. Therefore low concentration due to consuming too much sugar does not pose any systematic risk to national security, public well-being or the law and order of United Kingdom. Therefore, the extenuating circumstances mentioned in Article 8 are not applicable in this case. Therefore, the new Act is a clear violation of the Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. A precedent can also be drawn from the case of Smith and Gardy versus United Kingdom (1999). In the case of Smith and Gardy versus United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from Royal Navy on the basis that they were homosexuals was a clear violation of their right to private life under Article 8 of the European Human Rights convention (Helen Keller, Alec Stone Sweet, 2008). The European Court of Human Rights decision in this case upturned the decision of the UK courts which held that discharge on the grounds of sexual orientation was not contrary to the principles of legality or human rights (Dov Goldhaber, Michael, 2007). After the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Smith and Gardy versus United Kingdom, the United Kingdom had to adopt a revised sexual-orientation free Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct in January 2000. The second part of the proposed “healthy breakfast bill” makes failure to eat unsweetened porridge in breakfast a criminal offence. Section 31 of the bill also authorizes random blood tests and home inspections. This is again a gross violation of the privacy clause in the Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. It is also a gross violation of Article 5 which upholds the right to liberty and security. Article 17 of the European Human Rights Convention does not allow any individual or state to use the rights guaranteed under the convention for limiting or abolishing some other rights of the Convention. Corrine can challenge the Act in the court because it is a gross violation of a number of articles of the European Human Rights Convention. Article 1 of the Convention binds the signatory parties to secure the rights under the Articles of the Convention, within their jurisdiction. The United Kingdom is therefore bound by the Article 1 to protect the rights of Corrine. Article 13 of the European Human Rights Convention also gives Corrine the right to seek effective remedy if she feels that her rights under the Convention are being violated. The inability to obtain a remedy before a domestic court against infringement of a Convention right is a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the European Human Rights Convention. On Corrine’s appeal in the domestic UK courts, the judges will decide whether the new act is compatible or incompatible with the European Human Rights convention. If they issue a declaration of incompatibility and the UK parliament repeals the Act then the matter will be resolved at that stage. However, if the UK courts rule in favor of the Act and find it to be compatible with the European Human Rights Convention then Corrine can appeal in the European Court of Human Rights situated in Strasbourg, Germany. The European Court of Human Rights is the court of last resort on matters of human rights in Europe and its decision will be final. Corrine can also approach the European Court of Human Rights in the case where the domestic courts in UK rule in favor but the Parliament still does not repeal the act on the grounds of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (Howard, Michael , 2005). In such a case the European Court of Human Rights decision will be executed under the supervision of the Committee of the Council of Ministers of Europe. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights will be final and binding on all the parties concerned, including Corrine. As a signatory of the European Human Rights Convention, the state of United Kingdom is obliged to ensure that all the articles of the European Human Rights Convention are being followed in their spirit in its jurisdiction. References: Helen Keller, Alec Stone Sweet, 2008, A Europe of Rights: The Impact of ECHR on national legal systems, Oxford University Press. Juncker, Jean-Claude ,2006, "Council of Europe - European Union: "A sole ambition for the European continent". Ovey, Clare; White, Robin C. A. (2006). Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Dov Goldhaber, Michael,2007, A peoples history of the European Court of Human Rights. Howard, Michael , 2005,"Judges must bow to the will of Parliament", The Daily Telegraph (London) Read More