Discuss the actual and potential implications of Osman for the law of tort - Essay Example

In accordance with the decision of the new President of the Chamber, Mr. Bernhardt, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 June 1998. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. The applicants were citizens of London, Mrs. Mulkiye Osman, who was widowed by Mr. Paul Page-Leiws on March 7 1988 when he shot and killed her husband Ali Osman, as well as Ahmet Osman, her son who studied under Paget-Lewis at Homerton House School. The Osman’s press charges against UK authorities for failing to act on threats Paget-Lewis was making against their family.

The family argued that authorities were given ample enough warning to act and prevent the murder and assault that occurred on their family. The application of the exclusionary rule formulated by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police ([1989] AC 53) as a defense against actions brought against the police, constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court which proved to be in breach of article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Likewise, in the specific case of Osman v U.K, it was the Osmans’ position that law authorities had neglected the rights provided them in act 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1 Under Article 2, it was ruled by The Court that the states had three main duties, a duty to refrain from unlawful killing, a duty to investigate suspicious deaths and, in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life. In the case Osman v UK [1998] it was summarized that “United Kingdom – alleged failure of authorities to protect right to life of first applicant’s husband and of second applicant from threat posed by individual and lawfulness of restrictions on applicants’ right of access to a court to sue authorities for damage caused by said failure 2” Criminal Procedure Code was established in 1952 and made