Search results
- Hashman and Harrup lodged a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights, arguing that their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated by the binding over. The Commission referred the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.
globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hashman-v-the-united-kingdom/Hashman v. the United Kingdom - Global Freedom of Expression
People also ask
Why did Hashman & Harrup file a complaint?
Did Hashman & Harrup breach the peace?
Why did Joseph Hashman and Wanda Harrup blow a hunting horn?
Did Hashman & Harrup violate peace & contra bonos mores?
Why did Hashman and Harrup kill foxes?
A complaint was made to the Gillingham magistrates that the applicants should be required to enter into a recognisance with or without sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour pursuant to the Justices of the
- Case Summary and Outcome
- Facts
- Decision Overview
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the United Kingdom violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground that the legal basis for the imposition of an order on two individuals was not “prescribed by the law”. Two protesters had attempted to disrupt a fox hunt and had been ordered to “keep the...
On March 3, 1993, Joseph Hashman and Wanda Harrup, two nationals of the United Kingdom blew a hunting horn and engaged in “hallooing” with the intention to disrupt the Portman Hunt, a fox hunt in England. Hashman and Harrup described themselves as “hunt saboteurs” and had sought to distract the dogs from hunting and therefore killing foxes as part ...
The European Court of Human Rights delivered a majority judgment of sixteen to one. Judge Baka delivered a dissenting judgment. The central issues for the Court’s determination were whether Hashman and Harrup’s conduct of blowing a horn and hallooing constituted an expression of opinion within the meaning of Article 10(1), and then whether a restri...
A complaint was made to the Gillingham magistrates that the applicants should be required to enter into a recognizance with or without sureties and keep the peace and be of good behaviour pursuant
Complaints The applicants allege violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Their main complaint is that the concept of behaviour contra bonos mores is so broadly defined that it does not comply with the requirement, in Article 10, Section 2 of the Convention, that any interference with freedom of expression must be “prescribed by ...
Whether concepts of breach of the peace and behaviour contra bonos mores were sufficiently precise and certain to comply with the requirement under Article 10 (2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘European Convention on Human Rights’) that any limitations on freedom of expression be ‘prescribed by law’.
Global Freedom of Expression. Columbia University 91 Claremont Ave, Suite 523 New York, NY 10027. 1-212-854-6785
Sep 14, 2011 · Hashman and Harrup against the United Kingdom (Application No. 25594/94, judgment of 25 November 1999 - Grand Chamber)
