Pugh Jonathan
The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK.
J Law Biosci. 2020 Apr 29;7(1):lsaa011. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa011. eCollection 2020 Jan-Jun.
In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act's extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.
为应对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)引发的大流行,英国政府通过了《2020年冠状病毒法案》(CA)。该法案除其他事项外,还扩大了现有的法定权力,以便出于公共卫生目的对自由施加限制。此类权力的扩大自然引发了人们对其使用是否符合人权法的担忧。特别是,尚不清楚其使用是否属于《欧洲人权公约》中关于人身自由和安全的第5条权利的公共卫生例外情况。在本文中,我概述了《2020年冠状病毒法案》的主要特点,并简要探讨了欧洲人权法院如何解释第5条权利的公共卫生例外情况。这一分析表明,根据《2020年冠状病毒法案》实施的某些限制自由的措施可能因侵犯第5条权利而面临质疑,原因有两点。第一,对某些自由限制未规定具体时限,这意味着它们可能不符合欧洲人权法院在解释公共卫生例外情况时所倡导的法律确定性要求。第二,《2020年冠状病毒法案》将权力扩大至缺乏公共卫生专业知识的个人,这可能会削弱该法案确保剥夺自由具有必要性和相称性的程度。