Citation: Ramshaw, Adam (2016) The role of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in public and private sector possession proceedings. Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/36013/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.html THE ROLE OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS A J Ramshaw PhD 2016 THE ROLE OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS ADAM JOHN RAMSHAW A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Research undertaken in the Faculty of Business and Law September 2016 Abstract This thesis is concerned with the legal shortcomings flowing from Manchester City Council v Pinnock.1 Following Pinnock tenants of local authorities may have the proportionality of a possession order considered by the court in light of art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. However, there are questions outstanding from Pinnock. Firstly, there has been a failure within the courts to appreciate the importance of the home to the individual, their family, and society in general. Secondly, domestic courts have not provided adequate reasons for limiting art.8 to proceedings involving a local authority. Thirdly, the nature of proportionality within possession proceedings has been poorly conceived thereby marginalising art.8’s effects. This thesis draws support from philosophical and sociological literature to illustrate the deep connection a person feels towards their home. These connections exist irrespective of ownership yet it is these non-legal interests which are often overlooked by the courts. It is argued here that art.8 may protect these non-legal interests. Further, this thesis questions why art.8’s protection ought to be limited to proceedings involving a public sector landlord. The thesis provides an overview of the competing theories concerning horizontal effect and their related shortcomings. The work of Alexy is used to argue that horizontal effect is a singular phenomenon thereby making art.8 applicable in private proceedings. The public/private divide is then critiqued to demonstrate the theoretical viability of horizontal effect where a person’s home is at risk. The final strand of this thesis is concerned with how the competing interests of landlords and tenants may be adjudged. To this end a structured proportionality model is developed to replace the general proportionality exercise utilised by the courts following Pinnock. This proportionality model is then applied to existing case law to demonstrate its viability and context sensitivity. 1 Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104. Table of Contents Table of Cases .............................................................................................................. vi Table of Legislation .................................................................................................. xvii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. xviii Declaration ................................................................................................................ xix 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Need for Increased Security of Tenure in Rented Accommodation ...... 1 1.2 The Objectives and Structure of this Thesis .................................................. 8 1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 11 2 The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the English Court in Relation to Article 8 ..................................................................................... 15 2.1 Housing Law and Human Rights ................................................................ 17 2.2 The Shortcomings of Article 8 Jurisprudence ............................................20 2.2.1 What is the Underlying Importance of the Home as Conceived by Article 8(1) and How Should this Inform Article 8’s Application? ....................20 2.2.2 What is the Theoretical and Legal Basis for Arbitrarily Limiting Article 8’s Application to Local Authority Tenants? ...................................................... 25 2.2.3 What is Required by Proportionality in Possession Proceedings? ...... 32 2.3 Conclusions on Article 8 Jurisprudence ..................................................... 37 3 The Underlying Importance of the Home as Independent From Private Property ...................................................................................................................... 39 3.1 The Nature of Private Property ................................................................... 39 3.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 39 3.1.2 What is Property? ................................................................................ 40 3.1.3 Justifications for Property and Ownership .......................................... 41 3.1.4 The Rights Attached to Property .......................................................... 53 ii 3.2 The Inherent Non-Legal Importance of the Home to the Individual and Society .................................................................................................................... 58 3.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 58 3.2.2 More than Simply Ownership .............................................................. 59 3.2.3 The X Factors of the Home .................................................................. 70 3.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 80 4 The Argument for Horizontal Effect of Article 8 ................................................ 83 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 83 4.2 Defining Horizontal Effect .......................................................................... 85 4.3 Forms of Horizontal Effect .......................................................................... 85 4.3.1 Direct Horizontal Effect ....................................................................... 85 4.3.2 Horizontal Applicability .......................................................................86 4.3.3 Beyleveld and Pattinson’s Substantive Argument for Full Horizontal Effect ………………………………………………………………………………………………….87 4.3.4 Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 ........................................ 88 4.3.5 Full Horizontal Effect .......................................................................... 90 4.3.6 Remedial Horizontality ........................................................................ 93 4.3.7 Indirect Horizontal Effect .................................................................... 95 4.4 Missing the Point? ..................................................................................... 101 4.4.1 The Level of State Duties ................................................................... 102 4.4.2 The Level of Rights Against the State ................................................ 103 4.4.3 The Level of Legal Relations Between Private Individuals ................ 104 4.5 Further Support for Horizontal Effect ...................................................... 105 4.6 Article 14 Jurisprudence ........................................................................... 106 4.6.1 The Ambit of Article 14 ...................................................................... 108 iii 4.6.2 The Statuses of Article 14 ................................................................... 109 4.6.3 Justifications for Interference with Article 14 .................................... 113 4.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 119 5 The Public/Private Divide and its Effects in the Application of Article 8 to Housing Law ............................................................................................................. 121 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 121 5.2 Emergence of the Public/Private Divide ................................................... 123 5.2.1 Historical Roots ................................................................................