Article 2: The Right to Life (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Article 2: The Right to Life
Introduction to Article 2
Article 2 protects the right to life, which is one of the most fundamental and important human rights in UK law. This right ensures that no one can take another person's life without just cause. However, it is important to understand that this is a restricted right, not an absolute right. This means the state can lawfully restrict this right under certain justified circumstances.
The right applies to human life and contains two main sections: Article 2(1), which establishes the core right to life, and Article 2(2), which sets out justified exceptions where deprivation of life may be lawful.
Key Definitions:
Right to life - This means that no one can take another person's life without just cause. There may be exceptions, such as the death penalty or acting in self-defence.
Restricted right - A right that, for valid reasons, is not an absolute right. Exceptions to the right can be put in place to limit it.
Article 2(1): The right to life
Article 2(1) establishes the fundamental protection of human life. The exact wording states:
Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
This provision protects what many consider the most basic right - the right to remain alive and not be killed. The state has a positive obligation to protect citizens' lives through law.
No right to die
Article 2 has been unsuccessfully argued by UK citizens who contended that if there is a right to life, there must also be a corresponding right to end one's own life. However, the courts have consistently held that
This creates an important legal position in UK law: while suicide itself was decriminalised, assisting suicide remains a criminal offence under the Suicide Act 1961. This means that individuals who take loved ones to countries such as Switzerland where assisted suicide is permitted (under strict rules) can still face prosecution upon their return to the UK.
Pretty v United Kingdom (2002)
Landmark Case: Pretty v United Kingdom (2002)
Facts: Diane Pretty was suffering from motor neuron disease, which left her paralysed but mentally competent to make lucid decisions. She wished for her husband to assist in her suicide and sought assurance from the authorities that he would not be prosecuted under the Suicide Act 1961. Among her arguments, she claimed that Article 2's protection of the right to life must logically include a corresponding right to die. After failing in the domestic courts, she appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.
Legal Principle: The European Court of Human Rights dismissed her appeal, establishing two crucial points:
- Article 2 ensures that a citizen's life cannot be readily taken by the countries in which they live
- While there is a right to life, there is no express or implied corresponding allowance to take life under this Article
Outcome: The court confirmed that Article 2 protects life and does not permit assisted suicide or euthanasia, even in cases of severe suffering and with the person's consent.
The death penalty exception
Paradoxically, Article 2(1) expressly allows the continuation of the death penalty for those convicted of applicable crimes in countries that maintain such punishment. This is stated directly in the Article's text: "save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."
In the UK, the death penalty for murder was suspended in 1965 and finally abolished in 1969. The death penalty was abolished in Northern Ireland in 1973.
Article 2(2): Justified exceptions
The right to life can be restricted under Article 2(2) in limited circumstances that are considered 'justified'. These exceptions recognise that in certain situations, the deprivation of life may be lawful.
Article 2(2) states:
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Understanding the three exceptions
These exceptions are designed to allow the use of necessary force in situations involving arrests and the control of public disorder:
Clause (a): Defence against unlawful violence
This exception covers situations where necessary force is used to protect someone being attacked, but where the attacker is killed in the process. For example, if a police officer or citizen intervenes to stop a violent assault and the attacker dies as a result of proportionate defensive force, this would not breach Article 2.
Clause (b): Effecting lawful arrest or preventing escape
This exception applies where necessary force is used by the police or even a private citizen while arresting someone or preventing someone from escaping lawful detention. The key requirement is that the force must be no more than absolutely necessary and the arrest or detention must be lawful.
Clause (c): Quelling riots or insurrection
This exception covers situations where necessary force is used to subdue a riot or similar violent uprising. This might apply to police or military action during serious public disorder.
Use of lethal force by state authorities
The right to life can be lawfully restricted during wartime and within the rules of engagement in battle. The military, police or prison service may use lethal force in certain justified circumstances, provided the force used is absolutely necessary and proportionate to the situation.
Critical Evaluation Point:
Despite the fundamental nature of the right to life, the police and other state authorities are given what some consider an ambiguous right to kill under these justified exceptions. This raises questions about the balance between protecting the right to life and allowing state authorities the power to use lethal force.
Key cases on Article 2
Case Analysis: Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2001)
Facts: Twins were born conjoined (physically joined together). Medical evidence showed that if an operation was not carried out to separate them, both twins would die. However, the operation would inevitably cause the death of one twin to allow the other to survive. This created a profound legal and ethical dilemma.
Legal Principle and Outcome: The court held that the criminal law's defence of necessity was available to surgeons in such exceptional situations. However, the court set clear and specific guidelines for when this defence could be applied. The operation was permitted to proceed, recognising that while one twin would die, this was necessary to save the life of the other twin.
Significance: This case demonstrates how Article 2 operates in complex medical situations where saving one life necessarily involves ending another.
Case Analysis: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
Facts: Tony Bland was kept alive only by a life-support machine following catastrophic injuries sustained at the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. He was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. His parents and the hospital applied to the court for permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.
Legal Principle and Outcome: The court held that to avoid criminal sanction, there must be no duty to treat a patient if continuing treatment was not in their best interests. As Bland's prospects of improvement were assessed as futile, permission was granted to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.
Significance: This case established important principles about end-of-life decisions and the withdrawal of treatment, distinguishing between actively causing death and allowing death to occur by withdrawing futile treatment.
Case Analysis: Armani Da Silva v UK (2016)
Facts: The applicant's cousin (Jean Charles de Menezes) was mistakenly shot and killed by police officers who believed he was a terrorist. An independent report concluded that there had been mistakes in the operation leading to the killing, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute any individual police officers involved.
Legal Principle and Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights held that there was no breach of Article 2. The court found there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any individual officer for criminal offences. This case demonstrates the high threshold that must be met to establish a breach of Article 2 in cases involving police use of lethal force.
Significance: This case raises important questions about accountability when state agents use lethal force and the evidential requirements for criminal prosecution.
Exam technique and evaluation
When answering questions on Article 2, ensure you:
- Clearly distinguish between Article 2(1) (the core right) and Article 2(2) (the exceptions)
- Use case law to support your arguments, particularly Pretty v UK (2002) for right to die issues
- Explain why the right to life is considered so fundamental - it is the most basic right upon which all other rights depend
- Consider the balance between protecting life and allowing justified exceptions
- Be prepared to evaluate whether the exceptions in Article 2(2) are too broad or appropriately limited
Key evaluation points:
The police and use of force
Despite Article 2 protecting the right to life, police and other state authorities have the power to use lethal force under certain circumstances. This creates tension between protecting life and maintaining public order. Consider whether the exceptions provide adequate protection against abuse.
The right to die debate
The refusal to recognise a right to die under Article 2 has been controversial. This particularly affects terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering with dignity. Consider arguments both for protecting vulnerable people and for individual autonomy.
Accountability
Cases like Armani Da Silva v UK raise questions about whether there is sufficient accountability when state agents use lethal force. The evidential threshold for prosecution may be set too high, or it may appropriately protect officers acting in good faith in difficult circumstances.
This content will be assessed in Paper 2 of the AQA A-Level Law examination.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Article 2 protects the right to life - one of the most fundamental human rights, but it is a restricted right with justified exceptions
-
No right to die - Article 2 protects life but does not provide a corresponding right to end life or assist in suicide (Pretty v UK 2002)
-
Article 2(2) provides three justified exceptions:
- Defence against unlawful violence
- Effecting lawful arrest/preventing escape
- Quelling riots or insurrection
-
Force must be absolutely necessary - any use of force that results in death must be no more than absolutely necessary in the circumstances
-
Key cases to remember:
- Pretty v UK (2002) - no right to die
- Re A (2001) - necessity defence for conjoined twins
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) - withdrawal of treatment
- Armani Da Silva v UK (2016) - police use of lethal force