The right to private life: Article 8 (respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), its qualified nature, and the test for a justified interference.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point covers Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, the leading example of a qualified right. You need to explain the breadth of the right, its qualified nature, and the three-part test for a justified interference under Article 8(2) (in accordance with the law, legitimate aim, necessary in a democratic society). WJEC tests application of this structured test to scenarios, advising whether an interference is justified.

The answer

The scope of Article 8

A qualified right

The three-part justification test

Under Article 8(2), an interference is justified only if it is:

1. In accordance with the law: there is a clear, accessible and foreseeable legal basis for the interference.
2. In pursuit of a legitimate aim: one of the aims listed in Article 8(2), namely national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
3. Necessary in a democratic society: the interference answers a pressing social need and is proportionate to the legitimate aim, going no further than necessary.

States are allowed a margin of appreciation (latitude to reflect national conditions), but proportionality is the decisive control. Where Article 8 conflicts with Article 10 (freedom of expression), as in media privacy cases, the court conducts a balancing exercise (Campbell v MGN).

Examples in context

Campbell v MGN shows the Article 8 and Article 10 balance in action. A newspaper published details of a model's drug treatment alongside covert photographs; the House of Lords accepted that the bare fact of her addiction and treatment could be reported (a matter of legitimate public interest, engaging Article 10), but held that the additional details and photographs intruded into her private life under Article 8 in a way that was not justified, so the balance came down in her favour. The three-part test does the work in state-interference cases too: surveillance, data retention and the disclosure of personal information are all interferences that the state must justify by showing a clear legal basis, a legitimate aim such as the prevention of crime, and proportionality. Where any of those is missing, the interference breaches Article 8, even if the aim itself is legitimate.

Try this

Q1. What does Article 8 protect? [2 marks]

• Cue. The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.

Q2. State the three-part test for a justified interference under Article 8(2). [3 marks]

• Cue. In accordance with the law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society (proportionate).

Q3. Advise whether there has been a justified interference with a person's Article 8 rights. [20 marks]

• What the marker wants. Whether Article 8 is engaged, the interference by a public authority, and the three-part test (legal basis, legitimate aim, proportionality), applied with authority and a conclusion.