ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the use of ten key cases to explore the workings of human rights-based judicial review. It focuses on how certain human rights-based arguments were used in recent cases involving United Kingdom (UK) public bodies or the UK government, broken down by different articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). When considering human rights-based grounds for judicial review, one must be confident that a right protected by the ECHR is 'engaged'. That is to say, that a right is being negatively affected by the actions or decision of a public body. The decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Firth v United Kingdom established that now it had been settled that the prohibition on prisoner voting had been determined as unlawful by the Court itself, future applicants in similar situations who were seeking redress for this breach of their rights would not receive compensation or be entitled to the recovery of their legal costs.
