Home Education & Human Rights on the Isle of Man


This report by Allan Norman is included in the Isle of Man Children's Champion report.

[UPDATE: the report has mysteriously vanished from the IoM government site, but not to worry, we have linked to a saved copy of the report]

Home Education & Human Rights on the Isle of Man

Requirements for Convention-compliant legislation, taken from The Christian Institute & Ors v The Lord Advocate (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51 (28 July 2016)

"In accordance with the law"

[79]. In order to be “in accordance with the law” under article 8(2), the measure must. . .

  • have some basis in domestic law. . .
  • be accessible to the person concerned. . .
  • [be] foreseeable as to its effects.

These qualitative requirements of accessibility and foreseeability have two elements.

o First, a rule must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable any individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his or her conduct. . .

o Secondly, it must be sufficiently precise to give legal protection against arbitrariness. . .

[80] . . .this court has explained that the obligation to give protection against arbitrary interference requires that there must be safeguards which have the effect of enabling the proportionality of the interference to be adequately examined. This is an issue of the rule of law and is not a matter on which national authorities are given a margin of appreciation. . .

[81] In deciding whether there is sufficient foreseeability to allow a person to regulate his or her conduct and sufficient safeguards against
arbitrary interference with fundamental rights, the court can look not only at formal legislation but also at published official guidance and
codes of conduct. . .

"Proportionate Interference"

[90] It is now the standard approach of this court to address the following four*questions when it considers the question of proportionality:

  • whether the objective is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right,
  • whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective,
  • whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective, and
  • whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective,to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter (ie whether the impact of the rights infringement is disproportionate to the likely benefit of the impugned measure).