AQA A-Level Law: Human Rights — Practice Questions

These questions practise section 3.5 Human Rights in AQA A-level Law (7162), the human rights option on Paper 3. They cover rights theory, the history of international protection, the UK before and after the Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 2, 5, 8, 10 and 11, restrictions, enforcement, the English-law provisions that protect or restrict each right, and reform.

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Human Rights study guide | Human Rights revision notes

---

Section A - multiple choice

1. In which year did the European Convention on Human Rights come into force? [1] A 1948 B 1950 C 1953 D 2000

2. Which section of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a court to make a declaration of incompatibility? [1] A s2 B s3 C s4 D s6

3. Which Article is a limited, rather than qualified, right? [1] A Article 5 B Article 8 C Article 10 D Article 11

Section B - short answers

4. Explain the difference between a right and a liberty. [5]

5. Explain the status of the European Convention on Human Rights in the United Kingdom before the Human Rights Act 1998. [5]

6. Explain the requirements that must be met for a restriction on Article 10 to be lawful. [5]

7. Explain the process of judicial review. [5]

Section C - applied questions

8. Kemal is arrested at 9 am on suspicion of burglary. He is not told why for six hours. He is held for 40 hours without being charged or taken before magistrates, and no superintendent has authorised any extension. Advise Kemal whether his rights under Article 5 and English law have been breached. [10]

9. A tabloid newspaper photographs Ana, a well-known singer, leaving a clinic where she receives treatment for an eating disorder, and plans to publish the photographs with details of her treatment. Advise Ana on the balance between Article 8 and Article 10 and any remedy. [10]

Section D - extended problem and evaluation

10. A climate group plans a march through a city centre. The police impose a condition limiting it to a park outside the centre. When some marchers continue to the centre, the police contain 300 people in a square for six hours. During the operation, an officer fires a Taser at a protester, Ravi, who later dies; the police plan had given no guidance on the use of Tasers in crowds. Ravi’s family want an independent investigation.

Advise the protesters and Ravi’s family of their rights under the Convention and English law, and evaluate how effectively the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right to protest. [30]

Answers

1. C. [1]

2. C. [1]

3. A. [1]

4. A right (claim-right) is an entitlement that imposes a correlative duty on another (Hohfeld) [1], for example the state’s duty not to detain without lawful grounds under Article 5 [1]. A liberty is a freedom to act where no law forbids it, but it imposes no duty on others to help [1]. Before 1998 the UK relied on residual liberties, which could be removed by any statute [1]; Malone v MPC (1979) showed that an activity not forbidden by law (phone tapping by the state) left the citizen without protection [1].

5. The UK ratified the ECHR in 1951 but did not incorporate it, because of dualism [1]. UK courts could not enforce it directly and used it only to resolve ambiguity (ex p Brind, 1991) [1]. From 1966 individuals could petition Strasbourg [1], which found violations such as Malone v UK (1984) and Sunday Times v UK (1979) [1], and Parliament responded with legislation such as the Interception of Communications Act 1985 [1].

6. The restriction must be prescribed by law, meaning accessible and foreseeable (Sunday Times v UK, 1979) [1]; pursue a legitimate aim listed in Article 10(2), such as national security or the rights of others [1]; and be necessary in a democratic society [1], which means a pressing social need and a proportionate response (Handyside v UK, 1976) [1]. States have a margin of appreciation [1].

7. Judicial review challenges the lawfulness of a public body’s decision, not its merits [1]. The claimant needs sufficient interest and must claim promptly and within three months (CPR Part 54) [1]. Grounds: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety (GCHQ, 1985), with proportionality where Convention rights are involved [1]. Permission is needed from the Administrative Court [1]. Remedies include quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, declarations and injunctions [1].

8. [10]

• Arrest on reasonable suspicion of an offence falls within Article 5.1(c) and PACE 1984 s24, if there were reasonable grounds (Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK, 1990).
• Article 5.2 and PACE s28: reasons must be given at the time of arrest or as soon as practicable; a six-hour delay without explanation breaches both and may make the arrest unlawful.
• Detention without charge: PACE s41 allows 24 hours; extension to 36 hours requires a superintendent’s authority (s42); beyond that a warrant of further detention from magistrates (s43). At 40 hours with no authorisation, detention is unlawful after 24 hours.
• Article 5.3: brought promptly before a judge (Brogan v UK, 1988, sets the outer limit).
• Remedies: habeas corpus / Article 5.4; compensation under Article 5.5 and s8 HRA 1998; a claim for false imprisonment in tort.

9. [10]

• The newspaper is not a public authority, but the court is (s6 HRA 1998), so it must give effect to both rights when deciding a claim for misuse of private information.
• Stage 1: reasonable expectation of privacy - medical treatment is private (Campbell v MGN, 2004).
• Stage 2: balance with Article 10 - neither right has priority; public interest in exposing hypocrisy might justify the basic fact if Ana had publicly denied the condition, but not photographs and treatment details (Campbell).
• Also relevant: Von Hannover v Germany (2004), celebrities’ private activities.
• Remedy: an interim injunction to prevent publication (s12 HRA 1998 requires the court to consider freedom of expression before granting it); damages if published.

10. [30] Indicative content:

The condition (Article 11 and Article 10). Peaceful assembly is protected. Conditions under Public Order Act 1986 s12 (processions) are prescribed by law; legitimate aims include preventing disorder and the rights of others. Proportionality: re-routing is less restrictive than a ban, so it is likely to be justified; but a condition moving the march far from its target audience is weighed against the purpose of protest.

Containment (Article 5). Austin v Commissioner of Police (2009) held containment was not a deprivation of liberty where necessary to prevent serious disorder and no longer than needed. Six hours for 300 people including peaceful marchers may be disproportionate; contrast the facts. If not justified, damages and false imprisonment.

Ravi (Article 2). Force must be no more than absolutely necessary under Article 2.2. McCann v UK (1995): the state is responsible for the planning and control of operations; failure to give guidance on Tasers is relevant. Procedural duty: an effective, independent investigation; in England, an inquest and IOPC investigation. Criminal law: the officer may claim self-defence or prevention of crime, using only reasonable force (s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). Civil claim: negligence and s7 HRA 1998.

Evaluation. Strengths: s6 binds the police; s3 and s4 influence legislation; domestic remedies are quicker than Strasbourg. Weaknesses: wide police powers under the Public Order Acts 1986 and 2023; Austin shows deference to police judgment; s4 declarations leave incompatible law in force. A reasoned conclusion on effectiveness, with reference to reform debates such as the withdrawn Bill of Rights Bill.

Where marks are usually lost

• Applying a qualified-right test to Article 5 or Article 2.
• Forgetting that a private newspaper is not a public authority, but the court is.
• Naming PACE without the time limits.
• Evaluation that only lists criticisms of the HRA without judging their weight.

Frequently asked questions

How do I structure a human rights problem answer? Identify the right and whether it is absolute, limited or qualified. Then apply the exceptions or the restriction test, consider English-law provisions and conclude on remedies.

Should I use Strasbourg or UK cases? Both. Under s2 HRA 1998 UK courts take Strasbourg case law into account, so citing McCann v UK alongside Austin shows how the two interact.

Will reform be examined? It can be, usually as part of evaluation. Know the 2012 Commission on a Bill of Rights and the 2022 Bill of Rights Bill.

Official specification

AQA A-level Law (7162) specification, section 3.5 Human Rights - aqa.org.uk.