acts as a blockade denying defendants to violate his rights by way of the motion. I firmly find that, due to this controversial mater, I will grant the injunction as it is necessary for interest of justice. However, to find whether or not defendants could have other routes for acting differently as there may be powers conferred on the duty to act. Therefore, I believe that evidence shall not be destroyed and dismiss this claim.
With ruling to allow evidence gathered, it perhaps the case to submit and to summarise whether a conferred duty of power to act as the Solicitor-General on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, concluding duty to act is incompatible with plaintiff’s rights. To continue the point of ‘privacy and confidentiality’, I find consent is not needed as, previously mentioned, the relevant exception to Article 8 – for the prevention of crime is an exception. Below, is case authority outlining this point distinctively?
Klass and Others v Germany claims against the Metropolitan Police by legislation for infringement of Art. 8 or right to respect correspondence and Art.13 for breach of convention, a right for plaintiff to have effective remedy before national authority. Similarly, my judgement precludes the infringement of Art. 8 (2) but within Klass case law, the infringement was allowed to be enacted on the interests for national security. However, I am bound to say the plaintiff in my judgement is not a victim of this law, rather the presumption that international law would supersede to succeed. Hence, the Post Office intercepted into plaintiff’s telephone communications. It is it held that the secrecy of the telephone communications being recorded and monitored was permitted for this specific reason which I will know mention.
Due to legislation passed For Klass case – it restricted the right to secrecy of post and telecommunications. The Court held that there was no violation of Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights. Because the guidelines were established within the Brikett Report, but specifically, the Telecommunications Act, the Court found there was a self-explanatory reason for interfering in lawyer’s rights which is the “preventing disorder crime”. It was necessary as long as it followed EU Convention rights for safeguarding its citizens. What is convenient is that Malone case is akin to this view that Article 8 was a necessity for the plaintiff to be stripped of his Article 8 and 13 rights because I believe it is in the exception. I accept that the arrest by Metropolitan Police is in the interest of the prevention of crime co