“Vague binding over orders violate Article 10 freedom of expression requirements.”
Hashman and Harrup disrupted a fox hunt by blowing horns and shouting to divert the hunt. They were bound over by magistrates to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months, despite no conviction for any offence.
Whether binding over orders in general terms without specifying prohibited conduct satisfied the 'prescribed by law' requirement under Article 10 ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights held that the binding over orders violated Article 10, as the terms were too vague to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly.
This case led to significant reform of binding over procedures in English law and established important principles about legal certainty in restrictions on freedom of expression. It demonstrates how European human rights law influences domestic legal procedures.
You're reading the free summary of Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (1999) 30 EHRR 241
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.