{"id":5776,"date":"2018-03-07T09:26:57","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:26:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-09-21T10:21:03","modified_gmt":"2023-09-21T10:21:03","slug":"ireland-v-uk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php","title":{"rendered":"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Law Case Analysis<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ireland v United Kingdom[1] is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the circumstances in which an Article 15 \u2018derogation in times of war or other public emergency\u2019 permit a valid deviation from the standards imposed by Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).<\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p>Before 1922, the island of Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom.[2] By the 1970\u2019s, a series of complicated political events had resulted in the island becoming two separate nations:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Irish Republic \u2013 an independent sovereign nation-state; and<\/li>\n<li>Northern Ireland that, at the time the events of this case took place, maintained a separate \u201cGovernment and Parliament\u201d under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.[3]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Despite this partition, tensions remained high between Northern Ireland\u2019s Protestant and Catholic populations. This superficially religious divide was further characterised and complicated by deep-rooted, social, and economic differences between the two communities.[4]\u00a0Politically, the Catholics \u2013 who comprise around one third of Northern Irelands population of 1.5 million \u2013 generally supported the idea of a united Ireland. The Protestant community opposed it, preferring on the whole to remain part of the UK.[5]<\/p>\n<p>The situation deteriorated from 1970 onwards, as terrorist campaigns orchestrated by Loyalists \u2013 Protestants who supported the union with the UK \u2013 and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) \u2013 who aimed for a united Ireland \u2013 became more violent and deadly in nature.[6] The Northern Ireland Government maintain that the IRA perpetrated the overwhelming majority of this violence.[7] By March 1975, an estimated \u201c1,100 people had been killed, over 11,500 injured and more than \u00a3140,000,000 worth or property destroyed\u201d as a result of violence that \u201cfound its expression in part in civil disorders, in part in terrorism perpetrated for political ends.\u201d[8]<\/p>\n<p>This law case summary was prepared by our team of professional <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/services\/law-essay-writing.php\">law essay writers<\/a> who are dedicated to simplifying case law and providing summaries of the most important cases for law students to quickly gain an understanding of the given case.<\/p>\n<h3>Facts<\/h3>\n<p>It was against this background that the Northern Ireland Government introduced Operation Demetrius,[9] which was a series of \u201cextrajudicial measures of detention and internment of suspected terrorists.\u201d[10] The principal target of these measures was suspected members of the IRA, although it is accepted that some people would have been wrongfully detained on the basis of \u201cinadequate or inaccurate information.\u201d[11]<\/p>\n<p>One of the more serious interrogation techniques used on fourteen prisoners became known as the \u201cfive techniques.\u201d[12] This consisted of the following:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>\u201cWall standing (forcing detainees to remain in a stress position for hours at a time);<\/li>\n<li>Hooding (keeping a bag over detainees heads at all times, except during interrogation);<\/li>\n<li>Subjection to continuous loud noise;<\/li>\n<li>Deprivation of sleep;<\/li>\n<li>Deprivation of food and drink.\u201d[13]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>It is probable that \u201cphysical violence was sometimes used in the forcible application of the five techniques.\u201d[14] One prisoner spent three weeks in hospital after being subjected to \u201ckicking and beating, during or between a series of \u2018interviews\u2019 conducted by the Special Branch sic.\u201d[15] At least two detainees would go on to develop \u201cacute psychiatric symptoms\u201d as a result of their interrogation.[16]<\/p>\n<p>The respondents (the UK) in this case argued that these measures were necessary because \u201cnormal procedures of law and order had become inadequate to deal with IRA terrorists.\u201d Widespread intimidation \u201cmade it impossible to obtain sufficient evidence to secure a criminal conviction against known IRA terrorists in the absence of an admissible confession or of police or army testimony.\u201d[17] Large swathes of the Catholic community had become \u201cno-go\u201d areas for the police and security forces. The international border also posed challenges for law enforcement. These factors led the respondents to conclude that there was \u201cno hope of winning over the terrorists by political means.\u201d[18] As such, these measures were necessary to countenance the threat posed by an IRA, who were engaged in a \u201chighly organised, politically motivated campaign designed to overthrow the State.[19]<\/p>\n<h3>ECtHR Proceedings<\/h3>\n<p>The Irish government objected to these actions, alleging wide reaching breaches of the ECHR.[20] The ECtHR convened to consider the following points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cWhether the treatment of persons in custody \u2026. constituted an administrative practice in breach of Article 3;<\/li>\n<li>Whether internment without trial and detention \u2026. constituted an administrative practice in breach of Articles 5 and 6 in connection with Article 15;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Whether Operation Demetrius \u2013 targeting IRA dissidents \u2013 amounted to discrimination on the grounds of political opinion (which would breach the Article 14 prohibition of discrimination).[21]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The ECtHR found that the five techniques caused \u201cintense physical and mental suffering to the persons subjected thereto and also led to acute psychiatric disturbances during interrogation,\u201d but did not necessarily cause actual bodily injury.[22] As such, the Court concluded that the five techniques breached Article 3 as they amounted to \u201cinhuman and degrading treatment.\u201d However, this treatment was not considered serious enough to amount to \u201ctorture,\u201d which was reserved for the most serious of breached of Article 3.[23] The Court determined that although Article 5 might have been breached, the existence of an emergency that would permit a derogation \u201cis perfectly clear from the facts,\u201d concluding that no breach had occurred.[24] The Court found that Article 6 overlapped with Article 5, meaning that no further consideration was required.[25] Finally, as the IRA perpetrated the majority of the violence, the Court concluded that there was no tacit breach of Article 14.[26[<\/p>\n<h3>Wider Impact<\/h3>\n<p>The ECtHR\u2019s distinction between \u201cdegrading treatment\u201d and \u201ctorture\u201d for the purposes of Article 3 highlights how torture under international law has a subjective element that evolves over time. This flexibility \u2013 and the margin of appreciation afforded the UK in determining the scope of derogation under Article 15 \u2013 has led some academics to fear a \u201cdevaluation of Convention rights and freedoms.\u201d[27] The ECtHR\u2019s conclusion that use of the \u201cfive techniques\u201d did not amount to torture appears to have been cited by the US Attorney General as legal authority that the interrogation techniques used by the USA in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay did not amount to torture under international law.[28]<\/p>\n<p>However, one could equally argue that as the standards of human rights expected by society grow, the Convention evolves to reflect them. Indeed, it has been said that if the facts of this case were to be heard today, they \u201cwould now be regarded as torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.\u201d[29] The case was also significant in establishing a more general principle that the cumulative effect of mistreatment can amount to a breach of Article 3. As the recent decision in Becciev v Moldova[30] demonstrates, this can still be the case where individual instances of mistreatment do not, in isolation, amount to a breach of Article 3.<\/p>\n<h3>Footnotes<\/h3>\n<p>1 Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25<\/p>\n<p>2 ibid 1, para 13<\/p>\n<p>3 ibid 1, paras 13 and 14<\/p>\n<p>4 ibid 1, para 15<\/p>\n<p>5 ibid 1, para 15<\/p>\n<p>6 ibid 1, para 29<\/p>\n<p>7 ibid 1, para 32<\/p>\n<p>8 ibid 1, para 12<\/p>\n<p>9 ibid 1, para 39<\/p>\n<p>10 ibid 1, para, 34<\/p>\n<p>11 ibid 1, para 39<\/p>\n<p>12 ibid 1, para 165<\/p>\n<p>13 ibid 1, para 96<\/p>\n<p>14 ibid 1, para 105<\/p>\n<p>15 ibid 1, para 111<\/p>\n<p>16 ibid 1, para 104<\/p>\n<p>17 ibid 1, para 36<\/p>\n<p>18 ibid 1, para 36<\/p>\n<p>19 ibid 1, para 37<\/p>\n<p>20 ibid 1, para 144<\/p>\n<p>21 ibid 1, para 145<\/p>\n<p>22 ibid 1, para 167<\/p>\n<p>23 ibid 1, para 167<\/p>\n<p>24 ibid 1, para 205<\/p>\n<p>25 ibid 1, para 235<\/p>\n<p>26 ibid1, para 231<\/p>\n<p>27 Jones (1995), \u201cThe Devaluation of Human Rights under the European Convention\u201d Public Law, Aut, 430-449<\/p>\n<p>28 \u201cThe Hooded Men \u2013 joint press release from CAJ and the Pat Finucane Centre\u201d. Committee on the Administration of Justice. 24 November 2014. Last accessed 25th September 2015 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.caj.org.uk\/contents\/1264\">Click here to read<\/a><\/p>\n<p>29 Hope (2004) \u201cTorture\u201d, International &#038; Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(4), 807-832<\/p>\n<p>30 Becciev v Moldova (2007), 45 EHRR 11<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[87,85],"class_list":["post-5776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-eu-law","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.6 (Yoast SEO v26.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80 | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\"},\"wordCount\":1232,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"EU Law\",\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\",\"name\":\"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80 | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80 | LawTeacher.net","description":"Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80","og_description":"Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php"},"wordCount":1232,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["EU Law","UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php","name":"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80 | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"Ireland v United Kingdom is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) principally concerning the threshold at which \u2018cruel and unusual treatment\u2019 becomes \u2018torture\u2019 for the purposes of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/ireland-v-uk.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ireland v United Kingdom 1979-80"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}