Human Rights Act 1998 ( Hra )

Human Rights Act 1998 – is an Act that gives legal effect in the UK to certain fundamental rights and freedoms contained in

Human Rights Act 1998 - The Human Rights Act means that residents of the United Kingdom will now be able to seek help from the courts if they believe that their human rights have been infringed.

Human rights act 1998 – specifies and enforces the rights of individuals and if these

However, the UK parliament retains its sovereignty and in theory can enact legislation which breaches one of the Convention rights. The UK, unlike most countries, does not therefore have an entrenched bill of rights by which all other laws are measured, and which can be struck down by the courts if they are in breach.

Both statutory interpretation and the Human Rights Act are a doctrine of precedent by which law is changed and justice is served. The doctrine of precedent is an essential principle of English legal system, which is a form of reasoning, interpreting and decision making formed by case law. It suggests that precedents not only have persuasive authority but must also be shadowed when similar situations arise. Any rule or principle declared by a higher court must be followed in future cases. In short the courts and tribunals are bound within prearranged restrictions by prior decisions of other superior courts. All the judges are also obliged to follow the set-up precedents established by prior decisions which is called Stare decisis. Making decisions according to precedent helps achieve two objectives. Initially it aids to maintain a system of stable laws which gives predictability to the law and affords a degree of safety for individual rights. Moreover, it ensures that the law progresses only in accordance with the developing perceptions of the community. Therefore, it more accurately mirrors the morals and prospects of the community that we live in.

Throughout history, people have had their basic human rights violated. This has been due, to other people's, groups, and the government's ideas, and actions. One of the renown instances of such thing happening is during the colonial times to 1865.In which millions of people had their basic human rights taken from them. In that time period, slavery was used to strip people of their basic human rights due to prejudice, and for the fact, it was a significant part of the American colony's economy.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (also known as the Act or the HRA) came into force in the United Kingdom in October 2000. It is composed of a series of sections that have the effect of codifying the protections in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. All public bodies (such as courts, police, local governments, hospitals, publicly funded schools, and others) and other bodies carrying out public functions have to comply with the Convention rights. The Human Rights Act protects individuals from torture (mental, physical or both), inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and deportation or extradition (being sent to another country to face criminal charges) if there is a real risk that they will face

Human Rights Act 1998 – Gives further legal status to the standards on Human Rights that was set out in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This highlighted the principle that all humans have the same rights and should be treated equally. This act also sets out the rights of all individuals and allows individuals to take action against authorities when their rights are affected.

All people are unique, individual and different. But fundamentally all humans on the planet have a fundamental human right to make the choices they want about their life and the way they live it. In the social care setting, this means the people we support too. However, although not providing support in a person centred way takes away and individual’s rights, it also means we are not meeting the needs if the people we support and it means there are no established boundaries of what the people we support need support with and what they can do for themselves.

In relation to the Charter, my advice is that Josh’s conduct is not protected and the cancellation of his parole by the Adult Parole Board was not in breach of the Charter. Moreover, the conduct of Dianne and Cary is initially protected by the Charter however due to the limitations placed upon human rights it can be argued that Dianne and Cary’s conduct are indeed in breach. Additionally Victoria police in partner with AX6 are in breach of numerous rights set out in the Charter, which will be discussed in further detail.

The current Canadian Human Rights Act was issued in 1977 to ensure equal opportunities for Canadian employees in the working environment. The main goal is to stop discriminatory practices. According to the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977) itself, these practices can be “based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered”. Since its issuance date, many discriminatory practices could be discussed publicly and in case of disagreements aligned by the court. Although, still today discriminatory practices take part in business life in small and big forms and the problem might never be fully solved. Therefore, this essay discusses the function of the Act, its benefits and consequences for Canadian employees and employers and gives examples from past legal cases. It focusses on the part “provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public” to limit the size and give deeper insights into the certain topic. Additionally, the main emphasis lies on the workers’ rights due to the course topic.

The reform of the Human Rights Act can illustrate that the constitutional reform did not go far enough. In 1998, the Blair government announced that the citizens ' rights would be safeguarded and strengthened through incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. However, this created a problem as the UK now has two sets of rights – those built up under Common Law and those in the Human Rights Act. These two sets of rights may conflict and, in addition, cases can be taken using these rights to both the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which is the supreme court for the European Convention on Human Rights). The UK judiciary is divided on how to resolve this issue.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 provides that primary and subordinate legislation “must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights”. This provides judges the power to interpret and amend legislation so far as it is possible so that it is in accordance with Convention rights. There is no need for ambiguity in wording of the act to use section 3 and it does not affect the validity of the Act notwithstanding the Act being incompatible with Convention rights. There are limits on judges’ ability to use section 3 which restrict cases in which it can be used. First, section 3 cannot go against the grain of the fundamental purpose of the legislation in question. Second, judges can only go “so far as possible” when interpreting legislation. The means that judges are restrained by the plain words of the provision and cannot stray from it’s meaning so far as to completely amend it.

The Human Rights Act (1998) consists of sixteen fundamental rights that everybody is entitled to from birth or since the act was put into place. These sixteen rights are set out as ‘Articles’ and along with these Articles there are also ‘Protocols’ to extend and adapt new rights into the Human Rights Act. There are three main effects of the HRA: Firstly, it has subsumed the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British national law; if in any given situation there is a breach of rights, this allows people to take their cases to British courts instead of seeking justice from the European Court of

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to