Human Rights Act Of 1998

The Human Rights Act covers all human rights and ensures that all individuals have rights on their side and can take legal action against any organisation that disrespects these. Meaning that if a care giver does not respect the needs of the resident they are caring for, their company can get sued due to their lack of care standards. The act states that everyone has the right to life, meaning that any life support mechanism cannot be withdrawn unless a person is beyond doubt clinically dead. It also says that every person has the right to protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, for example humiliation and inappropriate or rough care. It also prohibits discrimination, meaning that people must not be discriminated against due to their age/ethnicity/gender etc. meaning everyone must be treated equally with the same level of high standards of care no matter who they are.

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.

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.

The human’s rights act is very useful within the UK because it lays down the law about what rights we have. 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

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.

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

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

‘Article 14 Discrimination’ (bbc.co.uk). This tells us that no one has a right to discriminate against anyone for any reason including race, colour, religion, sex and many other reasons. ‘Protocol 1 article 1’ (bbc.co.uk). This is a right to your possessions everyone is entitled to their possessions. ‘Protocol 1 Article 2’ (bbc.co.uk) this is a right to an education, no one should be deprived of their education. ‘Protocol 1 Article 3’ (bbc.co.uk). This is the right to vote, everyone has the right to vote with the freedom of their expression.

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

For this part of my coursework I will be doing the Human Rights Act of legislation.

A different and more modern set of values which are now applied by judges throughout the English legal system are human rights set out in the ECvHR. Since the 1950s, UK citizens have been able to pursue an action in the European Court of Human Rights, and since October 2010 have been able to raise the same issues in a UK court.

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

Hence, HRA was enacted to incorporate European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the law of the UK. The Act represents a momentous achievement in regards to civil liberties. In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002)4, Lord Justice Laws stated that HRA was a constitutional Act which could only be repealed by express provisions of an Act of Parliament (and not by implication). Indirectly, this could be interpreted as a 'soft' form of entrenchment.

today we call them human rights" (McShea 34). The issue of whether or not to