Human Rights Act

This act protects all of us. Its protects us against torture or inhumane treatment, forced labour, discrimination (everyone is equal) among other things. Any public authority who disregards this rights are doing so unlawfully.

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

“Ideas about human rights have evolved over many centuries. But they achieved strong international support following the Holocaust and World War II. To protect future generations from a repeat of these horrors, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and invited states to sign and ratify it”

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.

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: Does it Protect and Uphold Human Rights?

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.

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

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.

(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603

For several years the rule of law has been one of the most observed constitutional principles in deciding immigration applications in the UK, mostly in defending the important status of human rights which is another core constitutional principle of the UK. However, the Home Office ministers have been concerned about court and tribunals rulings which have prevented them from deporting people. Section 19 of the IA 2014 raises some important constitutional questions about the respective roles’ court and legislators in relation to human-rights matters. It has modified the way in which courts and tribunals determine public interest questions arising from immigration cases. Lord Lang stated that, “we are concerned about the lack of a definition of what constitutes a ‘genuine obstacle’ to a failed asylum seeker leaving the UK...” That it will be difficult to argue convincingly that UK immigration law has satisfied the requirements that are central to the

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.

Since the eighteenth century, we notice a growth of movement toward development and acknowledgement of something that is defined today as human rights. As important more relevant this topic has become, we still don’t have a universal way to apply these rights within every existing society around the globe. Why is it important to develop a standard understanding of what human rights are? How can we promote and regulate them?

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Convention’) stands as the world’s most successful legal instrument and foundation for international legal process in the protection of Human Rights. Drafted two months after the founding of the Council of Europe, in the aftermath of the atrocities of World War II, it was fundamental to the future and stability of the region to introduce Human Rights in a document able to bring peace, unity and accountability. This was articulated at the conference of the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity where the delegates stated: