Significance of Section 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998

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 – specifies and enforces the rights of individuals and if these

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 charter binds Public Authorities to act in a way that is compatible with human rights. However, crucial to interpreting the effectiveness of this obligation affecting legislation, is the definition of what a Public Authority is. Since the charter is constructed to affect legislation, it is tempting to misinterpret “Public Authority” to mean actors with Legislative or Jurisdictive power. However, the provided definition specifically excludes:

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.

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

Does the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (“Charter”) protect the conduct of Josh, Dianne and Cary?

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

This paper will critically analyze the approach taken by the courts to apply the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 in cases where the protection is given to religious and other beliefs conflicts with the protection rights of others.

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.

One of the tenets of law has always been the ideal that Parliament is wholly sovereign, being the conclusive controlling factor on which the United Kingdom constitution is based. Yet not all ideals are taken and translated into reality. The statement from Lord Hope in R (Jackson) v AG challenges the sovereignty of Parliament, by demonstrating that there may be limits to Parliamentary sovereignty of which can be seen through the proceedings of the R (Jackson) v AG case, Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, and HS2. Whilst conclusively determining that the rule of law is the ultimate controlling fact on which the United Kingdom’s constitution is based. Although counter-arguments can be taken from this statement and the appropriate cases, of which

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

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

From the past, education has always been seen as a crucial aspect of our lives. In 1968, Durkheim stated that ‘society can survive only if there exists among its members a sufficient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the child, from the beginning, the essential similarities that collective life demands.’ Education has become even more indispensable as more instruments start to recognise the right to education. For instance, Article 2 of the First Protocol (A2P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 28(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This essay will assess the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) in protecting the right to education in England. It is noted that the HRA 1998 provide a relatively limited protection as compared to the rest of the instruments. But looking in light of the proposed reform on HRA 1998, the current protection provided by the HRA 1998 has undeniably secured certain protections toward the children’s educational rights. Firstly, this essay looks into the scope of protections that are provided by the HRA 1998. Secondly, the effectiveness of A2P1. Thirdly, the influence of other conventions with regards to the right to education. Lastly, the essay will conclude by looking at the future reform of the HRA 1998.