The English Common Law System

An example of this type of protection, or where protection has not been maintained is the Leveson inquiry. On the 13th July 2011, David Cameron announced that he would, with the help of the courts, be launching a two-part investigation into the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. The main victims of the phone-hacking were celebrities; the HRA applies to all citizens not just regular citizens. Because of the fact that these people are celebrities, doesn’t give journalists the right to invade their privacy. This is one of the main reasons as to why the government seems to, more often than not be infringing on peoples’ privacy. Taking on board that this is an accurate statement; it is more often than not, organisations that have a link with the government, or certain politicians, rather than the actual government themselves. Therefore, it is clear that, to some extent the government does try to protect the privacy of the citizens of the UK as best it can, however people can sometimes get past this barrier and can therefore infringe on a person’s privacy.

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

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.

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 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

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.

Moving further, the case of Mckerr v United Kingdom dispute that before an investigation can be carried out with regards to article 2 (as incorporated in domestic law by s.6 of HRA), the death in question had to have occurred after the HRA comes into force. Lord Nichollos in is address states that for one to be obliged to use article 2, one as to inquire that the death must have resulted due to a violent death, and for it to be enforceable in section 6 of HRA , it must be stated in it. Lord Brown also held that because the procedure to examine was connected to death, it

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

In this essay I will explain how the United Kingdom’s (UK) membership in the European Union (EU) and how the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1988 (HRA) has diminished parliament's sovereignty. I do however make it clear that it is important to note that in theory the UK still holds some sovereignty over the EU and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECtHR) as in theory they can withdraw from both institutions. Also the pledged referendum to leave the EU and the possibility of a new Bill of Rights will affect the future of parliamentary sovereignty. A.V. Dicey’s explanation of Parliamentary Sovereignty is used as the foundation for discussion; Dicey outlines the traditional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which consist of three

In the English Law system, the effect of legislation remains statute in force until they are repealed. (R v Ducan, 1994). The application of legislation is ambiguous.