The 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

-Human Rights Act 1998 become law in 2000 gives people rights that there were intended to

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 The act states that everyone has the right to life, meaning that any life support mechanism cannot be withdrawn unless a person is beyond doubt clinically dead.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

Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.

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.

The human rights which are included within the Human Rights Act are based on articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and gives a further effect to rights and freedom. This means that the judge must read and give effect to legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. It is also classed as unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention right. The latter point is important as this is what ultimately created the separation of powers, as it gives judges the power to refrain from external powers, therefore controlling their independent state. An example of a separation of powers that has derived from this is the Hirst vs UK case in 2006. The cotland Strasbourg Court ruled that the blanket ban on Hirst violated the right to vote under Article 3 Protocol 1. This shows the EU allowed the prisoner to vote, which ultimately went against what the UK wanted. Not only does this show a separation of powers, but also that the UK have no national sovereignty or parliamentary sovereignty which brings up the question as to whether or not the UK is really a fusion of powers or just based completely on a separation of powers. This shows the increasing power of the judges is strengthening the principle of the separation of powers as the judges are in the court which ruled whether or not prisoners were

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” as Mark Twain is often reputed to have said explains with much rhetoric that in fact history is not repeated in a sense that the same events happen over and over again, instead events embrace similar themes. The same concept of Mr. Twain’s history comparison can be brought in support of why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted in 1948 by the UN --an international agreement that dictates basic rights and undeniable freedoms in which all human beings are entitled to-- should be updated. After analyzing the Human Rights Treaty it was concluded that amending the UDHR should be considered because of advancements in the world, in main part due to globalization and

Geber, Henry. "The Society for Human Rights—1925." The Society for Human Rights—1925. Web. 28 May 2016.

The HRA 1998 has been heavily involved in the gradual change towards the wider judicial interpretation we have seen over the last 50 years. Drawing attention to S.3 of the act which states ‘So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.’ This was the first time the British courts had such powers of reviewing primary legislation and saw a shift in the way people looked at the principles of the constitution. Although academics such as Wade saw this as a constitutional milestone towards a new legal culture, others such as Ewing thought the act represented a shift in political power towards the judiciary, either way it has been thought to strengthen

A story in the business press that has interested me recently is the proposed effects of the 2015 election on Human Rights Law. The structure of UK Human Rights protections is one of the most useful and operative instruments for grasping an individual’s rights. It was founded in 1951 and improved by the passing of the Human Rights Act in 1998. One example of its importance, the Staffordshire Hospital litigation acquired both compensation and a full public inquiry for defenceless adults betrayed by catastrophic health care failings. Human Rights Lawyers have encountered ever more malicious press attention and aggressive public opinion. This

However, it can be considered that the law has taken on a positivist view, as the changes in law started to demonstrate the view that has been held by modern society for many years. Due to the Labour Government in 1998 introducing and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into their system, the Human Rights Act 1998 was created. There was a more liberal and equal drift away from the old conservatisms, allowed for homosexuals to rely on the law to protect them from prejudice and discrimination that they still faced despite the change in the law.