The Human Rights Act of 1998 and Its Judicial Impact

The Human Rights Act 1998, under which rights are to be 'brought home' (1), incorporates the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 into domestic law. It appears to raise issues in the UK concerning the separation of power, as it seems to provide the courts news powers that dispute Parliament sovereignty and the executive on a certain level. This essay is going to discuss the scope of the judiciary power through the content of HRA 98, then through the competing rights concerning privacy and press freedom and finally through the ones concerning fair trial and freedom of expression.

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 legitimacy of the ECJ to uphold EU legislation is a necessary component of effective human rights policy. The history of its increase in power is worth noting. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the ECJ’s location in Luxembourg, far from the political fray in Brussels and Strasburg, prevented it from becoming a strong body of the EU. Yet, throughout that time the court methodically built case-law that would lead to its surge in influence in the 1980s. The two most significant developments of the court during this time period were direct effect and supremacy. These twin pillars clarified the relationship between the national and EU legal orders.

In relation to the Charter, my advice is that Josh’s conduct is not protected and the cancellation of his parole by the Adult Parole Board was not in breach of the Charter. Moreover, the conduct of Dianne and Cary is initially protected by the Charter however due to the limitations placed upon human rights it can be argued that Dianne and Cary’s conduct are indeed in breach. Additionally Victoria police in partner with AX6 are in breach of numerous rights set out in the Charter, which will be discussed in further detail.

When a decision is made for a new dispute, in a common law system, the judgement is passed as a precedent. A precedent is a verdict made by legal authorities for a principle or rule that provides guidance for any future cases having similar issues. Precedents are supported by the doctrine of precedent also known as ‘stare decisis’. ‘Stare decisis’ is a Latin term translating to ‘the decision stands’. This doctrine is a legal principle that judges are obliged to follow and respect (Milgate P, 2013). This implies, that any future cases with similar circumstances should have the same verdict (punishment/decision etc.) as the precedent. Precedents are followed to ensure fair treatment and so that law is developed in a consistent manner providing older cases with the authority and structure for current judges to make their decisions. When there is no precedent a decision is met through existing statute laws

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.

Tort law is a considerably old branch of English law, covering a wide range of areas within such as defamation, nuisance, trespass and, most importantly, negligence. The latter set out the modern concept of negligence by means of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. Furthermore, in twentieth century a number of fundamental elements were established in negligence, elevating its significance above all other areas of tort law. Most problematic and difficult subgroup of negligence is clinical negligence, where doctor are held to another standards. Nonetheless, the old foundations were disturbed by the enforcement of the Human Rights Act 1998, which was a successful attempt to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into English domestic law. It is applied directly or indirectly into many areas of law, clinical negligence in torts in particular, adding multiple complications as it has to comply with the new Act. The influence of the HRA is yet to be fully researched professionally and amended. In attempt to explore the impact of the HRA 1998 on clinical negligence this essay examines the reasons for integration of the HRA and issues it came with and compares various types of negligence, liability of public authorities and remedies before and after the HRA came into force.

This section provides a summary of the main findings of major reviews that have been conducted of the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act by the government, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Commission. The reviews indicated that the HRA had largely had a positive impact on public service delivery and the enjoyment of human rights. However there are a number of barriers to the HRA 's effectiveness: significant misconceptions about the HRA are held by sections of the media, general public and at times public authorities (including by frontline staff in public authorities on when the HRA is not relevant), a need to improve understanding and application of the HRA by public authorities, and a need for better leadership on human rights issues by the government and the Commission.

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

As stipulated in section 2 of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, authorities can intervene for the sake of protecting other human rights. The same is categorically stated in article 10, which allows for intervention by legal officers for the sake of protecting human rights.

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 of 1998, also abbreviated to HRA is a national law passed in the United Kingdom and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its purpose is to incorporate the rights within the European Convention on Human Rights into UK national law. This law allows the citizens of the United Kingdom to defend their rights in UK courts and states that public organisations such as the Government, Police and other public authorities must respect the people’s rights by treating them fairly and equally with dignity. Firstly, this essay will be discussing what the Human Rights Act (1998) is and its effects. Secondly, this essay will be pointing out the Articles and explaining the Act. Thirdly, this essay will be talking about the history and why this act came into place. Finally, this essay will argue the necessity of the Human Rights Act (1998).

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.

Following the signing of the ECHR, the United Kingdom introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). Under s6(3)(a) HRA 1998, the courts are now considered a public body, therefore no decisions they make can affect the guaranteed rights of any individual under ECHR. The introduction of this legislation has resulted in individuals bringing claims for Human Rights breaches where negligence claims have