The Impact Of The Human Rights Act Of 1998

Human Rights Act 1998 – is an Act that gives legal effect in the UK to certain fundamental rights and freedoms contained in

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.

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

Together these legislations formed the fundamental rights and freedom of an individual. These affect the rights of everyday life of an individual including what they can say and do, their beliefs, right not to be tortured and right to a

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

Despite the international prominence of human rights laws, Australia remains the only Western democracy without either a constitutionally entrenched or legislative bill of rights. Human rights can be defined as inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms that all individuals are inherently entitled to. Although human rights are protected to an extent through domestic legislation, the common law, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rule of law, the Australian

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

Human Rights Act

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.

Civil liberties have a formative and long history within the UK, the development of which is considered to have begun with the Magna Carta in 1215. This document is often described as the blueprint and original template for the numerous Bill of Rights and constitutions which exist today. Unlike other countries, such as the USA, the UK does not have a written constitution setting out its citizens’ civil liberties. Common law may account for many of the UK’s long recognised civil liberties however it is the documents which exemplify liberties which are still enforced today, such as habeas corpus: anyone who has been arrested or otherwise deprived of their liberty, may apply for a judge to oversee the legality of this decision. With the UK currently a party to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), it is becoming ever more important to understand what defines a civil liberties and whether civil liberties and human rights can be viewed as interchangeable concepts.

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

The introduction of HRA 1998 is considered one of the biggest constitutional advancement of the United Kingdom

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

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) can be defined as an international agreement initiated within the Council of Europe, which was established in 1949 in Strasbourg in France in order to unify Europe after the Second World War (Harries et al., 2014; O 'Boyle, 2014). According to Donald et al., (2012), United Kingdom was among the first countries to adopt and has played an important role in ECHR creation at that time. In 1966, the petition and jurisdiction of UK’s citizens was voluntary and individuals was able to take a case and jurisdictions to the ECtHR in Strasbourg. Latterly, in 1998 this process become compulsory for all countries that are members of the (ECHR). Since that time, European countries has become covered under this agreement as a form of legal system in the unify area.