The Incorporation of the Human Right Act into British Law

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

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.

The human Right act 1998 was published by the government legislation. ‘The human Right act 1998’ has been taken place in the UK law. This means all the individuals that live in the UK are protected by ‘The Human Right Act 1998’. Everyone all around the world has the access to human rights and all the individuals have a responsibility to uphold human rights for others. Within the UK, the human rights act states we all should have access to the following rights;

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.

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.

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

Human rights were initiated for the protection of the basic civil and political liberties in the general public. In the United Kingdom the Human Rights Act of 1998 came into force in October 2000. The aim of the HRA in the UK was to provide further legal effect to the basic rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. The rights contained in the HRA not only affect essential matters of life and death, but also issues that occur in people's daily life. Considering the broad range of basic rights covered, it is not astonishing that the HRA is viewed as one of the most significant segments of legislation ever passed in the UK.

The Human Rights Act is a UK law. This law was passed in 1998, it allows you to defend all of your human rights in any of UK’s courts.

The response to the much conspicuous question that many philosophers cross-examine encompassing the Human Rights Act, remains ambiguous and divergent. 'Do we have more rights than before? ' Seems to be key topic in todays society and although the framework provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and subsequently the safeguards provided by the legislation on liberty for subjects/citizens, the effectiveness of the safeguards in terms of police power and of arrest, detention, interrogation and the handling of police complaints remains under considerable telescopic scrutiny. While the accepted definition for 'powers of arrest ' clearly states that ' 'the powers of arrest are not something to be abused by the police or by a public citizen and are powers that should only be used responsibly ' ', in the opinion of Tony Benn and Andrew Hoods (1993), authority rests with self-serving elites amd tje omdividua;s liberties envisaged by philosophers auch as Tom Paine are far from ensrhined. In fact, Tony Benn goes as far as to say that in Britain, we are in fact 'subjects ' rather than citizens. If Britain were to ever become a fairer democracy, Benn believed that that a radical and democratic ovehaul of the system is essential. While the British constitution promotes the intention of treating citizens as 'freemen ' (or women) as well as adverstise the purpose of the states existance as a mechanism to serve the citizen aas well as embody the aggregate of the

This act incoporated the rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which was signed in 1950, when member states of the Council of Europe and Foreign Ministers met in an effort to rebuild Europe in a new direction after the atrocities of World War II.9 The Convention is also responsible for creating institutions such as the European Commission, along with the Court of Human Rights, located in Strasbourg, which under this Act, must be accountable within English law.10 The Convention holds that only public authorties, excluding Parliament, can act unlawfully through acting inconsistently with the rights provided withint he ECHR.11 The addition of the ECHR, through the HRA 1998, entailed an important change for England and the UK broadly, resulted in a change to a rights based protection, rather than the traditional non-rights based

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.

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

Section 3 of the 1998 Human Rights act has equally been center of controversy and light about various issues as who decides the extent to which the human rights stretch. The human rights act expresses the human rights that are contained in the European Convention (Jeeves) on Human rights as part of the UK laws in three forms as follow:

The Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced to ‘bring rights home’ by the labour party in their general election manifesto in 1997 whereby conventions from ECHR were incorporated in the UK domestic law. The act came in full action in October 2000. It was designed to integrate a traditional civil liberties approach to safeguard "effective political democracy", from the strong customs of freedom and liberty in the United Kingdom.