Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    4

    Uploaded by

    quality writers
    The Human Rights Act of 1998 defined fundamental liberties and rights for UK citizens and allowed them to sue in British courts for human rights violations, rather than going to the European Court of Human Rights. The Act made provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable in UK courts and required courts to interpret laws in a manner consistent with Convention rights. While some argue this undermines parliamentary sovereignty, the Act's protections are intended to safeguard human rights. There has been discussion of replacing the Act with a UK Bill of Rights to address misconceptions and maintain Parliament's role as the supreme legislative body.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4

    Uploaded by

    quality writers
    43 views4 pages
    The Human Rights Act of 1998 defined fundamental liberties and rights for UK citizens and allowed them to sue in British courts for human rights violations, rather than going to the European Court of Human Rights. The Act made provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable in UK courts and required courts to interpret laws in a manner consistent with Convention rights. While some argue this undermines parliamentary sovereignty, the Act's protections are intended to safeguard human rights. There has been discussion of replacing the Act with a UK Bill of Rights to address misconceptions and maintain Parliament's role as the supreme legislative body.

    Original Title

    Doc4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Human Rights Act of 1998 defined fundamental liberties and rights for UK citizens and allowed them to sue in British courts for human rights violations, rather than going to the European Court of Human Rights. The Act made provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable in UK courts and required courts to interpret laws in a manner consistent with Convention rights. While some argue this undermines parliamentary sovereignty, the Act's protections are intended to safeguard human rights. There has been discussion of replacing the Act with a UK Bill of Rights to address misconceptions and maintain Parliament's role as the supreme legislative body.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views4 pages

    4

    Uploaded by

    quality writers
    The Human Rights Act of 1998 defined fundamental liberties and rights for UK citizens and allowed them to sue in British courts for human rights violations, rather than going to the European Court of Human Rights. The Act made provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable in UK courts and required courts to interpret laws in a manner consistent with Convention rights. While some argue this undermines parliamentary sovereignty, the Act's protections are intended to safeguard human rights. There has been discussion of replacing the Act with a UK Bill of Rights to address misconceptions and maintain Parliament's role as the supreme legislative body.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    The Human Rights Act of 1998 is a piece of legislation enacted in the United Kingdom to

    define the fundamental liberties and rights that are guaranteed to all citizens of that country.

    Residents of the United Kingdom now have the legal right to sue the act in British courts for

    violations of their human rights. Individuals residing in the United Kingdom may file these

    cases. Before the Human Rights Act of 1998 was passed in the United Kingdom in 2000, anyone

    residing in United Kingdom and wished to file a complaint on violation of their Human Rights

    had to go visit European Court of Human Rights located in the Strasbourg, France. Before the

    Human Rights Act of 1998 was passed in the United Kingdom in 2000, any resident could file a

    complaint alleging a violation of their European Convention on matters of Human Rights.

    The legislation not only made nearly all of the provisions of the European Convention on

    matters of Human Rights directly enforceable in British courts, but it also altered how British

    courts and tribunals read statutory provisions. The European Convention on matters of Human

    Rights was directly responsible for these changes. According to Section 6 of the Behave, it is

    illegal for the authorities in the public sector to act in such a way that violates a right granted by

    a convention. This law was passed in order to protect citizens' constitutional rights. According to

    Section 3 of the Act, courts must interpret and apply the law in accordance with the rights

    guaranteed by the Convention. Furthermore, the court must be impartial. This means that when a

    court considers a specific piece of legislation, it must interpret it in accordance with the

    Convention's recognized rights. This rule applies to all laws.

    Just before to the HRA, courts were required to apply the statute in accordance with its

    clear meaning, as required by the constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy. However,

    judicial events since the passage of the HRA in 1998 demonstrate that the judiciary is now more

    capable of defending and safeguarding human rights by using Section 3 of the HRA 1998 as a
    radical tool. Section 3 requires that domestic laws be interpreted in light of convention rights. To

    get a sense of how far the HRA protects us, consider its components and extent to go ensure that

    our rights are safeguarded. S6 contains a provision that prohibits public officials from acting

    contrary to procedure. Due to these, the ECHR can either get implemented even in those civil

    cases.

    The Human Rights Act of 1998 expands legislative authority and the protections afforded

    to judges. Domestic legislation should get interpreted "as far as possible in a manner consistent

    with the convention," according to S3. In contrast to the traditions of the government, preference

    for the literal interpretation, this necessitates a strategic approach to interpretation. While some

    may argue that giving the opportunity to those judges who were not elected undermines

    Parliamentary sovereignty, all actions are taken to protect human rights and the interests of the

    people of United Kingdom. Despite the challenges of interpreting language, Lord Steyn believes

    that the law must be applied in this manner in order to protect the citizens. However, he believes

    that under S4 of the HRA, a statement of incompatibility should not be used. The High Court and

    higher courts can issue these DIs, sending a message to parliament the need to have the act

    changed. Although unlikely, Parliament may ignore a DI due to S10's accelerated method for

    revising incompatible legislation, which Professor Blackstone describes as "what parliament

    doth, no power on earth can undo," and which involve future parliament biding legislatures.

    According to Merris Amos (The Modern Law Review), there has been much discussion

    about the possibility of a British bill of rights replacing or supplementing the 1988 Human

    Rights Act. (HRA). Several parties, including the government and the Conservative Party, have

    issued comprehensive plans and research papers. The Commission heard many opposing
    arguments, but the majority of members ultimately recommended that the United Kingdom pass

    a bill of rights. This bill of rights would build on the rights established by the European

    Convention while also ensuring that Parliament retains its role as the supreme legislative body,

    as mandated by the 1998 Human Rights Act. Because there were numerous misconceptions on

    current Human Rights Act did, it was thought that there was the need to have a fresh start, with a

    bill of rights which British public could understand well and support it. This was due to

    numerous misconceptions about what the Human Rights Act did. Following its House of

    Commons election victory in 2015, the Conservative Party began work on drafting a bill of rights

    for the United Kingdom. This could imply making significant changes to the Human Rights Act

    of 1998, or simply revising elements of the act that have caused problems, as previously

    mentioned in this essay. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is now playing an

    increasingly important role as a constitutional court capable of protecting both human rights and

    constitutional principles. The United Kingdom is unlikely to withdraw completely from the

    European Convention on Human Rights because doing so would cause numerous international

    problems for the country. These issues would arise not only with the Council of Europe, but also

    with the European Union and the UN, both of which work to protect and advance human rights.

    In conclusion the Human Rights Act 1998 was a legislation which was made purposely to

    define the fundamental liberties and rights that are guaranteed to all citizens of United Kingdom.

    The act maintains natural justice in the United Kingdom through various ways. One of the ways

    is through ensuring that the citizens of United Kingdom do not go through an expensive and time

    consuming process when presenting their cases in court. Although the act has been served over

    the last daces the modern review of the law has seen the attempt to have the act replaced with the

    bill of rights of the British.

    You might also like