Human Rights

 Human Rights Act is one of the most revolutionary pieces of the legislation to be passed in the UK, besides the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Union and the European Communities Act. The Human Rights 1998 is rightly considered to be one of the most significant constitutional developments of the past 350 years. It is also an essential feature of the rule of law. Its introduction heralded with much fanfare in the Labor Party Manifesto of 1997 and in the subsequent “White Paper Bringing Right Home” might have led an external observe to conclude that a massive change was in prospect, and to some extent they would be correct.

One of the most highly regarded of the regional conventions for the protection of human rights is the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR). The Human Rights Act 1998 is a cleverly drafted piece of legislation and walks tightrope between empowering the judges to bend domestic law so as to establish fulfillment with ECHR, and ensuring the parliament retains the sovereignty to legislate as it sees fit. A UK citizen who believed that his human right had been violated was thus force to talk action in Strasbourg. In order to evaluate whether the Act has made a constructive contribution to the English Governing system, comparison must be made between the pre and post status Act.

Before the establishment of Human Rights Act, there was no proper bill of rights i.e. a piece of legislation for the domestic court, which would contain all the rights that an individual might receive under law.

Historically the approach of the Uk government and the courts has to a large extent, been that the incorporation of ECHR was unnecessary given the tract record of UK in respecting human rights and the ability of the common law to respond to changing circumstances and it had the status of any international treaty (Kaur V Lord Advocate). However, it maybe used as an aid to interpretation (Waddington V Miah). Beyond this the courts were reluctant to override domestic law to give effect to the ECHR in any séance (Uppal V Home office). Negative and positive rights are the two categories of rights. Former to HRA 98, UK citizens enjoyed negative rights because ECHR was only of influential force domestic law inadequate. Two cases mirror this approach-Malone V MPC, where Article-8 of the ECHR to regulate the interception of telephone calls by the police and R V Secretary of State from the Home Department exparte Brind, Article-10 of the ECHR was enforced, thus guaranteeing freedom of expression. The status of this treaty has gradually increased in importance through time. What was once an option became an obligation through cases such as Derbyshire County Council V Times Newspaper and AG V Guardian Newspaper.

In October 2000, the HRA’ 98 came into full effect creating a new statutory head of illegality, requiring public authorities to comply with the rights laid down by the ECHR.

In effect the Convention Rights are incorporated into the Act through Sec-1. Under this section individual are now more concerned about their rights and state obligation. For example:-Article-2 deals with the most fundamental rights- “rights to life” (Airedale NHS trust V Bland).

Article-3 refers to-“freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment” (Napier V Scottish Minister).

Article-5 deals with-“right to liberty and security”.

Article-6 states-“rights to fair trial”. Current cases like R V Alami, illustrates the depth of change which HRA’98 has brought about in the life of the people related to law and litigation.

Article-7 refers to-“freedom from retrospective effect (R VR) and Article-8 state to “right to respect primate and family life”.

Furthermore, Section-2 of HRA’98 provides that in any ruling on the convention the court must take into account the judgments of the ECHR. By virtue of Sec-3 of HRA’98 the domestic courts are under a duty that primary and secondary legislation, whenever enacted, must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with convention rights. This interpretative duty of judges in going to be carried out with necessity and proportionality. These were all illustrated by Lord Steyn in R V A.

Sec-4 of HRA’98 provides “Declaration of Incompatibility.” The meaning of this is that if legislation does not comply with the convention rights then the court may issue a DOI. Only the superior court has the power to declare legislation incompatible. But this declaration the parties under Sec-4(6).

In view of the above, it is evident that Human rights law has been set forth in terms of setting up the rights of the people as well s society. In order to preserve the entity of humans, human rights law has been established as a tentative flow.