scholarly journals The Human Rights Act 1998: A Bridge between Citizenship and Justice?

2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Political Citizenship ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual

This article discusses the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It suggests that the HRA is designed to promote a classic liberal conception of political citizenship, which protects the individual from the exercise of arbitrary state power, and not to extend the role of the state as a welfare provider. It goes on to argue that the government has limited the effectiveness of the HRA by claiming that they are building a culture of rights and responsibilities whilst treating human rights as an issue for the courts rather than an issue for government and public authorities generally. The article concludes by discussing extending the HRA to include economic, social and cultural rights.

8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies

2019 ◽  
pp. 295-342
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government

This chapter discusses the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998. The chapter explores in detail the question of whether public authorities, and the police in particular, are under a duty of care when undertaking and performing their operational duties, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. In turn, it teases out some of the broader implications of what is a rapidly evolving, and politically sensitive, aspect of the law.

F igure 5.9: procedure for bringing an action in the European Court of Human R ights • Domestic remedies must have been exhausted (Article 35). • Application to the ECtHR must be within six months of final hearing in the domestic court. • It must be an admissible application. • There can be a limited audience in a court of first instance (a chamber) relating to the matter. • Within three months a party can ask for a Grandchamber hearing. • Enforcement of the decision of the court is a matter for the Committee of Ministers. Here the matter reverts to the political level but a State who consistently abuses human rights can be expelled from the Council of Europe. The remedies under the English legislation allow for the following. Figure 5.10: remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998 • English courts and tribunals take account of cases in the ECtHR and other relevant courts and decide cases accordingly. • English courts can note whether legislation is incompatible with the Convention and if so issue a declaration of incompatibility. They have no power to declare primary or secondary legislation invalid, although they do have a power to invalidate secondary legislation if the primary legislation that it is based on does not forbid it. This severely limits the power of the judges to enforce the Convention rights. • If Parliament decides that the incompatibility should be dealt with there is a fast track procedure for delegated legislation to deal with the speedy removal of the incompatibility allowing a ‘remedial’ order to be enacted. • Public authorities can be fined for contravention of the Act. • Courts must act in a manner compatible with the Act. • All statutes must carry a declaration of compatibility with the HRA 1998 signed by the minister responsible for the original Bill stating that the legislation is not incompatible or if it is incompatible that the government intends the legislation to be incompatible. In keeping with the ‘hands on’ approach of this text, the HRA 1998 can be found in Appendix 2. Read it through quickly to get an idea of it and then carefully do the following exercise. You will also find two diagrams: the HRA 1998 sections and the HRA 1998 Schedules.

2012 ◽  
pp. 139-139
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Court Of First Instance

8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government

This chapter discusses the following: the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998.

17. Remedies and limitation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
English Law ◽  
Developing Area ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The Calcutt Committee Report on Privacy and Related Matters (1990) defines privacy as ‘the right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information’. While a number of different torts indirectly address wrongful intrusion into another’s privacy, English law has not directly protected privacy in its own right. It was the Human Rights Act 1998 that has made it possible to use breach of confidence in regulating the publication of private information. This chapter looks at the history of the protection of privacy in English law, discusses the current legal approaches to privacy, examines the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on this developing area of law, and evaluates English law on privacy in an international context.

5. Human Rights Act 1998

2021 ◽  
pp. 154-198
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter examines the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and discusses some of the important issues that arise from its use. It also provides an overview of relevant articles in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The HRA 1998 is quite a short Act and its key parts are in a small number of sections. Perhaps the most important is that of s 6 which places an obligation on public authorities to act in a way compatible with the ECHR; s 7 which prescribes how it can be used to obtain a remedy in the courts. This chapter also links to the previous chapters in terms of discussing how the Act is interpreted.

scholarly journals Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2012

Legal Studies ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Chan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Baseline Level ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Proportionality Test

One of the most contested issues in UK public law is how to calibrate the appropriate intensity of proportionality review in human rights adjudication. Here, the challenge lies in formulating a theory of intensity of review that can both comply with the constitutional framework introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) and accommodate courts' varying levels of competence in different areas of litigation. This paper attempts to sketch such a theory in two steps. First, it argues that to fulfil the constitutional expectations brought about by the HRA, a minimum rigour of proportionality review should be observed. This baseline consists of requiring the government to demonstrate to the courts by means of cogent and sufficient evidence that a rights-limiting measure satisfies the distinct stages of the proportionality test. Secondly, this paper highlights the ways in which compliance with this baseline can nonetheless accommodate the courts' varying levels of competence in different adjudicative contexts. In particular, courts can vary the intensity of review once the baseline level of review is reached and adjust the nature of the evidence required from the government.

7 The Human Rights Act 1998: Bringing Rights Home

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 125-146
Author(s):  
Stephanie Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Domestic Law

The Labour government has quickly acted on its election promise to introduce a bill of rights into domestic law. The Human Rights Act 1998 partially incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into United Kingdom law. This legislation is part of a wider constitutional package including devolved government for Scotland and Wales and reform of the House of Lords. The government’s programme is intended to modernise and indeed transform the British constitutional structure. According to the government, the Human Rights Act will bring rights home. Individuals will be able to argue for their Convention rights in the United Kingdom’s own courts and tribunals and judges will be able to adjudicate directly on Convention issues. All new laws will be carefully scrutinised to ensure compatibility with Convention rights.

scholarly journals PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS “VICTIMS” UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

2005 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-328
Author(s):  
Howard Davis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

ONE feature of the current debate concerning the term “public authority” in the Human Rights Act 1998 is a rule to the effect that public authorities are not themselves capable of having and enforcing Convention rights. In what follows this will be referred to as the “rights-restriction rule”. The position was confirmed by the House of Lords in Aston Cantlow and has been given effect by the courts in relation to English local authorities and to NHS Trusts in Scotland. Despite this, doubts have been expressed. In particular the parliamentary Joint Committee has suggested, though without argument, that the denial of Convention rights to public authorities may be wrong in principle and that there are “circumstances in which public authorities have Convention rights”.

scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 – Convention Implications of the Green Paper

2014 ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Paul Bowen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Devil ◽  
Made In

Assessing the Convention compatibility of the Government proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 set out in the Green Paper1 is largely an exercise in speculation, for three reasons.First, the proposals are very broad; the detail, where the devil may be found, is yet to come.Second, the Convention does not permit the Strasbourg authorities to review the legality of national legislation in the abstract, but only with reference to particular cases after the proceedings are complete2. Although that will not necessarily preclude a domestic court from reviewing the lawfulness of any provision of the new Mental Health Act after incorporation of the Human Rights Act 19983, the comments that can be made in this article are necessarily confined to the<br />general rather than the specific.Third, and perhaps most significantly, it is impossible to predict the impact of the Convention following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document