Judicial Miss Behavin': A Defence of Process-Based Review of Public Authority Decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mead
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

3. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
The Future ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which was introduced to allow individuals to argue cases involving rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) directly before a UK court. It first explains the background and rationale underlying the HRA, focusing on the arguments for and against a Human Rights Act, as well as the human rights that are covered and not covered by the HRA. The chapter then discusses the judicial powers/duties and remedies under the HRA, along with powers of derogation and reservation, with an emphasis on ECtHR case law, the interpretation clause, and declarations of incompatibility with the Convention rights. In addition, it examines the HRA’s use of proportionality and judicial deference doctrines when deciding whether an act by a public authority is incompatible with a Convention right. The chapter concludes by assessing the future of the HRA.

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”.

19. Remedies

2021 ◽  
pp. 652-679
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the remedies granted by the court. If a claimant successfully establishes that the public authority has acted in contravention of one of the grounds of review, then the court may grant a remedy. The purpose of a remedy is to tell the public authority what it has to do to comply with the judgment and to ensure, as far as possible, that it obeys the courts’ decision. There are two main types of remedies available in judicial review cases: ordinary remedies (injunction, declaration, and damages) and prerogative remedies (quashing order, prohibiting order, and mandatory order). The chapter also discusses situations that may cause the court to refuse a remedy and the courts’ powers to grant a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), including a declaration of incompatibility in accordance with section 4 HRA 1998.

17. The Human Rights Act 1998

2019 ◽  
pp. 387-412
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

This chapter addresses the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act provides two ways for the courts to ensure compliance with Convention rights: where legislation is not human rights-compliant; and where a public authority has acted incompatibly with an individual's rights. By providing a new benchmark for measuring UK legislation for compatibility with Convention rights, the Act gives judges a powerful interpreting role which effectively allows them to review Acts of Parliament. At the same time, the Act was carefully drafted to respect and preserve parliamentary sovereignty and does not give the UK courts power to invalidate, overrule, or strike down an Act of Parliament that is incompatible with a Convention right; and while the Human Rights Act has special status as a constitutional statute, it is not entrenched and cannot override other statutes.

Seeking the principle: chancels, choices and human rights

Legal Studies ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Dawson ◽  
Alison Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parish Church ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Modern Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Chancel liability is an ancient property right, enforced by a Parochial Church Council, attaching to certain former rectorial lands. It requires a landowner to bear the cost of repair of the parish church chancel. The right poses particular problems for a purchaser, not least because it is hard to discover and is not limited to the value of the land. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has found that a Parochial Church Council falls within section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a public authority, and that chancel liability infringes article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will dispute the rationale used by the Court of Appeal, and in so doing will argue that whilst chancel liability is outmoded, widely regarded as incongruous and does not bear scrutiny in its modern context, it should nevertheless be removed on a principled basis, avoiding unwanted repercussions elsewhere in the law.

Human Rights Act 1998

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

The following chapter examines claims that can be brought under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The HRA makes it unlawful for a ‘public authority’ to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’). The HRA accords to the victims of a breach of the Convention the right to pursue a claim against the offending public authority in the UK courts, when previously they were required to apply to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to vindicate their Convention rights.

7. Human rights in the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
pp. 255-292
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter considers the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its relationship to the English legal system. The focus in the chapter is on key provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998—the Act that incorporated the Convention into UK law. In the earlier part of the chapter there is coverage of sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act. These provisions concern the duties placed on the courts to take into account judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, to interpret domestic legislation so as to comply with rights under the Convention, and finally to issue a declaration of incompatibility when domestic legislation does not comply with rights under the Convention. Using examples from the case law, the chapter assesses how the courts balance their constitutional role to respect the supremacy of Parliament, with the duties provided in the Act to respect rights under the Convention. There is also an analysis of s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with Convention rights. The analysis includes the contested question of what precisely constitutes a ‘public authority’, particularly when a private body is carrying out a public function.

7. Human rights and fundamental freedoms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

This chapter considers the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its relationship to the English legal system. As an international treaty the ECHR is not part of UK law unless it is incorporated into the law. By the Human Rights Act 1998 Convention Rights are incorporated into UK law. By the Human Rights Act 1998 the courts are able to interpret legislation under s.3 to achieve compatibility with the ECHR but are not empowered to strike down legislation incompatible with the Convention. This preserves parliamentary sovereignty. The courts may give a declaration of incompatibility. The UK courts are not bound by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but must take such decisions into account. It is unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with Convention Rights.

Standing under the Human Rights Act 1998: Theories of Rights Enforcement & the Nature of Public Law Adjudication

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Miles
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Standing Test

The Human Rights Act enables applicants in judicial review and other legal proceedings to complain that a public authority has violated a Convention right, but only if they are “victims” of that violation. The victim standing test was adopted from the Strasbourg institutions without any consideration being given in Parliament to the appropriateness of such a test in the domestic context. It is argued that the suitability of a particular standing rule for a given jurisdiction cannot properly be evaluated until a theory explaining the juristic function of standing rules has been identified and articulated. Two theoretical aspects of standing rules in public law cases are suggested here, in order to provide a framework in which to assess the appropriateness of the victim test for judicial review cases raising Human Rights Act arguments.

The Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Public Authorities and Private Bodies

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Bamforth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Definition Of

THE Human Rights Act 1998 applies only to “public authorities”. This article begins by examining the Act's definition of a “public authority” and how this will interact with existing distinctions between public and private law in domestic judicial review and EU law. It is then argued that the Act may, through two different routes, have a limited horizontal impact between private bodies – although certain technical obstacles will need to be overcome. The article considers, finally, the operation between private bodies of the requirement that legislation be interpreted as far as possible in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document