Human Rights Act 1998 a 'Yellow Card'? According to T.R.S. Allan, the UK Constitution is Ultimately a Common Law Constitution, Founded on Common Law Values; the Human Rights Act 1998 and Other Constitutional Statutes Merely Give Recognition to These Values. Does this View Capture the 'Big Picture'?

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
George P. Kyprianides ◽  
Pella Demetriades ◽  
Eri S. Kozakou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Yellow Card ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

15. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998

Public Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Positive Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

One of the most fundamental aspects of any constitution are the provisions and measures that protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. In the UK, rights protection is markedly different to that in America, in chief because there is no entrenched Bill of Rights. Rights protection is dominated by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, which sets out a number of positive rights that are actionable in the UK courts This chapter discusses the ways in which these rights are protected in the UK Constitution. It discusses the courts' historic civil liberties approach and common law protection of rights, before then examining the development, incorporation, and application of the ECHR. The chapter also explores the way in which the various sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 work to ensure appropriate enforcement and protection of rights in UK law.

11. Judge-made law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This chapter considers a further source of the UK constitution: the law made by the judicial branch of government as a result of the cases heard by the courts. Today it is widely accepted that judge-made law is a reality. It takes two main forms: the development of the common law; or the interpretation of statutes. The two main approaches of the courts to interpretation of Acts of Parliament—the literal approach and the purposive approach—are discussed. The interpretative obligation imposed on the courts by s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is also reviewed.

11. Judge-made law

2020 ◽  
pp. 243-250
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This chapter considers a further source of the UK constitution: the law that is made by the judicial branch of government as a result of the cases heard by the courts. Today it is widely accepted that judge-made law is a reality. It takes two main forms: the development of the common law; or the interpretation of statutes. The two main approaches of the courts to interpretation of Acts of Parliament—the literal approach and the purposive approach—are discussed. In addition, the interpretative obligation imposed on the courts by s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is also reviewed.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, before the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

15. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998

Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 620-670
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Positive Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk

One of the most fundamental aspects of any constitution are the provisions and measures that protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. In the UK, rights protection is markedly different to that in America, in chief because there is no entrenched Bill of Rights. Rights protection is dominated by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, which sets out a number of positive rights that are actionable in the UK courts This chapter discusses the ways in which these rights are protected in the UK Constitution. It discusses the courts’ historic civil liberties approach and common law protection of rights, before then examining the development, incorporation, and application of the ECHR. The chapter also explores the way in which the various sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 work to ensure appropriate enforcement and protection of rights in UK law.

Australian Bills of Rights and the ‘New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism’

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Evans ◽  
Julia Watson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the influence of the new Commonwealth model of human rights protection (exemplified by the UK Human Rights Act 1998) on the form of the two Australian statutory Bills of Rights, and then considers the impact of Australia's distinctive legal culture and constitutional structure on the operation of these instruments. In particular, it examines the impact of culture and structure in the decision of the High Court of Australia in R. v Momcilovic [2011] HCA 34; (2011) 280 A.L.R. As a result of that case, key features of the Australian Bills of Rights now diverge from the dominant UK approach, a divergence so striking that it may no longer be possible to identify the Australian Bills of Rights as exemplars of the new Commonwealth model.

20. Human Rights IV: The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998

2021 ◽  
pp. 528-578
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legislative Policy ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact

This chapter analyses some of the leading cases in which the courts addressed different aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998, and draws out the constitutional implications of the courts’ initial conclusions. The discussions cover the interlinked issues of the extent to which the courts have recognised a distinction between Convention articles and Convention Rights, the approach taken to statutory interpretation mandated by s 3, and the use of Declarations of Incompatibility under s 4; the doctrine of judicial ‘deference’ to legislative policy decisions; the ‘horizontality’ of the Act and its impact on the development of the common law; and the status of proportionality as a ground of review of executive action. The chapter concludes with an assessment of whether the Act has triggered a shift in understandings on the proper scope of the doctrines of the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law within the modern constitutional order.

4. Strict Liability

Criminal Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 210-229
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

A strict liability offence is one where it is not necessary to prove any mental state of the defendant. All that needs to be shown is that the defendant caused a particular result or carried out a particular act. This chapter discusses the offences that are strict liability; when a court will not presume mens rea; what mens rea will be presumed; the Human Rights Act 1998 and strict liability offences; common law defences and strict liability offences; possession offences; and the arguments for and against strict liability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document