A ‘Culture of Justification’? Police Interpretation and Application of the Human Rights Act 1998

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Martin
2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Gale

Apart from an awareness of shameful treatment to some shell-shocked soldiers on active duty in the First World War, the subjects of military discipline in general and courts-martial in particular are unlikely to permeate the consciousness of the public at large or, indeed, the vast majority of criminal lawyers. This article explores some of the history of both, the current position in relation to courts-martial and the planned reforms under the Armed Forces Act 2006. That the Human Rights Act 1998 exposed some of the anomalities and worst practices of courts-martial is undeniable. It seems equally likely that the 1998 Act was at least a catalyst for the wholesale review and modernisation of military discipline carried out by the 2006 Act.


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-96
Author(s):  
Ronagh JA McQuigg

The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 has now been in force in Ireland for ten years. This article analyses the Act itself and the impact which it has had on the Irish courts during the first decade of its operation. The use of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Irish courts prior to the enactment of the legislation is discussed, as are the reasons for the passing of the Act. The relationship between the Act and the Irish Constitution is examined, as is the jurisprudence of the Irish courts towards the interpretative obligation found in section 2(1), and the duty placed upon organs of the State by section 3(1). The article ends with a number of observations regarding the impact which the Act has had on the Irish courts at a more general level. Comparisons will be drawn with the uk’s Human Rights Act 1998 throughout the discussion.


Author(s):  
Simon Evans ◽  
Julia Watson

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.


Author(s):  
C. R. G. Murray

Much of the judicial-dialogue debate implies that this process was initiated by the Human Rights Act, but developments since its enactment arguably refine the long-established process whereby the courts interact with the other branches of government. For example, when individuals (often supported by pressure groups) pursue rights-based claims they may do so not with the expectation that the courts will uphold their claim, but in the hope that judges will issue a declaration of incompatibility with which they can influence political debate. The Human Rights Act marks an increase in the volume (in both senses of the word) of such dialogue. Judges must now consider their decisions not only regarding their impact upon UK government policy but also with one eye towards ensuring that the European Court of Human Rights upholds their decisions. This chapter examines these efforts, focusing in particular on the growth in ‘protest cases’ before the courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document