14. Introduction to Human Rights in UK Law

  • Before the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, civil and political rights were recognized and enforced in the UK solely within the established framework of statutory and common law principles.
  • During the twentieth century, human rights principles were developed in international law by the law of treaties and by international organizations.
  • The Council of Europe drafted the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to guarantee basic civil and political rights, which have been expanded by a series of supplementary treaties called protocols, and provide a judicial system for their enforcement.
  • The ECHR is a treaty and, as such, could not give individual citizens directly enforceable rights until the ‘Convention rights’ were incorporated by the HRA 1998.
  • A poor record in the European Court of Human Rights, human rights problems in the English courts, and worries about the relationship between the executive and Parliament provide the background to the Act.
  • The HRA 1998 incorporates ‘Convention Rights’ into UK law.
  • The HRA 1998 creates new rules of statutory interpretation, enables citizens to test the compatibility of legislation with Convention rights, and obliges the courts to take ‘Strasbourg principles’ into account when considering human rights issues in litigation.
  • The HRA 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in any way which is incompatible with Convention rights, allows individuals to rely on breach of Convention rights in any proceedings brought against public authorities and provides some extra remedies.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c...
Read more

10. Introduction to Administrative Law: The Foundations and Extent of Judicial Review

Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of a decision of a public body carrying out its public functions and enactments where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Judicial review is based on the constitutional principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. The defendant must be a public body, the subject matter of a claim must be a public law matter, and the claimant must have the right to claim (they must have sufficient interest in the matter). CoA stated that if it is unclear that a case is a public law matter, the claimant should seek judicial review to avoid an accusation of abuse of process. The key principle is that it is not an abuse of process for someone to raise a public law matter as a defence in civil proceedings. Declarations, injunctions, and damages may be sought by judicial review procedure. Exclusion of Judicial Review by Parliament ...
Read more

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Facts: S appealed against the High Court’s decision to strike out his statement of claim for personal injury damages on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. S brought an action against the hospital alleging their negligent treatment of his son caused him to suffer psychiatric injury. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. However, even where a statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, the court had discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend it out of time provided that the proposed amendment arose from the facts in the pleading. S was unable to recover for psychiatric harm sustained as a result of watching his son die over a period of 14 days while becoming increasingly aware that the hospital was negligent in its treatment of him.
Read more