Human Rights Act 1998

Your name Instructor Subject 28th January 2013

Table of Content Abstract I. Introduction4 II. Objectives..4 III. Incompatibility.5 IV. Successes..5

V. Conclusion.6 VI.References.8

Abstract The following argument interrogates if the Human Rights Act 1998 adequately guards individual liberties in the UK. The argument examines the declaration of incompatibility as a foremost restriction of the said Human Rights Act through exploring the A v Secretary of State [2004] UKHL 56 (Belmarsh incarceration case).regardless of this limitation, based on the overall case evaluation as well as the Human Rights Act, it ought to be noted that the Act adequately provide individuals in the UK with solid protection of their liberties.

The Human Rights Act 1998 does not go far enough to protect the rights of individuals in the UK.Do you agree with this statement? Why? Introduction The UK law has since October 2000 integrated its civil statutes with those enshrined within the European Convention of Human Rights,equally,this include the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It would be imperative to examine the achievements of this HRA. It is the first British statute attempting to guard the rights of its populace. To determine if this Act protects individual liberties adequately in the UK, this composition will explore the goal of the HRA and subsequently investigate the case of A and Others vs. Secretary of State (2004) to show the admonition of declarations of inaptness. Basically, this case presents a definite challenge to the appropriateness and efficacy of the Human Rights Act 1998 in sustaining the individual rights as essential. On the other hand, accomplishments of the HRA provide awesome substantiation that the HRA (1998) does go far enough to defend the fundamental scope of civil liberties of individuals in the UK. Objectives The objectives of the Human Rights Act 1998 was to permit UK judicial systems to provide a cure to infringements of civil liberties in the European Convention of Human Rights and in so doing shun the expenditure of any instances of protracted legal battles at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The HRA strongly permitted the UK legal systems and in particular courts to weigh the pertinent jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the Act likewise imposed commitments in regard to civil authorities to uphold Convention Liberties. The Act is thus a local parameter for assessing individual rights that are correlated to human rights associations globally (Fenwick 2002). Bix observes that the natural language of civil rights is more exposed than the conventional language of human liberties due to no obligation to be attuned (2003). As a result, to use the expression of the White Paper published in prior to the Human Rights Act, it indicates that the HRA 1998 has made an effort at establishing explicit civil liberties in the UK. Incompatibility Despite the said observations, one of the notable restrictions of the Human Rights Act 1998 is explicitly shown through A and others vs. Secretary of state (2004) case. Although it established that imprecise detention of foreigners in Belmarsh in addition to a denied trial was irreconcilable with Article 5(1) of ECHR as it was in nature discriminatory as regards nationality, this ruling was thus a declaration of incompatibility. It is thus evident that the ruling had no any legal impact, since the Human Rights Act as stated under s4 and 6a do not expressly grant the judicial system authority to invalidate any Acts of Parliament. In addition, Lord Hoffman disagreed with the view that the case on the whole was irreconcilable since the qualification of a threat to the life of the nation was not there. It ought to be noted that also Article 6 of the ECHR defining the structures of right to a fair trial in reasonable time was as well ignored in the judgment.

This indicates that the judicial systems only have an interpretative compulsion permitting Parliament to continue being absolute. The value of declarations of incompatibility is moreover queried as the government substituted the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 with the passing of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, creating control stipulations that affect to both UK natives and non-nationals. Some observers argues that due to lack of adequate legal power, the government are able to implement such decrees restricting civil liberties with no fear of the law being violated. Success Examining other cases it is evident they have been highly effective in deeming HRA as an important and effective tool in guarding individual liberties in the UK. Even though Parliament is open to disregard Declarations of Incompatibility, Klug (2009) notes that Parliament has acted in response to all 18 Declarations of Incompatibility that have been prepared and not been reversed on request. For instance, in Bellinger v. Bellinger (2003), the courts affirmed that by not recognizing gender transformation of post-operative transsexuals in matrimony law is irreconcilable with Articles 8 along with 12 of ECHR. This compelled Parliament to enact the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Similarly, Diane Blood won her legal battle to have her childrens father recognized lawfully even though being conceived after his demise. The consequence was a modification in the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990, which might have affected over 50 families. This shows the dialogue advocated by the HRA connecting the courts with Parliament is satisfactorily objective where the HRA is appropriately executed and is not influenced by politicians. In this sense, there are adequate aspects for the HRA to defend liberties of individuals as being essential and absolute. On a related note, there are many individuals, in each social sphere, who have successfully used the language of the Human Rights Act to enhance the experience of civil services with no any express cure from the courts. That is why the Equality and Human Rights Commissions Inquiry as well established that the Human Rights Act has to offer a rights-based configuration for civic services as well as in the NHS (OLoan 2009). Conclusion To wrap up, the HRA 1998 has gone far as possible to guard the liberties of individuals in the UK since it is tremendously obvious that the HRA is fundamental to Britains human rights traditions. It is employed as a tool to shield individuals liberties both in the courts in addition to wider society. The HRA has no hesitation been confronted by various cases such as those concerning terrorist suspects as argued in this paper. The influence of magistrates to issue a declaration of incompatibility purely materializes to be of a political character. Nevertheless, this has not been violated by the government by disregarding such declarations. Even though the legal modifications enacted as a consequence of the Belmarsh case had little or no effect in ascertaining civil liberties, other case law immediate the HRA indicates that Parliament has reacted efficiently to make legislation attuned with the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

References List Bix, B,2003 Jurisprudence: Theory and Context. NY: Sweet and Maxwell. Fenwick, H .,2002 Civil Liberties and Human Rights.. London: Cavendish Publishing. OLoan, D. N. 2009 Human Rights Inquiry. Equality and Human Rights Commission Human Rights Act 1998

Your name Instructor Subject 28th January 2013

Table of Content Abstract I. Introduction4 II. Objectives..4 III. Incompatibility.5 IV. Successes..5 V. Conclusion.6 VI.References.8

Abstract The following argument interrogates if the Human Rights Act 1998 adequately guards individual liberties in the UK. The argument examines the declaration of incompatibility as a foremost restriction of the said Human Rights Act through exploring the A v Secretary of State [2004] UKHL 56 (Belmarsh incarceration case).regardless of this limitation, based on the overall case evaluation as well as the Human Rights Act, it ought to be noted that the Act adequately provide individuals in the UK with solid protection of their liberties.

The Human Rights Act 1998 does not go far enough to protect the rights of individuals in the UK.Do you agree with this statement? Why? Introduction The UK law has since October 2000 integrated its civil statutes with those enshrined within the European Convention of Human Rights,equally,this include the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It would be imperative to examine the achievements of this HRA. It is the first British statute attempting to guard the rights of its populace. To determine if this Act protects individual liberties adequately in the UK, this composition will explore the goal of the HRA and subsequently investigate the case of A and Others vs. Secretary of State (2004) to show the admonition of declarations of inaptness. Basically, this case presents a definite challenge to the appropriateness and efficacy of the Human Rights Act 1998 in sustaining the individual rights as essential. On the other hand, accomplishments of the HRA provide awesome substantiation that the HRA (1998) does go far enough to defend the fundamental scope of civil liberties of individuals in the UK. Objectives The objectives of the Human Rights Act 1998 was to permit UK judicial systems to provide a cure to infringements of civil liberties in the European Convention of Human Rights and in so doing shun the expenditure of any instances of protracted legal battles at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The HRA strongly permitted the UK legal systems and in particular courts to weigh

in Strasbourg. The HRA strongly permitted the UK legal systems and in particular courts to weigh the pertinent jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the Act likewise imposed commitments in regard to civil authorities to uphold Convention Liberties. The Act is thus a local parameter for assessing individual rights that are correlated to human rights associations globally (Fenwick 2002). Bix observes that the natural language of civil rights is more exposed than the conventional language of human liberties due to no obligation to be attuned (2003). As a result, to use the expression of the White Paper published in prior to the Human Rights Act, it indicates that the HRA 1998 has made an effort at establishing explicit civil liberties in the UK. Incompatibility Despite the said observations, one of the notable restrictions of the Human Rights Act 1998 is explicitly shown through A and others vs. Secretary of state (2004) case. Although it established that imprecise detention of foreigners in Belmarsh in addition to a denied trial was irreconcilable with Article 5(1) of ECHR as it was in nature discriminatory as regards nationality, this ruling was thus a declaration of incompatibility. It is thus evident that the ruling had no any legal impact, since the Human Rights Act as stated under s4 and 6a do not expressly grant the judicial system authority to invalidate any Acts of Parliament. In addition, Lord Hoffman disagreed with the view that the case on the whole was irreconcilable since the qualification of a threat to the life of the nation was not there. It ought to be noted that also Article 6 of the ECHR defining the structures of right to a fair trial in reasonable time was as well ignored in the judgment. This indicates that the judicial systems only have an interpretative compulsion permitting Parliament to continue being absolute. The value of declarations of incompatibility is moreover queried as the government substituted the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 with the passing of Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, creating control stipulations that affect to both UK natives and non-nationals. Some observers argues that due to lack of adequate legal power, the government are able to implement such decrees restricting civil liberties with no fear of the law being violated. Success Examining other cases it is evident they have been highly effective in deeming HRA as an important and effective tool in guarding individual liberties in the UK. Even though Parliament is open to disregard Declarations of Incompatibility, Klug (2009) notes that Parliament has acted in response to all 18 Declarations of Incompatibility that have been prepared and not been reversed on request. For instance, in Bellinger v. Bellinger (2003), the courts affirmed that by not recognizing gender transformation of post-operative transsexuals in matrimony law is irreconcilable with Articles 8 along with 12 of ECHR. This compelled Parliament to enact the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Similarly, Diane Blood won her legal battle to have her childrens father recognized lawfully even though being conceived after his demise. The consequence was a modification in the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990, which might have affected over 50 families. This shows the dialogue advocated by the HRA connecting the courts with Parliament is satisfactorily objective where the HRA is appropriately executed and is not influenced by politicians. In this sense, there are adequate aspects for the HRA to defend liberties of individuals as being essential and absolute. On a related note, there are many individuals, in each social sphere, who have successfully used the language of the Human Rights Act to enhance the experience of civil services with no any express cure from the courts. That is why the Equality and Human Rights Commissions Inquiry as well established that the Human Rights Act has to offer a rights-based configuration for civic services as well as in the NHS (OLoan 2009). Conclusion To wrap up, the HRA 1998 has gone far as possible to guard the liberties of individuals in the UK since it is tremendously obvious that the HRA is fundamental to Britains human rights traditions. It is employed as a tool to shield individuals liberties both in the courts in addition to wider society. The HRA has no hesitation been confronted by various cases such as those concerning terrorist suspects as argued in this paper. The influence of magistrates to issue a declaration of

incompatibility purely materializes to be of a political character. Nevertheless, this has not been violated by the government by disregarding such declarations. Even though the legal modifications enacted as a consequence of the Belmarsh case had little or no effect in ascertaining civil liberties, other case law immediate the HRA indicates that Parliament has reacted efficiently to make legislation attuned with the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

References List Bix, B,2003 Jurisprudence: Theory and Context. NY: Sweet and Maxwell. Fenwick, H .,2002 Civil Liberties and Human Rights.. London: Cavendish Publishing. OLoan, D. N. 2009 Human Rights Inquiry. Equality and Human Rights Commission