QUESTION

The newly elected Tory government is in the opinion that

the HRA 98 had allowed the judiciary to undermine the
Parliament and plans to replace it with the British Bill of
Rights.
Critically analyse the impact of the Human Rights 98 on the
Parliament, executive and judiciary and discuss the
consequences of its repeal in the absence of the British Bill
of Rights

INTRODUCTION
Human Rights is belief of a right entitled by every person. In the
European perspective, due to the Nazi-genocide policy; anti-humanitarian
in the Second World War, a new code of conduct to protect the treatment
of a person is set up. Hence in 1948, The United Nations General
Assembly passed the Universal declaration of Human rights (U.D.H.R),1
which in the following year 1949, the formation of Council of Europe. In
1950, formed the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which is
a simplified version of the U.D.H.R, far more acceptable application for
states.
In 1951, the ECHR is ratified and brought into force in 1953. The
incorporation of ECHR into domestic law under the Human Rights Act
19982 (HRA 1998) making it directly enforceable.
IMPACT OF HRA 1998
Parliament
In consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty under UK
constitution, HRA cannot be entrenched or given special status than
other legislation. Specifically HRA has not prevent authoritarian laws being passed as
Parliament is free to legislate on any subject-matter. Example the US Bill of Rights3 didnt
prevent the passing of the USA Patriot Act, the establishment of internment at Guantanamo
Bay. This shows that validity of an Act of Parliament cannot be questioned.

The Parliamentary sovereignty has been challenged under Section 2

of HRA where law-making powers is restrained by the ECHR. Whilst under
section 19, the sponsoring ministers is required to make a written
statement in his view the provision of the Bill are compatible with
Convention rights and if the Bill is not compatible, a written statement has
to be issued.
1 http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html [accessed 23 February 2016]
2 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42
3 https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm [accessed 27 February 2016 ]

Executive
In Aston Cantlow and Willcote with Billsley Parochial Church Council v
Wallbank [2004]4 raised the principle of public authority where it is
reasonable to consider that the function is serve public, receive public
funds and related to the process of central or local government.
Nevertheless, it is urged to have a more flex interpretation of section 6
whereby public body performing a private function will be consider as a
private body. This is justified in Poplar v Donoghue [2001]5.
In Cameron and Others v Network Rail Infrastructure [2006]6, a test to
determine the criteria of a public body whereby the objective and
obligation of the body. Next, in relation to the government whether there
is democratic accountability and influence or control by it. It is relatively
important to establish whether that the particular boy there is reliance on
public funding and subject to immunities. At times, certain individual
might not be protected by the HRA as there was unclear defining of public
and private function.7
This makes public authority actions unlawful if it acts incompatible
to the Convention (s.6). Victims of violation of Convention rights by public
body can bring charges against the body (S.7) in appropriate court or
tribunals in any legal proceedings.
Judiciary

4 Aston Cantlow and Willcote with Billsley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank
[2004] 1 AC 546
5 Poplar Housing Association v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595
6 Cameron and Others v Network Rail Infrastructure [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)
7 YL v Brimingham City Council and Others [2007] UKHL 27

There will be a duty in securing rights and freedom within

jurisdiction.8 This includes extended territory under UK, in R(al-Skeini) v
Secretary of State for Defence [2007]9 formulated the general rule of
interpreting statues as far as language permitted with Convention
rights10 when apropos with convention right, judgement, declarations and
decision of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).11
In R v A [2001]12 raised divergent views in regards to section 3. Lord Steyn
suggested that if tradition approach of interpreting the legislation would
not result Convention yield result, only then section 3 be invoked and
declaration of incompatibility should be made the last resort. Lord Hope,
on contrary, felt Lord Steyns approach have overstepped the appropriate
constitutional boundaries according to the doctrine of Separation of
Powers.
If there is legislation contradicting the Convention rights (s.4),
declaration of incompatibility shall be made. Under section 3, Lord Steyn
held that consequential judgement in Pickstone and Litster

13

provide new

aid of statutory interpretation for domestic courts.

This creates precedent in determining disputes as concern to
Convention rights and direct references to the articles, principles and case
law of ECHR.
Doctrine of proportionality

8 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42, s.1

9 R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26
10 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42, s.3
11 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42, s.2
12 R v A [2001] UKHL 25
13 Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66; Litster v Forth Dry Dock &
Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546

The enact of HRA 1998 has allow domestic courts to adapt Strasbourgs
jurisdiction by applying the doctrine of proportionality which have given
wider protection of rights compared to conventional approach by judicial
review under Wednesbury14 unreasonable test. It is found that domestic
courts have been scrutinising executive decision where human rights are
in concern before HRA 1998.15
According to Lord Steyn when considering whether restricting a right
is unreasonable or sound, the court should take into account factors
such as the importance of the objective of a particular legislation to justify
limitation on fundamental rights, reasonable actions taken to achieve the
objective of the legislation and adequate ways used to impair the right or
freedom, citing from Lord Clyde.16
Horizontal effect
It also to a certain extent, apply obligations to private law (s.6), where its
a duty of the court, a public authority to develop the Convention in these
area. Many of this case are in relation to confidentiality issues which has
been developing the claimants privacy right (art.8).17
The act has been applied in other areas of private law such as the law of
defamation in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001]18 and in Wainwright v
Home Office [2003]19 the courts reluctant to give the effective to the Act.

14 Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1

KB 223
15 R v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith (1996) QB 51
16 De Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands
and Housing [1991] 1 AC 69
17 Douglas and others v Hello! and others [2001] 2 WLR 92
18 Reynolds v Times Newspapes [2001] 2 AC 127
19 Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53

When superior courts unable to interpret the statue compatible to the

convention, declaration of incompatibility may be issued,

20

despite that,

this does not affect validity and not binding on the parties. The declaration
will only be granted to claimant negatively affected ruled in Lancashire
county Council v Taylor (2005)21 and only apply where the facts occur after
HRA 199822; does not have retrospective effect.
It is unlawful for public authority including any court or tribunal to act in
the manner incompatible with the Convention.23This has distinguish the
public bodies with private interest. In the debate of Network Rail, which
has a public function as a safety regulator but acting in private interest as
property developer.24 The fact that they may be a public duty, does not
automatically transfer the body to a public body.25
Generally the effect of the Act is such that approach to challenge
public bodies using legal actions for failure to abide with Convention
rights. Breaching human rights introduce new aspect for judicial review
and may serve as a defence against public prosecution.
However, the effectiveness depends on judges in defending
individual rights, Parliaments willingness to amend the law comply with
convention and individual citizen in asserting their rights in the courts.
PROBLEM ARRISING FROM HRA 1998
Undermines Parliamentary Sovereignty and democratic accountability

20 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42, s.4

21 Lancashire county Council v Taylor (2005) EWCA Civ 284
22 Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) HL 40
23 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42, s.6
24 HC Deb Vol 314 Cols 406-414, 17 June 1998 and Col 1231, 16 November 1997
25 Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue
[2001] EWCA Civ 595

In consistent with UK constitution and doctrine of Parliament sovereignty,

section 3(1) has eroded the doctrine in practice whilst there is assurance
of it over human rights matter. It is stated that the judiciary interpret
legislation in a way compatible to the Convention rights as close as
possible. This has allow the judiciary make law by changing the meaning
of the legislation where it is compatible to the Convention.
To illustrate this, Misuse of Drugs Act 197126 stated that it is a
criminal for drug possession but in defence, the defendant must prove
that there is no knowledge of it on the balance of probability. However,
HOL overruled the act under section 3(1) which requires the defendant to
submit evidence for claim of no knowledge for possession of drugs. The
burden of proof shift to the prosecution where there they will have to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the defendants claim. This is done in
compatible to Article 6 of the convention, the rights to fair trial. This has
clearly shows the Parliament is restrained by undemocratic elected
personnel.
Role of UK court in deciding Human Rights
When interpreting the Convention rights, UK is required to take into
account judgement from ECtHR27 and application of Strasbourgs
jurisprudence in the domestic law. Strasbourgs jurisprudence such as
doctrine of proportionality which question the proportionality of the
legislation and decision of government bodies to their respective aims, at
times may amount to political policy consideration.
However this has unbalanced the degree in individual rights and
responsibilities towards others given the Convention can be interpreted
from many perspective.

26 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, c.38

27 Human Rights Act 1998, c.42, s.2

In Lord Irvines opinion, the courts have distorted meaning by

considering themselves bound (or as good as bound)28 following Lord
Slynns statement in the Alconburys case.29 The judicial review principle,
given a legislation, the adoption of a policy without provision for
exceptions constitutes unlawful fettering of such discretion.
Therefore, may fall outside the specified scope of the legislation.
However, s.2(1) prescribes demands nothing more specific than that. The
instruction is that it specifies how they are to be taken into consideration.
When Strasbourg case law is applied and it is clear and constant, this
has great significant importance than other factors, except that some
special circumstances may have even greater weight.30
Gone beyond UKS Obligation under the Convention
ECHR only imposes the requirement to protect rights and freedom for the
citizens of the states, it does not order any legal components for doing so.
Neither does it require the state to direct incorporate to give effect to
HRA, nor require the Strasbourgs jurisprudence to be binding on the
judiciary.31
In German law, it is ruled that German Basic law will prevail over the
Convention by the constitutional court.32 Unlike the German Basic law,
HRA has not provide domestic protection in UK as there is no written
constitution.
28 Lord Irvine of Lairg, Impact of a Bill of Rights on English Law (28 November
1997)
29 R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the
Environment andthe Regions [2003] 2 AC 295

30 Alconbury (n 5) 313 per Lord Slynn

31 Lord Irvine of Lairg, Impact of a Bill of Rights on English Law (28 November
1997)
32 https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2015/11/25/tobias-lock-human-rights-and-eureform-in-the-uk-and-the-german-question/ [accessed 27 February 2016 ]

Scope of application in States jurisdiction

Prior to R(al-Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence 200733 ,
the Supreme Court (SC) justified the convention is inapplicable armed
forces serving overseas

34

Following jurisprudence of ECtHR, the

Convention operates on consulates and craft or vessels registered or

flying flag of the state.35 This creates problems regarding extended
territory subjection to ECHR and has undermine the duty of British Armed
forces abroad pertaining to national security issues.
Development of Mission Creep in ECtHR
The adoption of interpretation of ECHR as a living instrument doctrine
by the Strasbourg court has expand into new areas of law where the
changes of social norms and values have been taken into account in
interpreting the convention. This certainly is beyond the origin perception
of the Convention of signatory states.
For instance, the current dispute in regards to prisoners voting rights
between UK and the Strasbourg court. In Hirst v the United Kingdom (No
2) [2005]36, UK violates the right to free elections.37. The court has ruled in
33 Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom, Application no. 55721/07, Council of Europe: European Court
of Human Rights, 7 July 2011, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4e2545502.html [accessed 27
February 2016]

34 Bankovic v Belgium [2001] ECHR 890, ECtHR; Drozd and Januosek v France
and Spain [1992] 14 EHRR 745,ECTHR ; Issa v Turkey [2004] ECHR 629, ECtHR
35 European Convention of Human Rights, art.1
36 Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2) [2005] ECHR 681 Sentenced to life
imprisonment for manslaughter, the applicant was disenfranchised during his
period of detention by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983
which applied to persons convicted and serving a custodial sentence. In 2004 he
was released from prison on licence. The applicant alleged that, as a convicted
prisoner in detention, he was subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections.
37 Article 3 (right to free elections) of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
on Human Rights provides that: The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold
free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will
ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the
legislature.

2007, allowing prisoner to go through artificial insemination with their

partners.38 This absolute decision has deviate the origins purposes of
sentencing and shaken the faith in jail system.
Charter for criminal
There is no general prohibition in deporting foreign nationals by HRA, if it
is decided by the government that the dangerous foreign criminal, with
limited ties should be deported back to their respective country to
preserve national security. However, under ECHR prevents deportation
when they will be subjected to torture, example the ongoing conflict in
deciding whether to deport Abu Qatada back to Jordan.
Besides, article 2 of HRA has cause problems for public bodies in
deciding the releasing of criminal earlier. For instance, in the case of
Anthony Rice where relevant information about his past crimes not being
made available to the Parole Board before making the decision.
Floodgates of cases
It is said that HRA has created the compensation culture. Remedies
under HRA mainly stop infringement of rights which is different in
purposes compared to tort of negligence There's no right to compensation
in HRA it only award when it is necessary to ensure just satisfaction.
CRITICAL ANALYSE OF REPEALING HRA 98
Can UK remain in the ECHR upon repealing?
Upon repealing HRA 1998, UK revert to their initial position where
there is duty to obey with ECHR by securing the rights to every person
within their jurisdiction (aricle1). An effective remedy would be given to
anyone whose rights have been violated in regardless of authority (article
13). This is clearly indicated in the recent conviction of members of
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in regards of the abduction of Abu Omar

38 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392885/Prisoner-allowed-fatherchild-jail-human-right-family-life.html [accessed 27 February 2016]

by the Italian court.39 Individual rights for the petition to ECtHR would be
available provided exhaustion all domestic remedies (article 34, 35). This
will incur high cost of litigation and might be a discouraging factor for
individual claiming to be victims of violation to assert their rights in court.
Remarkably, the duty to comply judgement of the court remains, binding
the UK government and under governance of the Committee of Ministers
(article 14).These will bind UK as a signatory to the treaty, ECHR rights
would not be enforceable in English Law and against UK public authority.
Domestic courts are unable to provide an effective remedy making UK
more often in breach of ECHR (art 13).
However, the effect would differ according to government of
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
What is the effect towards UKs HRA 1998 depended international
treaties?
Treaty of European Union where under ECHR, art 7 is come into
effect if UK cut ties with ECHR or repeatedly in breach rights. Devolution
settlement of Northern Ireland arrangements involving international
agreements may raise issues as ECHR has been assimilated, for example
the Belfast agreement.40
In Lisbon treaty, European Charter of Human Rights would only apply
within the scope of European Union law. It will still be binding as long as
UK remains in the European Union.
Could the pending Bill of Rights face difficulties in becoming law?

39 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/23/italy-abu-omar-abductionegyptian-imam-european-court-of-human-rights[accessed 25 February 2016]

40 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/good_friday_agreement [accessed 27
February 2016 ]

HOL would have to comply the Salisbury Convention41 where bills

with manifesto commitment but the ambiguous terms may not appear to
be what it is manifested. At present, there is no suggestions whether the
manifesto would be in conflict or in possibility of departing from ECHR.
After the election, it is manifested that the pending Bill of Rights will enact
original text of ECHR into primary legislation which will clarify and limit
the excessive broad meaning in some rulings by ECtHR.
Implications towards ongoing cases and outstanding judgments
ECHRs provision would still apply until before the date of
denunciation become effective (ECHR, art 58).
Effects towards case law and legislations involving HRA 1998
This will still depend ongoing British Bill of Rights, if there is no
replacement upon repealing and UK remained as a signatory state,
certainly there is doubt to which extent ECHR in development of common
law. Lord Kerr suggested that under the traditional doctrine where
incorporated treaty is not enforceable in domestic law and may not apply
to Human Rights instruments.42
This contentious view is not agreed by the rest of Supreme Court which
shows that the judiciary may prepared to fill the gap in fundamental
protection with creative adopt. According to Lord Reed, fundamental
protection will be stress in the role of common law.43 Although common
law only recognise a degree of fundamental rights as ECHR, yet there is
still overlapping rights which will be difficult disengage from the influence
of ECHR. Thus, the judiciary is mostly likely to refer ECHR for development
in this aspect.
41 http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-guide-to-legislationsailsbury-convention-pol [accessed 29 February 2016]
42 R(on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pension[2014]
EWCA Civ 156
43 Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61

PROTECTION AVAILABLE IN ABSENCE OF HRA 1998 AND BRITISH

BILL OF RIGTHS
In the United Kingdom (UK), the protection of rights can be traced
from the notable Magna Carta of 121544 which is said to be the starting
point. This charter provided individual liberties and limitation of
monarchys power. In Darnels Case45 which result the Petition of Right
1628 where imprisonment without good lawful reason is unlawful.46
The petition was then superseded by Bill of Rights 1689 which
caused a significant shift in the balance of power from the monarch to
Parliament,47 resulting greater limitation power of monarchs and
Parliament immunity during seating. The Act of Settlement 1700 provided
rights for judges against unreasonable dismissal.
Besides, Parliament plays a crucial role in protecting rights and
freedom of individuals through legislations.48 For instances, Race Relations
Act 197649 and Sex Discrimination Act 197550 protect unlawful
discriminations and enhance equality right. These legislations provide
protection for both residents and foreigners in the UK.51

44 Magna Carta, c. 9 25 Edw 1 (1297)

45 Darnel's Case, 3 St. Tr. 1
46 T. Johnson, Legal Rights (Facts on File ,Inc, New York, 2005)
47 Hansard HL vol 590 cc971-96
48 M.Ryan and S.Foster,Unlocking Constitutional and Administrative Law (3rd edn
Routledge, New York, 2014)
49 Race Relations Act 1976, c.74
50Sex Discrimination Act 1975, c65
51
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_4457000/44
57112.stm [accessed 24 February 2016]

The development of common law itself has clarified individual rights,

where is justified in Entick v Carrington [1765], Lord Camden stated that
government is free to interfere with individual rights as long they must be
able to point to specific statutory or common law powers.52
The formation of ECHR in 1950 is treated as treaties which is part of
the international law. According to Kaur v Lord Advocate [1980]53, the
Convention is merely an aid for interpretation and have no jurisdiction to
enforce rights and freedoms yet being significant. In reference to
Waddington v Miah [1974], the court interpret legislation in light of
constitutional fundamentals, where Lord Reid referred to Article 7 of the
Convention which prohibits retrospective legislation.54
There is presumption from the court that enactment of law by
Parliament does not intend to interfere with fundamentals rights;
Raymond v Honey [1984] where Lord Steyn stated under English law, a
convicted prisoner, in spite of his imprisonment, retains all civil rights
which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication indicating
a breach of fundamental rights.55
The principles of natural justice is a concept of common law where
courts develop higher procedural principles which every judicial, quasijudicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision
adversely affecting the rights of a private individual56. It implies fairness,
equality and equity. In Ridge v Baldwin [1964],57 widen the limitations of
the rules of natural justice.
52 Entick v. Carrington, [1765] 19 How. St. Tr. 1029
53 Kaur v. Lord Advocate, 1980 S.C. 319, 1981 S.L.T. 322 (1980)
54 Waddington v Miah,[1974] s All ER 377, at p.379
55 Raymond v Honey [1984] AC 1
56 Ashika Makhija, Principle of Natural
Justicehttp://www.lawpact.org/uploads/PRINCIPLES%20OF%20NATURAL%20JUSTICE.pdf
[ accessed 25 February 2016 ]

In R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] where the Court of

Appeal uses the approach of the more substantial interference with
human rights, the more the court will require way of justification before it
is satisfied that the decision is reasonable58 which subject executive
decisions to higher scrutiny in human rights cases.
This has justified Diceys rule of law where no person is above the
law in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Fire BridgeS
Union and others.59The rule of law can be rely on as alternative protection
in absence of HRA as being a broad doctrine which values is deep-rooted
in the ECHR.

CONCLUSION
Clearly incorporation of the ECHR through HRA 1998 into domestic law has
great amount of impact in providing rights and civil liberties. It control
excessive and undemocratic law-making in every institution of the UK
government as decisions need to be Convention friendly
Parliamentary sovereignty has deter absolute protection of human
rights. With the pending Bill of rights and doubt of its effectiveness. It will

57 Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, HL, can be compared to Nakkuda Ali v

Jayaratne [1951] AC 66
58 R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517
59 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Fire BridgeS Union and
others.[1995] 2 AC 513

better to have a law that protects fundamental rights and civil liberties
which prioritise public interest.

BIBLOGRAPHY
TEXTBOOK
Allen M and Thompson B, Cases & Materials on Constitutional and
Administrative Law (10th edn UOP, NY 2011)
Barnett, H. Constitutional & Administrative Law ( 10th edn Routledge, New
York, 2013)
Huxley-Binns R and Martin J, Unlocking Constitutional and Administrative
Law ( 4th edn Routledge, New York, 2014)

Loveland I, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights (7th

edn OUP, Oxford 2015)
Mowbray A, Cases, Materials and Commentary on European Convention
on Human Rights (3rd edn OUP, Oxford 2012)
Nicholson A, Q & A Public Law (BAC 2016)
Ryan M and Foster S, Unlocking Constitutional and Administrative Law (3rd
edn Routledge, New York, 2014)
Singh R, Learning Public Law Study Manual (BAC 2015)
T. Johnson, Legal Rights (Facts on File ,Inc, New York, 2005)
Table of Cases
UK CASES
Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
[1948] 1 KB 223
Aston Cantlow and Willcote with Billsley Parochial Church Council v
Wallbank [2004] 1 AC 546
Cameron and Others v Network Rail Infrastructure [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)
Darnel's Case, 3 St. Tr. 1
De Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,
Lands and Housing [1991] 1 AC 69
Douglas and others v Hello! and others [2001] 2 WLR 92
Entick v. Carrington, [1765] 19 How. St. Tr. 1029
Kaur v. Lord Advocate, 1980 S.C. 319, 1981 S.L.T. 322 (1980)
Lancashire county Council v Taylor (2005) EWCA Civ 284
Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66
R v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith (1996) QB 51

R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26

R v A [2001] UKHL 25
R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State
for the Environment and the Regions [2003] 2 AC 295
Raymond v Honey [1984] AC 1
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Fire BridgeS Union
and others.[1995] 2 AC 513
Reynolds v Times Newspapes [2001] 2 AC 127
Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53
Waddington v Miah,[1974] s All ER 377, at p.379
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) HL 40Litster v Forth Dry Dock &
Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546
YL v Brimingham City Council and Others [2007] UKHL 27

ECHR CASES
Bankovic v Belgium [2001] ECHR 890, ECtHR
Drozd and Januosek v France and Spain [1992] 14 EHRR 745,ECTHR
Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2) [2005] ECHR 681
Issa v Turkey [2004] ECHR 629, ECtHR
Poplar Housing Association v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595
R(on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for Work and
Pension[2014] EWCA Civ 156
Table of Statutes
Human Rights Act 1998, c.42

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Race Relations Act 1976, c.74
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Electronic Sources
WEBSITES
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html [accessed 23 February
2016]
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm [accessed 27 February
2016 ]
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2015/11/25/tobias-lock-human-rights-and-eureform-in-the-uk-and-the-german-question/ [accessed 27 February 2016 ]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392885/Prisoner-allowed-father-childjail-human-right-family-life.html [accessed 27 February 2016]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/23/italy-abu-omar-abductionegyptian-imam-european-court-of-human-rights[accessed 25 February 2016]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/good_friday_agreement [accessed 27
February 2016 ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_4457000/44
57112.stm [accessed 24 February 2016]
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-guide-to-legislation-sailsburyconvention-pol [accessed 29 February 2016]

JOURNAL ARTICLES
Lord Irvine of Lairg, Impact of a Bill of Rights on English Law (28
November 1997)
M. Hunt, The Horizontal Effect of the Human Rights Act (1998) Public
Law 423,438-442
ONLINE JOURNAL
Ashika Makhija, Principle of Natural Justice

http://www.lawpact.org/uploads/PRINCIPLES%20OF%20NATURAL
%20JUSTICE.pdf [ accessed 25 February 2016 ]
LAW REPORT SERIES
Lord Irvine of Lairg, Activitism and Restrain : Human Rights and the
Interpretive Process (1999) EHRR 350, 366-367
HANSARD
HC Deb Vol 314 Cols 406-414, 17 June 1998 and Col 1231, 16 November
1997

WORD COUNT : 2961