Secondly, there was a belief that allowing UK judges to apply the Convention would introduce a culture of rights in the UK. Dr King argued that the academic debate regarding the impact of the HRA is generally between three different groups.
The first thinks that it has had no real impact; the second group considers that it is a regrettable departure from constitutional orthodoxy — a retreat from the idea that parliament should be sovereign; the third group, which is the most dominant view, thinks that the HRA is not perfect or revolutionary but has had some positive impact and is a worthwhile if not substantial improvement of the legal protection of human rights in the UK. It assesses that the HRA has been taken seriously by the administration, including the NHS and the police force for example.
While the results may be disputed, no empirical study of comparable or even any modest scope has suggested otherwise. Evidence points in varying directions here. In fact the HRA has not led to a major increase in judicial review success as it is most often being used to supplement established grounds for judicial review in cases that would have been pursued in any event prior to the introduction of the HRA.
Only one in three of these cases win in the House of Lords today, the Supreme Court. Yet the data presented by Shah and Poole show that the caseload of the Supreme Court has shifted substantially towards hearing human rights cases in the first ten years of its introduction. From a different perspective, the impact of the HRA regime of judicial rights review on parliament has been fairly light. If we look at the number of declarations of incompatibility, the rate is quite low in the UK in comparison to France, Canada or Germany.
This means that parliamentary business is disrupted very infrequently by the need to respond to judicially declarations of incompatibility under the HRA. The main complaint in parliament at the time was that it was unduly rushed through. As to substance, King argues that most changes created by judicial review of legislation under section 4 have been considered low profile in parliament. There have been very few references to the decisions of the UK courts under the Human Rights Act a quite different attitude prevails vis a vis the Strasbourg Court.
From the mids onwards, the HRA became increasingly controversial. This alleged stretching of the functions has been a significant concern. This led in to the adoption by a conference of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the Brighton Declaration. The sources of controversy are multiple. Signatory States to the Convention may not violate the right to life of their citizens, subject them to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, press them into enforced labour, deprive them of their liberty without due process and compensation, deprive them of access to justice or a fair trial or introduce laws that impose retrospective criminal liability for acts that were innocent at the time they were committed.
The rights enshrined in the Convention must be guaranteed to each individual irrespective of sex or race and a range of other grounds. Because some of the rights oblige the State to respect the interests of citizens by imposing positive obligations on governments, this sometimes has the effect of enabling individuals to claim Convention rights in relation to each other.
Before the incorporation of the Convention, individuals in the United Kingdom could only complain of unlawful interference with their Convention rights by lodging a petition with the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which itself only referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights for a full hearing if it considered that the complainant had exhausted all his or her local remedies and that a range of other admissibility criteria had been satisfied.
Although the Charter arose since the inception of the Human Rights Act, some commentators believe that it is a sharper weapon than the Convention because any of its provisions may be invoked as a point of EU law. Indeed, a High Court judge has recently commented that. Moreover, that much wider Charter of Rights would remain part of our domestic law even if the Human Rights Act were repealed. This instrument, which was given legal effect by Article 6 1 TEU the Lisbon Treaty , is controversial because it contains a range of rights some of which mimic those in the European Convention of Human Rights, others which go beyond the scope of the ECHR by appearing to grant social and economic rights to citizens of the EU, including the right to health care Article 35 , access to services Article 36 and social security Article The precise effect of this Protocol continues to be debated Poland is also a signatory.
What can be challenged under the Human Rights Act ? Primary legislation, secondary legislation and the common law can be made the subject of an action under the Act, in addition to decisions and actions of public authorities. There are limitations. Secondary legislation is subject to the rights set out in the Convention s. If the court is unable to construe a statute in accordance with the Convention it has no power to set it aside.
However, it can issue a declaration under s. Furthermore, litigants and judges alike are now alert to the possibilities of the EU Charter whose provisions may prevail over primary legislation by virtue of the European Communities Act There is no specific procedure for applying for a declaration of incompatibility, although Civil Procedure Rule In general the process is analogous to that used for declaration by originating summons.
Such a declaration imposes no obligation on Ministers to respond but the Act provides in s. For example, we support comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties. The Labour government acted quickly on its election promise and the Human Rights Act received royal assent on 9 November before coming into force in October The Human Rights Act incorporated the rights and liberties enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law.
It meant citizens were now able to take their human rights complaints straight to British courts and represented a major turning point for protecting human rights in Britain. Anthony Lester is a distinguished British barrister and politician, who not only witnessed the way in which the Human Rights Act developed and was implemented, but also actively campaigned for the legislation at the time.
Without the Human Rights Act , there would have been no second investigation into the Hillsborough disaster where 96 men , women and children died at a football match. The Human Rights Act has also proved an essential tool for women challenging the police when they fail in domestic violence, murder, rape and trafficking investigations. In Banaz Mahmod was raped and killed and put into a suitcase for having a boyfriend whom her family disapproved of.
0コメント