As a way for the English government to ensure that it attempted to certify UK nationals of their fundamental rights, the Human Rights Act was put into force on the 2nd of October of 2000

Authors Avatar
'The Human Rights Act in its present form, besides failing to properly incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, gives the United Kingdom a defective law which puts it at the bottom of any international league table of bills of rights. The Act talks of rights, but keeps them at arms length and has as a consequence been hesitantly applied by the courts.' Discuss.

Since 1966, Strasbourg was the final resort for British citizens to claim their rights. It was frequently criticised for its "long and expensive process [...] [which sometimes appeared] to be "Europe" imposing its will on the UK."1 As a way for the English government to ensure that it attempted to certify UK nationals of their fundamental rights, the Human Rights Act was put into force on the 2nd of October of 2000. However, the question is: How effective is the Human Rights Act of 19982 in delivering rights to British civilians? In its regard, the role of parliamentary supremacy and the courts in relation to the deficiencies of the Act in question, mainly sections 3, 4, 6 and 8 will be discussed in the following essay.

Parliamentary sovereignty is the most crucial concern in the protection of human rights in UK. According to AV Dicey, the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy ruled the limits of its power by stating that it obtains "the right to make or unmake any law; and, [...] that no other person or body is recognized by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside [its] legislation". However, at this time, citizens had what its called 'liberties' which would allow them to do anything that law would not forbid. Controversially, later on, the HRA was enacted and in order for government to protect its powers, it did not conceive much control for the Act in question to strike down primarily legislation. Supremacy of Parliament was kept due to the fear "that the Act would transfer too much power from an elected Parliament to the judiciary."3 Even though in relation to how Dicey expected that Parliament acted in order not to abuse power in the country, acting reasonably, it still has the power to repeal the HRA which constitutes the basic assurance of human rights in UK. In accordance with Lord Nicholls in the case of In Re S, "the Act seeks to preserve parliamentary sovereignty [and it] maintains the constitutional boundary." On further analysis, it can be noted that Parliament can enact any legislation that would offend the Convention without anyone being able to decline it, which brings us, to the same conclusion as Lord Irvine, stating that "the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the Convention must be Parliament's alone"4

If a breach of the convention occurs the court cannot interpret the provisions in a complex way (it would be against section 3) nor can they declare that the Act is void. Nevertheless, under section 4 of the HRA, Parliament offers the courts an opportunity to make a declaration of incompatibility whenever they find that legislation is not acting in harmony with the Convention. In the case of Anderson 5, it is seen that a declaration can be done, if the express words of a provision avert the interpretation of section 3 that would be compatible with the Convention, therefore not letting a politician as the Home Secretary to decide the minimum period that a murderer would stay in prison. Moreover, the declaration seems to lack of effectiveness due to its discretionary nature, although courts are encouraged to do it, it will not affect the validity, the continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it was given, until Parliament revises primary legislation. This will possibly, lead the courts to avoid showing the problem to Parliament unless a "clear limitation on Convention rights is stated in terms"6
Join now!


It may also be argued that there is no formal procedure set out in the Act for courts that wish to make a pronouncement on incompatible legislation and only high courts7 have that privilege. Declarations of incompatibility will not include failures to introduce legislation or remedial orders and they are according to Sue Williscroft "the biggest remedy for any complainant at the court is that after a breach has been found"8 In contrast, these declarations are not bound on the parties and even though the government has the retrospective power it would be difficult to recognize the situations ...

This is a preview of the whole essay