• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

CRITICALLY CONSIDER WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE HELPED THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

CRITICALLY CONSIDER WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE HELPED THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)1 is one of the most ground-breaking pieces of legislation to have been passed by parliament in recent times. The act, which came into force on October 2nd 20002, gives further effect to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) within domestic British law. This essay will evaluate the role the courts have played in attempting to facilitate the act in achieving its objectives and the obstacles they have faced in doing so. Firstly, in order to critically evaluate whether the objectives have been achieved, it may be beneficial to familiarise oneself with what the intended objectives actually were. One of the most fundamental objectives of the HRA is to develop domestic common law and statutes so that they reflect convention rights. Prior to the enactment of the HRA, UK courts had the option (if necessary) to look at cases from the Strasbourg Jurisprudence3 (judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR4)) but "were legally not obliged to do so"5. However, now under Section 26 of the act, courts are required to "take into account"7 relevant ECtHR case law whilst making their judgements. Nonetheless it should be noted that the provision does not legally bind domestic courts to follow the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and hence gives them substantial leeway in terms of developing their own law which reflects their own traditions and culture (a key objective of the act). This same objective appeared to be significantly undermined by the House of Lords8 in Ullah v Special Adjudicator9; where it was held that domestic courts should now not only acknowledge ECtHR cases, but should also follow them if they are "clear and constant"10. This judgement explicitly contradicts section 2 of the act and resulted in vast legal confusion arising as a result of a "judge-made"11 restriction on the law. ...read more.

Middle

However, the defendant argued this provision conflicted with his right to a fair trial and accordingly, the HOL controversially amended the legislation to allow the defence to interrogate rape victims on their sexual past. Not only had the courts gone against previous judgements in regards to their role under Section 3 but here they also declared a judgement which seems to be both legally as well as morally unjust. It was not the only option available to the courts. An alternative could have been to issue a "declaration of incompatibility"48 under Section 4 which would have sent the legislation to parliament to revise. The principle of "declaration of incompatibility"49 is a tool given to the courts if they are unable to interpret legislation in a way which is compatible with convention rights. This is highlighted in Section 4 of the act and is used in order to achieve the objective that domestic laws should be compatible with convention rights and was used by the courts in Bellinger v Bellinger (2003). In Bellinger, the claimant claimed that the court should issue a declaration of incompatibility in regards to s11(c) of the Matrimonal Causes Act 50which did not acknowledging people who had undergone gender re-assingment. The claimant argued this had overtly violated Articles 851 and 1252 of his convention rights and the courts held in favour of the claimant and issued the declaration. The courts then used Section 1053 of the act which enabled a "fast track"54 procedure to make legislation compatible with convention rights. Thus, parliament removed the incompatibility by enacting the Gender Recognition Act 200455 which acknowledged individuals with a gender transplant. This suggests that the courts have understood their role and are aware of their powers in terms of issuing a declaration of incompatibility to ensure all legislation is compatible with convention rights and attempting to develop statute and common law to reflect convention rights hence, evidently attempting to achieve the objectives of the HRA. ...read more.

Conclusion

42 Mendoza v Ghaidan (2004( 2 AC 557 43 Paragraph 3, Page 410, "Taking Account Of Strasbourg - The British Judiciary's Approach To Interpreting Convention Rights" - Elizabeth Wicks 44 R v Lambert 45 Section 28 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 46 R v A [2001] UKHL 25 47 Section 41 of the Youth, Justice and Criminal Act (1999). 48 Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 49 Ibid 50 Section 11(c) of the Matrimonal Causes Act 51 Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to respect for private and family life) 52 Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to marry and establish a family) 53 Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 54 Section 10 of the Human Rights Act permits a "fast track" procedure to change an incompatible legislation in a shorter amount of time than usual changes to legislation. 55 Gender Recognition Act 2004 56 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 57 Section 6 defines "public body" as being a body whose functions are public (expressly including courts and tribunals), or whose functions are partly public in nature. 58 Section 7 and section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 deal with breaches. 59 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 60 Parliamentary Sovereignty is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions (including any executive or judicial bodies as they may exist). 61 Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank (2003) 62 Obiter Dicta in Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2003) 63 YL v Birmingham City Council (2007) UKHL 27 64 Paragraph 74, Joint Commission on Human Rights - "The Meaning of Public Authority under the HRA" (2004) 65 European Court of Human Rights 66 R. (on the application of Ullah (Ahsan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 26 67 R v Lambert [ 2001 ] UKHL 37 ?? ?? ?? ?? Mohammed Sbahuddin Rafiuddin 626290 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Human Rights Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Human Rights Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Does Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights achieve the correct balance ...

    4 star(s)

    This safeguard too therefore does not impose any serious constraints on States which is another criticism by human rights organisations. 4. Conclusion A derogation clause is clearly required in order to encourage a larger number of States to adopt a general level of human rights protection while also allowing States

  2. ECHR Article 8: Where does margin of appreciation lie regarding the respect for private ...

    The margin of appreciation has certainly been narrowed down, particularly since the introduction of the guiding principles in Boultif and Ãner, however, it is submitted, that the margin of appreciation in deportation cases involving private and family life is still very broad.

  1. Critically consider the extent that 'right to silence' and the privilege against self-incrimination continue ...

    Adverse inferences can only be drawn when there is no reasonable explanation given for remaining silent.8 According to the court in R v Argent, 'the appellant failed to mention a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned.

  2. Have the courts helped the Human Rights Act achieve its objectives?

    The difficulty arises in respect of the extent of the power, how far can the courts go when interpreting statute law? There are three significant cases on this issue. R v A17 concerned section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA).18 Section 41 bans the defence in

  1. Free essay

    Does the UK need a Bill of Rights?

    This could be a rather controversial point as it may seem to come in conflict with the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, but if the government wishes to create a Bill of Rights for the people, to protect the people, then it must be able to do so all the time without exception.

  2. The Human Rights Act 1998 places the courts in effective control of the British ...

    It is however then a matter for parliament to decide whether to continue with the legislation against the court's ruling. So far however, the Government has responded to every declaration of incompatibility by amending legislation, this perhaps showing the degree of influence that the courts actually have.

  1. human rights

    Moreover, the courts are now under a duty to develop the common law - the law which has been developed through decisions of the courts themselves - in a way that is compatible with Convention rights. What Happens if the Courts cannot Read the Law Compatibly?

  2. Disability - With reference to a topic of your choice, assess the effect of ...

    People with HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis will be deemed to be covered by the DDA effectively from the point of diagnosis.9 According to the SENDIST appeal numbers statistics, in 1995 1161 applications were made on disability discrimination in schools, whereas in 2002 the number had shot up to a shocking 3532,10 the comparison is huge.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work