• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10


Extracts from this document...


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.


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 r**e victims on their s****l 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.


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. Bellinger v Bellinger case note

    If Parliament takes the view that the result is not what is wanted it will change the legislation.'7 Subsequently, the House of Lords interpreted the word family more widely. As a result, the court was able to interpret the law to adapt to a more modern society.

  2. This essay will be divided into four sections. In the first section, the issue ...

    in Australia show that the above argument is indeed false, for in limiting freedom of speech, only certain type of speech is limited and this is hate speech. IV.The case of Muhammad cartoon and David Irving denial of Holocaust Before closing the articles, the application of the above analysis to

  1. The common law of defamation is structured around Article 10 of the European Convention ...

    that the presumption of a trial by jury to be reversed and the decision in the recent case of Fiddes v Channel 4 (2010)38 has once again given rise to the question whether jury trials are needed in an action of defamation.

  2. human rights

    A lot of law is not set out in Acts of Parliament but rather in secondary legislation. Secondary legislation is law made under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Rather that set out detailed provisions in an Act of Parliament, Parliament will frequently give the power to make detailed laws to a government minister.

  1. The Human RIghts Act Has Revolutionised the Way Judges Interpret Statutes. Discuss.

    6 Development in English case law also demonstrated a move from over-reliance on the literal approach to statutory interpretation to a more purposive one.[6] According to Lord Griffiths in Pepper v Hart (1993) [7] ?The days have long passed when the court adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language.

  2. Human Rights Act 1998: Are all human rights absolute and inalienable?

    Article 15 and attempted to derogate from Article 5 ECHR (the right to liberty) in section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Derogations can be challenged however, and in A and Others v SSHD [2004],[12] the House of Lords held that the UK's Derogation Order[13] was disproportionate to the level of threat of terrorism to the UK.

  1. What kind of responsibility do some states have for the rights of the subjects ...

    of which is to develop a conceptual, political and operational aspects of the concept. It obliges international community to interact with internal affairs of another state in order to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe. Politicians and heads of states are responsible to their nationals in internal stage and to international community, through the UN.

  2. Human Rights - Articles 6 and 8 applied to fictitious cases.

    However, the court may find the publication of Mike?s s****l relationship with the prostitute as a breach of his right to privacy. ________________ Bibliography: Biles, G., Evans, S., Matthews, M., Pothecary, J. and Tayleur, T. (2013) Law: the individual and the state Manual 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University, 3rd edn Barnett, H.

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