Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998
Contrary to the many positive impacts introduced by the ECHR and constitutionalised by the HRA, back in 2014 the Conservative Party issued a policy paper in which it proposes the reform and reconfiguration of human rights protection regimes currently in force in the UK. They aim to do so by repealing the HRA and introduce a revolutionary and diverse protecting system in form of a new British Bill of Rights. One can imagine the uncertainty it created amongst politics, courts, public authorities and practitioners who deal with human rights issues on a daily basis. Therefore, the following chapter will analyse arguments against and in favour of repealing the HRA in order to be able to conclude whether criticisms …show more content…
Arising from this, Conservatives also criticise section 2 of the HRA as per “to take into account” Strasbourg interpretations . This requirement along with the proportionality principle that the ECtHR employs, allows Strasbourg judges to bound UK courts in a way that serves the sole interest of the Council and not the country. Adding to their criticism, Conservatives also mention section 3 of the HRA, which allows domestic courts to derogate from statutes by interpreting provisions as widely as alienation with the Convention requires. One believes it undermines Westminster sovereignty, as per the example of Regina v Loosely, where their Lordship went insincere extent in applying the relevant provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on the case in order to serve the interpretations of the ECtHR and successfully acknowledge the Article 6 Convention right of the applicant. In accordance with the opinion of …show more content…
First of all, they underpin the need for the change by acknowledging 3 grounds as per: recognition of human rights are the driving force of a healthy working democracy; compliance with the Convention is possible without following Strasbourg interpretations (as that was introduced by section 2 of the HRA); the HRA undermines the sovereignty of the Parliament. Their aim is to resolve all the issues by enacting the British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which will ensure: “…Parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority, and that the Supreme Court is indeed supreme in the interpretation of the law”. The objectives include that, the Bill will repeat word-by-word the language of the Convention. One considers this will ensure that, the original will of the drafters of the Convention are echoed, sufficiently preventing the misuse of domestic statutes. Abolishing the HRA, will consequently cease the link between the ECtHR and the UK, which restores full sovereignty of the Parliament by having to consent any amendments to laws suggested by Strasbourg. However, one contemplates if it will jeopardise human rights of those convicted by preventing the application of the Convention on solemn criminal cases and overseas operations of the British Army. Hence, one considers the rights of prohibition of torture and death penalty such as similarly
Contrary to the many positive impacts introduced by the ECHR and constitutionalised by the HRA, back in 2014 the Conservative Party issued a policy paper in which it proposes the reform and reconfiguration of human rights protection regimes currently in force in the UK. They aim to do so by repealing the HRA and introduce a revolutionary and diverse protecting system in form of a new British Bill of Rights. One can imagine the uncertainty it created amongst politics, courts, public authorities and practitioners who deal with human rights issues on a daily basis. Therefore, the following chapter will analyse arguments against and in favour of repealing the HRA in order to be able to conclude whether criticisms …show more content…
Arising from this, Conservatives also criticise section 2 of the HRA as per “to take into account” Strasbourg interpretations . This requirement along with the proportionality principle that the ECtHR employs, allows Strasbourg judges to bound UK courts in a way that serves the sole interest of the Council and not the country. Adding to their criticism, Conservatives also mention section 3 of the HRA, which allows domestic courts to derogate from statutes by interpreting provisions as widely as alienation with the Convention requires. One believes it undermines Westminster sovereignty, as per the example of Regina v Loosely, where their Lordship went insincere extent in applying the relevant provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on the case in order to serve the interpretations of the ECtHR and successfully acknowledge the Article 6 Convention right of the applicant. In accordance with the opinion of …show more content…
First of all, they underpin the need for the change by acknowledging 3 grounds as per: recognition of human rights are the driving force of a healthy working democracy; compliance with the Convention is possible without following Strasbourg interpretations (as that was introduced by section 2 of the HRA); the HRA undermines the sovereignty of the Parliament. Their aim is to resolve all the issues by enacting the British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which will ensure: “…Parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority, and that the Supreme Court is indeed supreme in the interpretation of the law”. The objectives include that, the Bill will repeat word-by-word the language of the Convention. One considers this will ensure that, the original will of the drafters of the Convention are echoed, sufficiently preventing the misuse of domestic statutes. Abolishing the HRA, will consequently cease the link between the ECtHR and the UK, which restores full sovereignty of the Parliament by having to consent any amendments to laws suggested by Strasbourg. However, one contemplates if it will jeopardise human rights of those convicted by preventing the application of the Convention on solemn criminal cases and overseas operations of the British Army. Hence, one considers the rights of prohibition of torture and death penalty such as similarly