Human Rights Act 1998 Case Study

1925 Words 8 Pages
According to Dinah Rose; “fundamental rights have an inherent force at common law. They cannot be interfered with except by clear, positive law, authorising the interference”. A pretext by critics of the Human Right Act (HRA)1998, that the common law have always protected the fundamental right of a person and there was no need for a new law. (Dinah reference)
Therefore, this essay will examine whether the HRA has given the judiciary the necessary power, to effectively enforce the protection of human rights against abuses as provided for in the European Convention on Human Right (ECHR). This essay will achieve this by examining the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the HRA.
The HRA 1998 came into power in the UK in October 2000. It is made up of different kind of sections that have the impact of writing the protections in the Convention, into UK law. Therefore, the Convention rights are enforceable in United Kingdom courts. This implies that people can document human rights cases in the UK courts, as opposed to going to the Court in Strasbourg to contend their case.
The criticism of the HRA and European Court in the UK is massive. Critics have always argued that the ratification of the European convention on human right into UK law, is an encroachment, and it undermines the supremacy of the Parliament. A view confirmed by
…show more content…
Lord Bingham said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons ( The stand of the court should be to uphold rule of law against arbitrary decisions by the government against civil

Related Documents