Human Rights Act 1998 6(3)(b) - Essay Example

This pigeonholing of information meant for the common people of a democratic country only serve to increase ambiguity about the nature and extent of their existence and most importantly the essential function they possess to help the citizen of the state. Statutory interpretation of Section 6 of the Act makes the understanding of two types of "public authority" seemingly quite clear-cut within the sphere of judicial classification. Obvious public authorities, private authorities that act publicly and as per section 6 (3)(a), those bodies who may be part of any court or tribunal2.

Thus Public Authority stands precariously at a very sharp contrast to the given fundamental rights under the British Constitution Law. Briefly, the 6(3)(b) may be seen as one of those restrictive clauses that seek to curb those given rights under imposing specifications that though clarify their function of being exhaustive to their cause, is nonetheless oppressive to universal ideology of the Human Rights. Thus the actual impacts of exercise of such rights are important to the present condition, which shall indicate where our future is headed.

Hermeneutics of law is an important step towards grasping the closest interpretation of an evolving constitution that exist side by side to so many case law challenges. To accommodate international or rather European Convention of Rights' incorporating Human Rights law nationally the British Constitution must also revise its fundamental problems of laws full of gaps. The Leonard Cheshire3 case successfully brought forth new interpretation and classification of bodies of 'pure' public authorities.

These fell outside the scope and target of the Act since the court had narrowed the whole idea of the 'public authority' for the specific category of section 6(3)(b). The case centered on a home care foundation called the Leonard Cheshire Foundation was unable to fight for the fundamental rights called voicing out. They were thus met with a lot of resistance when they tried to fight against the decision that directed closure of the home thereby leaving the residents free to go wherever they will.

This act of closure was problematic to the residents since under the Human Rights Act 1998 the home was being subjected to disrespect by them and the major issue got tied up with finding an apt definition for Leonard Cheshire, which ultimately was declared a non public authority and thus it changed the way human rights act was applicable in its context anymore. The event is familiar to all, but the act requires us to think a step further about the case of fundamental rights being held at variable contexts and thereby being subject to being called null and void when it acted in favor of the residents by helping them find placements too.

Similar was the case of Johnson v. London Borough of Havering in 2007 when the Court of Appeal made decision of another care home being governed by the local authority. The transfer from them to another private sector was proposed which brought alarming issues of human rights act and its legitimacy or applicability under the private sector. Human rights act enjoyed under the governmental concern would invariably lead to a confusing turn of being loosened and ultimately becoming in effective in the future.

Thus under the private sector the public and the private would not be a separate domain at all and be under the constant threat of being violated without any fixed line drawn legally to act in favor of its citizens.