Public Law - Research Paper Example

Public Law: With Reference To Relevant Case Law And Academic Literature, Assess Which Of The Following Three Sections Of The Human Rights Act 1998 Makes The Greatest Contribution To The Protection Of Fundamental Rights In The United Kingdom: Section 3, Section 4 Or Section 6 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Discussion 4 Contribution of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom 4 Contribution of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom 5 Contribution of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom 6 Comparing and Contrasting the Contributions Made by Sections 3, 4, and 6 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom with Relevant Case Laws 7 Conclusion 10 References 11 Introduction The Human Rights Act 1998 (a.k.a. HRA Act) came into effect in the year 2000 in the UK. It can be apparently observed that the Act constitutes a sequence of sections that emphasises protecting the fundamental rights of the UK citizens as per its national constitution1. Specially mentioning, the aforementioned Act generally sets out certain fundamental rights along with freedoms to the legal citizens of the UK. These fundamental rights along with freedoms principally include ‘right to life’, ‘right to a fair trial’, ‘freedom of expression’, ‘right to liberty and security’, ‘freedom of thought, belief and religion’, ‘right to marry and start a family’, ‘freedom of assembly and association’ and right to education’ among others2. The Equality and Human Rights Commission strongly believed that the proper application of the Act would eventually facilitate in promoting diversity along with equality, safeguarding the aforementioned human rights, eliminating any sort of discrimination and building better association between the citizens3;4. With this concern, the essay tends to assess three sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 i.e. Sections 3, 4 and 6 with an intention to critically evaluate and identify the section making greatest contribution to the fortification of fundamental rights in the UK. The discussion hereunder will primarily focus on assessing the contributions made by these sections to protect the fundamental rights of the UK citizens following a comparison of the same. The assessment would clearly depict a picture regarding which of these sections largely contributes in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the legal citizens of the UK. Discussion Contribution of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is regarded as one of the most important provision of, which facilitates the legislation to be effective in the UK. It has been apparently viewed that this particular Section of the Act necessitates courts for interpreting subordinate along with primary legislations so that their respective provisions are well-matched with the Articles of the ‘European Convention of Human Rights’ that are also viewed as a part of the Human Rights Act5. In the context of protecting the fundamental rights in the UK, Section 3 of this Act is often said to be safeguarding primary legislations that are compatible besides those secondary legislations that are formulated under such primary legislations. Based on the above discussion, it can be affirmed that Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 mainly focuses upon the aspect of ‘interpretation of legislation’ in its most viable way within the UK context. Accordingly, Section 3 of the Act concerning the fortification of fundamental rights in the UK, the aspect i.e. ‘interpretation of legislation’ denotes that primary as well as subordinate legislations ought to be read and given effect in a manner, which is well-matched with Convention rights. This might be owing to the concern of assisting the UK courts in taking decisions efficiently. In the circumstance of protecting the fundamental rights of the individuals belonging to the UK, three sorts of judicial interpretation can be apparently observed as included in Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. These include ‘reading down’, ‘reading out’ and ‘reading in’. An effectual conduct of these various sorts of judicial interpretation eventually makes a broader contribution towards safeguarding the fundamental rights of the UK citizens6. Contribution of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 typically considers the aspect of ‘declaration of incompatibility’ and hence, is regarded as another important provision of the Act. Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is intensely related with the principles included in Section 3 of the Act. This can be precisely justified with reference to the fact that Section 4 of the Act allows courts to provide a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ at the time when it becomes quite difficult in using Section 6 for interpreting subordinate or primary legislations7. Theoretically, the legislations are required to be interpreted with the intention of making their respective provisions compatible with the Articles of the ‘European Convention of Human Rights’ that are often regarded as an integral part of the Human Rights Act 1998 when defining the fundamental rights of the citizens. In the context of safeguarding the fundamental rights of the individuals belonging to the UK, Section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that “If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility”8. Observably, the primary objective of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens residing within the UK, bridging the gaps between the legislative guidelines stated in Sections 3 and 6 of the Act. Based upon the above statement relating to Section 4 of the Act, it can be affirmed that this Section primarily tends to attain its prime objective through political instead of legal means, which often creates controversies to its way of judgement4. Contribution of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 can be observed as firmly focused on one of the significant aspects when ensuring the fundamental rights of the UK citizens, i.e. ‘acts of public authorities along with meaning of public authority’. It is worth mentioning that Section 6 of the aforementioned Act has been fundamentally designed for the purpose of recognising those particular bodies that intend to perform various effective functions, involving the accountability of the UK beforehand the ‘European Court of Human Rights’9. In this similar context, Section 6 of the Act postulates these bodies as ‘hybrid bodies’ including tribunals and courts at the time when they perform various functions of public nature. According to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is not legitimate for a ‘public authority’ to act in a manner, which is unsuited with Convention Rights. Apparently, in the circumstance of safeguarding the fundamental rights of the individuals belonging to the UK, Section 6 of the Act considers ‘public authority’ as a tribunal or a court and any individual who conduct functions based upon public idea. On the other hand, Section 6 of the Act does not consider House of Parliament or individual exercising functions in accordance with the proceedings in Parliament as ‘public authority’. It is worth mentioning that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 necessitates English courts for giving effects to the rights in the Convention at the time of formulating the common laws. As per the above analysis, it can be affirmed from a broader understanding that Section 6 of the Act plays an imperative role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the individuals belonging to the UK in the form of valuing human rights legally deliverable to the people and promoting approaches based on human rights provisions3. Comparing and Contrasting the Contributions Made by Sections 3, 4, and 6 to the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the United Kingdom with Relevant Case Laws In order to assess and identify one of the sections amid the three of the Human Rights Act 1998 i.e. Sections 3, 4 or 6, making greatest contribution to the fortification of fundamental rights in the UK, certain relevant case laws must essentially be taken into concern. In relation to Section 3 of the Act, the relevant case law of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza has been considered10. According to the case, Mr. Wallwyn-James was residing with Mr. Godin-Mendoza for a long time in a flat with a same-sex couple’s affiliation. After the death of Mr. Wallwyn-James, the owner of the flat, Mr. Ghaidan applied to the court for repossessing the flat. The prime issue of the case can be identified as that whether the human rights of Mr. Godin-Mendoza towards family life along with non-discrimination in the enjoyment of the right (living in the flat after the death of Mr Wallwyn-James) would be breached if he was not entitled to a ‘statutory tenancy’ in order to reside in the flat. In this regard, the Rent Act 1977 stated that a ‘person who was living with the original tenant as his or her husband or wife’ will be entitled to avail permanent tenancy3. In response, the House of Lords took into concern Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to infer the provision as affirmed by the Rent Act 1977. Based on this ground, the court decided that Mr. Godin-Mendoza ought to be offered with the right of a statutory tenancy in similar way as the stayer of a married couple would have obtained3;11. With regard to Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the case of Alconbury Developments Ltd v Environment Secretary can be taken into concern. This particular case demonstrated the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts at the time when Alconbury Developments Ltd was questioned about its correctness in conducting various business activities in alignment with Convention rights along with the principles associated with judicial comity. In relation to this case, it can be apparently viewed that there had been discretion of powers in the form of understanding the scope of Convention Rights. According to the case, the courts’ judgment concerning the allegation made upon Alconbury Developments Ltd was observed to be favourable. However, the plaintiff (i.e. Alconbury Developments Ltd) succeeded in proving the conduct of business activities having conformity with the Convention Rights as well as the principles of judicial comity, which offered the company with fundamental rights as per Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 199812. In another relevant case, which determined the fortification of fundamental rights in the UK, i.e. the case of ‘Human Rights in Healthcare’, contribution made by Section 6 of the Human Right Acts 1998 was clearly observable. Though Section 6 of the aforementioned Act mainly focuses upon determining the activities performed by public authorities, the consideration of the case can be regarded as an appropriate one in the context of protecting the fundamental rights of the UK citizens. The case was related to healthcare project concerning the aspect of Human Rights in the field. This particular project mainly engaged five Primary Care along with National Health Service trusts for the purpose of offering effective and quality healthcare services to the people. In relation to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the five National Health Service as well as primary care trusts can be regarded as public authorities that tend to safeguard the fundamental rights in the UK, providing them with their requisite healthcare services. It has been affirmed in this similar concern that the approaches based on human rights will impose considerable impacts upon the treatment along with the care delivered towards service users by a considerable extent. Similarly, as per Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the above depicted healthcare project will impose extensive impacts upon the deliverance of effective public healthcare services3. Conclusion Based on the above analysis and discussion, it can be affirmed that the Human Rights Act 1998 mainly focuses upon safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens belonging to the UK in compliance with various Convention Rights. Specially mentioning, the Act revealed certain fundamental rights along with freedoms that the people belonging to the UK require to access. With reference to relevant case laws and academic literatures, it can be apparently observed that Section 3 and 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes the greatest contribution towards the fortification of fundamental rights in the UK. Assessing the principles of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it was observed to play a significant and influencing role in safeguarding the fundamental rights in the UK being focused upon the aspect of ‘interpretation of legislation’ and providing statutory benefits to the individuals such as statutory tenancy as in the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza. Similarly, when assessing Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it was observed to make marginally greater contribution in defending fundamental rights offered to the UK citizens, emphasising the determination of legitimacy of the activities performed by public authorities such as offering effective healthcare services to the individuals as observed in the case of the healthcare project. Narrowing the discussion it can be concluded that because Section 3 exhibits the preliminary stage for the provisions to be applicable being focused on the ‘interpretation of legislation’, the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act 1998 in protecting the fundamental rights of the UK citizens. References Boyle Alan E, Human Rights and Scots Law (Hart Publishing, 2002). Clayton, Richard, ‘Smoke and Mirrors: The Human Rights Act and The Impact of the Strasbourg Case Law’ [No Date] (News) accessed 07 February 2014. Clements Luke J and Read Janet, Disabled People and European Human Rights: A Review of the Implications of the 1998 Human Rights Act for Disabled Children and Adults in the UK (The Policy Press, 2003). Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘The Human Rights Act’ [No Date] (Uploads) accessed 07 February 2014. Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘The Case for the Human Rights Act’ [No Date], pp. 1-87. Emmerson, Ben, Ashworth Andre and Macdonald Alison, Human Rights and Criminal Justice (Sweet & Maxwell, 2012). Fenwick Helen, Philipson, Gavin and Masterman, Roger, Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Harvey Colin J, Human Rights in the Community: Rights as Agents for Change (Hart Publishing, 2005). Malleson Kate and Moules Richard, The Legal System (Oxford University Press, 2010). Sueur Andrew Le, Sunkin Maurice and Murkens Jo, Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 2e (Oxford University Press, 2013). Sathanapally Aruna, Beyond Disagreement: Open Remedies in Human Rights Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2012). Sylvester Darren, ‘Is There Still A Grey Area In The Operation Of Sections 3 & 4 HRA 1998, Or Is The Relationship Crystal Clear Two Years’ On?’ [No Date] (Files) accessed 07 February 2014. Read More