The Human Rights Act and the Sovereignty of Parliament - Coursework Example

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT Introduction The discussions of United Kingdom courts regarding the Human Rights Act 1998 have not produced any important effect on the criminal law or on the capability of the government to control crime. The Human Rights Act 1998 has effects on the government legislation to fight terrorism in the country. The major challenges arise from the actions taken by the European Court on Human Rights. In all the other areas, the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the parliamentary procedures of the United Kingdom have been very advantageous. It has also led to a constructive dialogue between the European Court on Human Rights and the judges of the United Kingdom. This article will explore the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom. Impacts of the Human Rights Act 1998 The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into action since 2000 in October, represents a major rest ruction of the political constitution of the United Kingdom.1 It has also redistributed power between the legislature, executive and the judiciary. Most of the transfer of powers was from the parliament and executive to the judiciary.2 Before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, the legal order of the United Kingdom was that of the supremacy of parliament. The most important feature of the Human Rights Act 1998 is the obligation of interpretation provided in section 3. The act requires the courts in the country to interpret the provisions of the state as well as those of common law in a manner that complies with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.3 Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that, “so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.” The courts have the responsibility of interpreting legislation to uphold the rights of the convention unless the legislation is not compatible with the convention that is not possible to do.4 The main issue in question is whether section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ruined the sovereignty of the parliament. However, judicial rectification of the terms of the state has a limit if that will make the statute to be compatible with the convention.5 Section 3 allows for interpretation of the language in a restrictive and expansive manner.6 It also just encourages the court to read the words that change the meaning of the legislation to make it comply with the convention. Section 3 limits the autonomy of the judiciary as the parliament has the power to legislate against the rights of the convention. Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 established the tonic of a declaration of incompatibility. This finds application in a condition where the court is not capable of interpreting a provision of the state in a manner that is compatible with the rights of the convention. However, the declaration of incompatibility does not invalidate the legislation.7 This is according to the provision of section 4(6) (a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 asks public authorities to behave in a manner that conforms to the rights of the convention. This seems that it is empowering the judiciary to contain public authorities. However, section 6(2) stated that any public body that acts in opposition to the rights of the convention is within the law if it conforms to the provisions of the legislation.8 This allows public bodies to act in opposition to the rights of the convention but in the manner, the courts interpret section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6 (3) (b) takes the parliament out of the definition of public authorities.9 This means that the parliament has the power to legislate in a manner that is not compatible with the rights of the convention. Hence, under section 6 (3) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the parliament is capable of hiding beneath the electorate because they do not account for their actions. Concerning the process of enacting legislation, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires a minister who is in charge of a particular bill, upon introducing the bill into the parliament to make a compatibility statement before the bill reaches the second reading.10 The statement of compatibility must show an indication in the manner that the bill complies with the rights of the convention. This places constraints on the sovereignty of the parliament since it requires the parliament to include the rights of the convention in the first stages of legislation. Nevertheless, it is not right to say that the section prevents the parliament from enacting legislation since it is possible to produce a non-compliance statement, which shows the contradiction between the proposals of the bill, the convention rights and the logic behind the non-compliance.11 The Human Rights Act 1998 has successfully, achieved the most appropriate balance by allowing the parliament to retain its legal right of enacting legislation that is not compatible with the rights of the convention.12 Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires a minister to produce a statement of compatibility of a particular Bill with the requirements of the Convention. Many suggest that the section entails a form and manner of restriction so that it is impossible to make a particular law without considering that statement. Therefore, section 19 can set a binding obligation enforceable by the court. The statement relies on the weak view form of the sovereignty of parliament that holds that it is not possible to impose restrictions enforceable by the judiciary that affects the manner of exercising legislative power by the parliament.13 However, there has not been any case in which, the court intervened and stated whether legislation without the compatibility statement is invalid. The provisions of the state that prevent a transsexual from engaging in a marriage contract did not agree with the provisions of article 8 and article 12.14 However, the European Court on Human Rights had earlier declared that the law of the United Kingdom regarding this issue was not compatible. However, the House of Lords had accepted the argument of the government that it was not a responsibility of the court to recast the pertinent law but the handling of the matter should be in the hands of the parliament. The parliament has responded by enacting the Gender Recognition Act 2004, to address the issue. The Human Rights Act 1998 has a very vital role as well as effect on the formulation of policies by the central government. The official procedures that aim at achieving compatibility coupled with outside examination by the parliament on Human Rights has enhanced transparency as well as parliamentary responsibility. The Human Rights Act 1998 enables improved policy results because it puts into consideration the needs of all the members of the United Kingdom despite their diversity. In addition, it enhances superior personalisation that in turn leads to better services to the public.15 However, there was a serious distortion and misinterpretation of the purpose and effect of the Human Rights Act 1998. Misapprehensions thrive not only amongst the public, but also among public servants.16 The events leading to the murder of Naomi Bryant provide a very conspicuous and sobering example of the operational problems, which have arisen for key agencies because of these misconstructions and the malfunctions by Departments across government consistently to ensure that key decision takers have access to the best possible training, guidance and legal advice. There is no sufficient appreciation that the parliament has an overarching duty (deriving from Articles 1 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself) to maintain the safety and security of its citizens. Conclusion The parliament of the United Kingdom remains seriously committed to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the manner provided by the laws of the country by the Human Rights Act 1998. The parliament is in the process of reviewing the manner, which the police, parole, probation as well as prison services arrive at a balance in the protection of the public and the rights of individuals. In some conditions, it will conduct legislation to ensure that protection of the public earns the first priority. The parliament of the United Kingdom has to take a practical, strategic as well as a coordinated method on the litigation of Human Rights. This is to ensure that it will have an optimal potential impact on case law within the Human Rights Act 1998. The parliament should campaign to ensure that all members of the society gain a proper understanding of the benefits that the Human Rights Act 1998 has provided to the common people and revoke all the myths that grew up around the European Convention on Human Rights. Read More