Human Rights Act 1998 - Coursework Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxx Title: Human Rights Act 1998 Date: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Human Rights Act 1998 Introduction The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted in November 1998 by the parliament of the United Kingdom, the Act was effected in October 2000. This Act aims at reinforcing the UK laws on human rights found in the European Convention of Human Rights. Basically, this Act aims at ensuring that basic human rights are fully respected, protected and enforced by the legal systems in UK. Primarily, this Act improves the manner in which the UK justice systems works and causes authorities in public offices to be more accountable for their actions and decisions. Under this Act, each person is entitled to certain basic human rights such as the right to life, the right to fair trial and the right to express themselves freely among many other basic rights. In case an individual is deprived of these rights, they can bring the case to the UK courts and challenge the decision or actions of the alleged public authority on grounds that they were deprived of their human rights1 This paper seeks to critically examine whether the courts in the United Kingdom have over time helped the Human Rights Act 1998 achieve its objectives. In order to get an incisive outlook on this matter this paper will first provide an overview of the Human Rights Act 1998. Secondly, this paper will explore the aims of the Human Rights Act 1998. This paper will then establish whether the courts in the United Kingdom have over time helped the Human Rights Act 1998 achieve its objectives. Several court cases will be examined to establish whether the UK courts uphold and adhere to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. An overview of the Human Rights Act 1998 The Human Rights Act 1998 is essentially an Act that gives greater effect to the rights guaranteed in the European Convention of Human Rights. This Act provides “greater effect” to the European Convention of Human Rights by giving public authorities the obligation to act and make decisions in accordance to the Convention rights. This Act also provides greater effect to Convention rights by providing that the courts should interpret the law in accordance to the Convention rights. Human Rights Act 1998 constitutes of rights only in Article 2 to 12, Article 14 and the First and Sixth Protocols. The rights incorporated in this Act are called the “Convention rights2.” Below are the European Convention Rights incorporated in the Human Rights Act: Article 2 provides that each individual has a right to life which is protected by the law Article 3 provides freedom from inhuman treatment, torture and degrading punishment. Article 4: freedom from forced labour and slavery Article 5: The right to personal liberty. Article 6: The right to get a fair trial. Article 7: Freedom from being punished for offences that are not depicted in the law. Article 8: The right to privacy with regards to correspondence and family life. Article 9: The right to freedom of religion thought and conscience. Article 10: Freedom of expression. Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association. Article 12: The right to marry and have a family. Protocol 1 Article 1: The right to own property. Article 2: The right to get education. Article 3: The right to hold free elections. Protocol 6 Article 1: Elimination of the death penalty. Article 2: Death penalty can be carried out in time of war. 3The Act stipulates that it is illegal for any public authority to act or make decisions in such a manner that breaches the “Convention rights4. According to this Act a public authority is someone whose functions are public in nature5. Therefore, the courts are included in the category of public authorities6. Pertaining to the interpretation of the set rights, the Act stipulates that the involved Courts can consider the jurisprudence of the “European Court of Human Rights”7. Section 7 of this Act enables any individual with reasonable ground to take action against a public authority who has acted in a manner that is against the Convention rights. Any individual has a right to take action as long as they meet the requirements of the “victim tests” as provided in Article 34 of the Convention8. If it is established that a public authority breached the convention rights of a claimant, the Court is mandated to grant the appropriate remedy or order that relief is granted to the claimant9. The objectives of the Human Rights Act 1998 The main aim of the Human Rights Acts 1998 is to give greater effect to the rights guaranteed in the European Convention of Human Rights. The aim of the Act is to ensure that a set of basic human rights, which are listed in the Act, are fully respected and enforced in the UK.The Act aims at changing the way the UK system of justice works, and makes public authorities more accountable for their decisions. The guiding principles of this Act aim at ensuring that all public authorities uphold human rights standards as provided in the Convention of rights. According to the provisions of this Act, if the rights of an individual have been violated, they can challenge these actions in court and get remedies10. Moreover, this Act aims at promoting equality in the freedom and privileges granted regardless of one’s race, sex, colour, religious opinion and socio-economic status. This Act aims at protecting life and giving security to citizens from inhuman treatment and torture. This Act also aims at upholding the human dignity and promoting personal freedom. Under this Act, individuals have the right own property, have their own privacy, express themselves freely, associate with others and assemble peacefully. In addition, this Act aims at promoting cultural and socio-economic freedoms. For instance, under this Act, individuals have a right to education and a right to take part in the cultural life of their given community.11 How the courts have enabled the Human Rights Act 1998 achieve its objective The fundamental principle of the Human Rights Act of 1998 provide that public authorities such as the Court should act or make decisions that are in accordance of rights contained in this Act. Currently, if an individual believes that their rights were contravened and as result they present this matter to the court, the court that handle this case ensures that the human rights standards are put into account. In whatever decision that the court makes, the rights provided in this Act are not interfered with. The courts have enabled people to assert their rights in all the tribunals and courts in the UK. Moreover, the Courts in UK have empowered individuals whose rights have been violated by public authorities or organizations conduct public function to appeal if they are not satisfied with the ruling of the court12.The Human Rights Act 1998 provides stipulations for settlements by domestic courts in UK and for the award of compensation in cases where public authorities have breached Convention rights.13 In order to fully capture whether the courts have helped the Human Rights Act 1998 achieve its objectives, it is essential to examine several court cases in the UK that will depict whether or not the courts have over time helped to achieved the provisions set in the Human Rights Act 1998. Price v. Leeds City Council (2005) EWCA Civ 289 The proceeding of this court case was concerned with gypsies who had allegedly occupied land owned by the Leeds city council without the consent of the city council. The court had to make a ruling on whether the City council had the right to re-posses the land considering the rights of gypsies as provided by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The judges proceeding over this case referred to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with regards to Connors v United Kingdom14 and the decision by the House of Lords on 15Harrow LBC v. Qazi. By referring to these cases the courts established incompatibility and had to follow the decision by the House of Lords. The court ruled that the city council had not breached the rights of the gypsies to own land by evicting them from public land. Based on this case, it is evident that the court did not uphold the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 with regards to an individual’s right to have shelter16. Venables and Thompson v. News Group News papers (2001) 1 All ER 908 In this case the claimants, Thompson and Venables, convicted murders, applied to the court for an injunctive relief that would prevent newspapers for publishing their whereabouts and identities using the provisions of Article 8 that accentuates on individual rights to privacy17. The courts granted a permanent injunction prohibiting all media houses around the globe from publishing any materials on the whereabouts and identities of the claimants. Judge Dame Butler-Sloss issues this injunction citing that the two convicts had a right to privacy in this case since the consequences of disclosing their identity and whereabouts would expose them to potential harm. It is evident in this case, that the court helped the Human Rights Act 1998 to achieve its objective of protecting the right on individuals to privacy18. Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited [2008] EWHC Max Mosley took legal action against the News Group Newspaper Limited for exposing his private life after the newspaper published that Mosley involved himself in Sado-masochistic sexual acts with female prostitutes. Mosley’s defense relied on the provisions of Article 8 in the Human Rights Act 1998 that accentuates on individual rights to privacy19. His defense argued that this was unauthorized disclosure and a breach of confidence on the part of the persons who disclosed this information20. In the final proceedings of the case, Justice Eady stated that the law gives protection to a person’s private information therefore based on the values expressed in Article 8 and 10 in the European Courts of Human rights as also expressed in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 137321. Justice Eady ruled in favor of Mosley and as a result Mosley was granted £60,000 in damages22. Connors v. UK (2004) App No 66746/01 This case was presided over by the European Courts of Human Rights which declared that the claimants had been discriminated against23. The claimants a group of gypsies had been issued a license to live temporarily in a land owned by the local authority for a certain period of time. The local authority decided to evict the Gypsies before their occupancy had expired, claiming that they were a nuisance and thus they revoked their licenses. The licenses of other mobile travelers were not revoked by local authority in the due process. In this case the courts observed Article 14 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 14 accentuates on the rights of individuals to be protected against discrimination whereas Article 8 focuses on the right to respect the home of individuals24. The court observed that the rights of the Gypsies had been infringed unlike in the case of Price v. Leeds City Council (2005) EWCA Civ 28925. The court also observed that given the fact that the Gypsies were a minority, they were to be given special considerations26. In reference to this case, it is apparent that the courts helped the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 to achieve its objectives by protecting the rights of individuals to have a home and be protected from discrimination. Conclusion The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in October 2000. This Act aims at giving greater effect to the UK laws on human rights found in the European Convention of Human Rights27. Human Rights Act 1998 constitutes of rights only in Article 2 to 12, Article 14 and the First and Sixth Protocols of the European Convention. The rights incorporated in this Act are called the “Convention rights.” The key objective of this Act is to ensure that basic human rights are fully respected, protected and enforced by the legal systems in UK such as the courts. This paper has examine whether the courts in the United Kingdom have over time helped the Human Rights Act 1998 achieve its objectives. In order to fully portray whether the courts have helped the Human Rights Act 1998 achieve its objectives, this paper has examined four key court cases that revolve around the Human Rights Act 1998. Based on the cases analyzed, it is evident that overtime the courts in UK have played a significant role in upholding the provisions of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Nevertheless, there are certain discrepancies that exist when it come to the interpretation of the law. This is evident in Price v. Leeds City Council (2005) EWCA Civ 289 where the courts gave a Declaration of Incompatibility28. Bibliography Barker, C., 1998, Human Rights Act 1998: A practitioner's guide, Sweet and Maxwell, London. p3. Betten, L., 1999, The Human Rights Act 1998: what it means: the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the legal order of the United Kingdom. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, UK, p 70. Birkinshaw, P., 2010, Freedom of Information: The Law, the Practice and the Ideal, Cambridge University Press, UK. Fenwick, H., Philipson, G. & Masterman, R. (2007).Judicial reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge University Press, UK. Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2006, A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, Ed 3, Retrieved on Decemeber 9, 2010 Mawby, R. & Wright, A., 2005, Police Accountability in The United Kingdom, A presentation to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, p 3. Retrieved on December 9, 2010 Hoffman, D. &Rowe, J., 2009, Human Rights in the UK: An Introduction to the Human Rights Act of 1998. Longman, London, p 112. Stationary Office, 1998, Human Rights Act 1998: Part 42, The Stationery Office, UK, p 4- 24. Court cases Campbell v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 Connors v. UK (2004) App No 66746/01 Harrow LBC v. Qazi [2003] UKHL 43. Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited [2008] EWHC Price v. Leeds City Council (2005) EWCA Civ 289 Venables and Thompson v. News Group News papers (2001) 1 All ER 908 Read More