The Human Rights Act and life sentence prisoners - Essay Example

There was a powerful presumption against the retrospective application of the Act, and in relation to transactions that had taken place prior to the coming into force of the Act; there could be no question of interpretation under s 3 and accordingly no power to grant a declaration under s 4. 1 (Human Rights, Article 7) Three decisions of the House can be cited to illustrate the strength of the interpretative obligation under section 3(1). The first is R v A (No. 2) [2002] 1 AC 45 which concerned the so-called rape shield legislation.

The problem was the blanket exclusion of prior sexual history between the complainant and an accused in section 41(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, subject to narrow specific categories in the remainder of section 41. In subsequent decisions, and in academic literature, there has been discussion about differences of emphasis in the various opinions in A. What has been largely overlooked is the unanimous conclusion of the House. The House unanimously agreed on an interpretation under section 3 which would ensure that section 41 would be compatible with the ECHR.

The formulation was by agreement set out in paragraph 46 of Lord Steyn's opinion in that case as follows: "The effect of the decision today is that . o the importance of seeking to protect the complainant from indignity and from humiliating questions, the test of admissibility is whether the evidence (and questioning in relation to it) is nevertheless so relevant to the issue of consent that to exclude it would endanger the fairness of the trial under article 6 of the Convention. If this test is satisfied the evidence should not be excluded.

" (Lord Steyn, 2006a)Case: Re S Care plan 2002 UKHL 10 House of Lords and Starred Care Plans Re S (Minors) 3 The House of Lords did not uphold the Court of Appeals creation of starred care plans, a bold attempt to devise a way for care plans which were not being implemented coming back to court; instead they stressed the need for the government to urgently review this - power of section 3 HRA limited, court must be mindful of outer limit. Interpretation up to courts but enactment and amendment matter for Parliament - starred milestones departed substantially from Parliamentary intentions so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with convention rights .

(Child adoption)Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead 4The Torbay case: The appeals concern four children, two in the Torbay case and two in the Bedfordshire case. The cases are factually unrelated. In the Torbay case the mother had three children: P, who is a boy born in August 1987, M, a boy born in January 1991, and J, a girl born in January 1992. The children are now 14, 11 and 10 years old. The appeal concerns the two younger children. The father of P, the eldest child, played no part in these proceedings.

The mother met the father of M and J in 1987. They started to cohabit in 1989. Serious problems emerged in May 1999 when P ran away from home and