Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Research Proposal Example

Contents Contents 1.0INTRODUCTION 2 2.0. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: A BRIEF HISTORY 5 2 HRA 1998: A BRIEF HISTORY 5 4.0. HRA: NEGATIVE EFFECTS 10 5.0 HRA: A CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS? 13 6.0. CONCLUSION 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18 CASES 20 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The contemporary period has witnessed and bears testimony to the atrocities committed against humanity during World War II. This experience not only showed the extent of cruelty and barbarous acts that people can do against others but it also showed the magnitude of the trauma and effects of such atrocities on people’s lives, on the human story. In response to this, the world has come together, created and affirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wherein part of its preamble states “… the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (www.un.org). The Declaration has paved the way for the inception of countless other human rights instruments and treatises (Cheng, 2008, p 252). Responding to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the Council of Europe have come up with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which states that Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend; Being resolved, as the Governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the Rights stated in the Universal Declaration (ECHR Preamble, www.hri.org) These two important documents have become the beacon with which the understanding of human rights and the implementation of frameworks that will foster human rights may be established. Though it has taken United Kingdom five decades, the wait can be deemed to be inconsequential, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) has been seen as the “quantum leap into a new legal culture” (Wade, 1998) ushering in “a shift in the legal tectonic plates (Klug, 2000). However, a decade after HRA1998 come into full force, the need to evaluate whether HRA has contributed to the establishment of a “culture of human rights” in United Kingdom in some degrees or has not changed anything requires elucidation. This is necessary as HRA moves beyond the abstraction of the ECHR towards a more concrete application of human rights principles and laws in the lives of the citizenry (Hoffman, 2009). As in the case of Lee v Leeds Council wherein the question regarding breach of HRA 1998, Art 8 Sec 1 which states, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” has clarified by the courts. Moreover, there are other similar cases actual pertinent to human rights (eg. R. v. G; AC (Deportation, Article 8, Appellant) Turkey; P & Ors, Re (Northern Ireland)) which puts flesh to the abstract notion of human rights. In response to this, the research will be looking into HRA 1998 vis- a vis culture of human rights with the hope that articulation that will be undertaken in this paper will help shed more light to the intricate connection of the two. 1.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This study is significant primarily because it seeks to understand HRA 1998 in the context with which it is created – a response to the current demand of time. Moreover, it will try to identify points and factors that will allow easier comprehension of human rights. Finally, this study is significant as the elucidation of some concepts and principles that will be performed in this study may provide a way with which the culture of human rights can be apprehended, lived and turned into in the light of the spirit of HRA 1998. 1.2. RESEARCH METHOD The research methodology that has been applied in this is documentary research analysis (Scott, 2006). Documentary research analysis is the research methodology, which involves the collection of secondary sources pertinent to the subject matter and written by scholars in the field. In line with this, Academic Source Premiere, BAILII, and UK Parliament had been searched using the combination of the following key terms: law, human rights, ECHR, HRA 1998, culture of human rights, and UK Laws. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals from the period of 1995 to 2010 and written only in English were included in the selection. Excluded in the searched were monographs, opinions, editorials, position papers and pamphlets. The reference list of the articles was searched to identify additional relevant publications. 2.0. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: A BRIEF HISTORY Before presenting a brief history of HRA 1998, one important concept that has not yet been clarified is the notion of human rights. Why human rights? The principle behind protecting human rights is not only lodged in the WWII experience of humanity. It is also lodged on the fact that protection of human rights is an authentic and visible sign of a civilised society (Justice, 2000; Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2006). Moreover, human rights ought to be protected by the state because human rights are deemed to be inherent, inalienable and universal. It means that human rights are inherent to human beings by virtue of them being humans. No other requisites are necessary in order to attach human rights to a person (Justice, 2000). Inalienable since, “because no one can agree to give up their human rights, or have them taken away” (Justice , 2000, p 5). Finally, it is universal because human rights are shared and applied to all human beings regardless of their gender, colour, sex, beliefs and race (Justice, 2000). In this regard, because of the intrinsic value of human rights that stems from human beings qua human beings, the necessity of its protection becomes essential in the civilised society. 2.1. HRA 1998: A BRIEF HISTORY Britain does not have a written Constitution with which the Bill of Rights is clearly stipulated (Justice, 2000; DCA, 2006; Klug, 2003; Sedney, 2005). However, what Britain has is a long and strong standing tradition of individual liberties that are anchored on several on several important doctrines on fundamental rights – Magna Carta of 1215, the Petition rights of 1628, Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, Bill of Rights 1689, and the Act of Settlement 1700 (DCA, 2006: Limbach, 2001). In this regard, it can be impugned that UK has a solid and robust conception of liberties but it does not have a set of basic human rights. In 1950s, when UK became a signatory of the ECHR (where she played a very vital role in its conceptualisation and drafting), she sought to implement the tenets of ECHR and remain faithful to it. However, when it came to litigation of human rights cases, or when individuals believe that their human rights had been breached, they could not make their arguments in UK Courts (Justice, 2000). In fact, they would have to file the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In other words, bring it to Strasbourg (Justice, 2000; DCA, 2006). The problem with this procedure was that aside form it being time consuming, it was expensive (Justice, 2000; DCA, 2006). This proved to be cumbersome to those whose human rights had been violated already. Nevertheless, things have changed. On 2 October 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into full force. It has introduced changes in UK’s legal system. With the Human Rights Act enforce, the Convention Rights have become enforceable in UK courts, importing ECHR into UK Laws (Sedley, 2005), thereby, drastically changing the not only the old and tedious procedural system but UK legal system in itself (Hoffman , 2009). Furthermore, HRA has been credited for creating the arena wherein Convention rights and responsibilities form a common set of binding values for public authorities right across the UK Public authorities must have human rights principles in mind when they make decisions about people’s rights Human rights must be part of all policy making. SOURCE: DCA, 2006 Thus, HRA, in an era of equal dignity for all, has become “our clearest legal symbol that can survive in a contemporary political and legal culture that has become so deeply preoccupied with matters of war, politicized religious belief, and national Security” (Gearty, 2005, p 19). As such, in International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department , Simon Brown LJ states “the courts role under the 1998 Act is as the guardian of human rights. It cannot abdicate this responsibility." 3.0. HRA: POSITIVE EFFECTS The Human Rights Act 1998 has opened changes in UK’s legal system (Slapper, 2009). Though there are variegated opinions regarding the positive or negative effects of these changes, what is integral is that there is a continuous discourse regarding this subject matter in order to thresh out the problems encountered. In light of this, in this part of the research, the perceptible positive effects of HRA will be discussed. One clear effect of HRA is that it has provided a set of basic human rights with which people can evaluate whether a breach of their basic rights has been committed. This is a significant change because it has removed the abstractness of human rights and put it in the light of concrete reality, experience by people as they interact with others and with the government. In the Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1999], it has been stated that Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. It also forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being: whom to employ or work for, whom to promote, whom to do business with or to vote for. Once besmirched by an unfounded allegation in a national newspaper, a reputation can be damaged for ever, especially if there is no opportunity to vindicate ones reputation. When this happens, society as well as the individual is the loser. For it should not be supposed that protection of reputation is a matter of importance only to the affected individual and his family. Protection of reputation is conducive to the public good. It is in the public interest that the reputation of public figures should not be debased falsely. In the political field, in order to make an informed choice, the electorate needs to be able to identify the good as well as the bad. Consistently with these considerations, human rights conventions recognise that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Its exercise may be subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputations of others. This manifest the truism, that HRA allows not only the fact that person recognizes their own rights, but that coupled with their rights is the truism that they have responsibilities and duties attached to the rights (Lonrho v Fayed [1993]). While, in the resolution of the case, the Court should aim to attain the balance of two competing rights, in this case freedom of speech and protection of reputation. This should be the primary aim (Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004]; Naomi Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers; Qazi v. Harrow LBC [2003). Another and very important positive effect of HRA is the fact that this law has opened society and has provided the means with which social inclusion of the mentally disordered people and people who are different abled are turned into reality. HRA has “as undoubtedly strengthened the procedural rights of psychiatric service users under the 1983 Act in important ways. There has been a steady process of juridification of decisions to admit to hospital, to treat without consent, and to seclude…. There has been significant success in their approach (Fennell, 2005, p 103). The case of Munjaz v. Mersey Care National Health Service Trust and S v. Airedale National Health Service Trust is a case wherein the appellants challenges their seclusion as a breach of the MHA Code of practice. In another case, Keenan v United Kingdom, the court has observed that where the person has been deprived of his liberty, ‘`recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3’. Mark Keenan was a mentally ill person who was placed in seclusion. He killed himself during his solitary confinement. In effect, HRA is a positive step not only towards attaining social inclusion for those who are marginalised in the society by virtue of their mental illness and other form of abilities. It implements the rights of the patients, the centrality of care in the health system and embarks in the creation of polices that takes into consideration the authentic needs of those people who are limited and incapacitated by forms of illnesses (Horton, 2000). One more positive effect of HRA, is that policy-makers and public officials have been made aware of the importance of human rights in the policies, decisions and actions that they undertake in the performance of their functions. In R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith, the British government has a policy that persons with homosexual orientation cannot be permitted to serve in the military (Elliot, 2001). Pursuant to this policy, several soldiers have been dismissed from the service on the grounds of their sexual orientation notwithstanding the fact that they have outstanding service records. The appellants challenge the decision of the Ministry of Defence. In the Divisional Court, although they question the rationality of the decision, it does not necessarily mean that the decision has been unlawful. As Simon Brown has stated in his conclusion ...is it reasonable for the Secretary of State to take the view that allowing homosexuals to the service would imperil the delivery of an operational efficient and effective fighting force... In my own opinion, that is a wrong view, a view that rests firmly upon the supposition of prejudice and which insufficiently recognises the damage done to human rights inflicted. But can it be properly stigmatised as irrational?... the minister’s stance cannot be held properly unlawful However, when they brought the case to Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights found that United Kingdom had unlawfully impinged on the private lives of the soldiers, thus, violating Article 8 of the convention. The argument that the Court used is Article 8(2) of ECHR, which states that the privacy of the individual maybe qualified “if it is necessary in a democratic society in the interests for national security, public safety or economic well-being of the country, for prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals or for the protection of the rights of others. Due to Smith v United Kingdom [1999] and Lustig-Prean v United Kingdom[2000], the Ministry of Defence has changed its policy, it has lifted the prohibition on homosexuality and has come up with the Armed Forces Code of Conduct. However, in the midst of this positive changes happening due to HRA, there are also negative implications of the law. 4.0. HRA: NEGATIVE EFFECTS HRA as a law of men and women is not perfect. But it seeks to address the imbalance of imperfection. However, as other factors set in the implementation and interpretation of the law some problems and inconsistencies are made manifest. One of the more pronounce negative effect of HRA is that as it has created a clear set of basic set of Human rights for Britons, it has also established a different set of rules that are to be applied for those persons who are applying or seeking asylum to United Kingdom (Chakrabarti, 2005). In R v. SSHD, ex parte Daly the House of Lords upheld a decision allowing a ten day detention of Iraqi Kurds who are seeking asylum. The rationale behind the decision is the protection of the citizens of Britain from fraudulent asylum seekers and as such, prevent unauthorised entrance in to country. This same situation has also been observed in the case of R (on the application of Limbuela and others ) v SSHD, A & Ors v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] , Kurt v Turkey  and other similar cases. In effect, though HRA affirms the right to liberty, it also recognizes the fact that immigration and asylum concerns goes beyond HRA 1998. In fact, this situation is confounded the reality that asylum seekers who bring their children with them, do not receive any leniency (Chakrabarti, 2005). Although, it should be borne in mind that these situations are not just black or white but is a whole gamut of political, economic and social discourse, and as such this should be treaked with extra caution as the Lord Chief Justice has stated One problem arising from the legislative framework is that the sentencing court may approach the decision, or be invited to do so, as if the ultimate sentence represents a mathematical calculation. It does not … Too many factors interlink … In the final analysis, the true seriousness of the offence, which the minimum term is intended to reflect, inevitably represents a combination, and simultaneously a balancing, of all the relevant factors in the case (The Queen –v- Peters and Others [2005] This shows that as HRA place a clear cut set of human rights, the British HRA contains and has created and established “a number of limitations on to be breach of its rights. There are explicit and implied restrictions on many of the rights themselves, so that articles 8-11 set out rights to privacy and to freedom of thought, expression, and association that can be limited by such considerations as interests of national security, public safety, the economic wellbeing of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of health or morals, These restrictions must themselves be regulated by reference to what is prescribed by or in accordance with law and what is necessary in a democratic society” (Sypnowich, 2008, p106). The Janus face of HRA questions the very integrity and spirit of HRA. Does it really intend to provide a set of human rights to people or does it intend to reduce human persons and their rights into a mere tool for the attainment of the ends of the State – “their utility as part of the essential fabric that goes into the making of our democratic tapestry?” (Sypnowich, 2008, p108). Another problem that has been articulated regarding HRA is the fact that people have started to look into human rights as justiciable rights (Hoffman, 2009). It has created a society, which looks at their basic human rights as means with which they can see or sue somebody in court (Wadham, 2009). In effect, what it has encouraged is a litigation culture and lawyers have been taken to task for dominating the debate on the HRA and of course for having a pecuniary interest” (Wadham, 2009; 4). Furthermore, it has been claimed, that HRA is not truly responsive to the needs of the vulnerated members of the society in terms of the fact that it is silent in what really is the goal or objective that will help the vulnerated member of the society attain a good life. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ““right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (Article 25). No similar specific reference to health is covered in the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998.” (Art 25 UDHR as cited in Horton, 2000). In this regard, HRA is not without critics. Does the law really protect and serve the people or their significance is anchored on their utility as part of the essential fabric that goes into the making of our democratic tapestry” (Synopwich, 2008: 108) 5.0 HRA: A CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS? As mentioned earlier, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is humanity’s response against the evils and atrocities committed during World War II. And since its onset, many other human rights instruments and treaties have been generated (Cheng, 2008). For it is in this way that the protection of human rights may be ensured, however, these laws and treaties will remain as abstract ideals, remove from human reality if true awareness and an authentic respect for human rights are not integrated in the day – to- day lives of people. However, how can this be done? Through the inception of culture of human rights. According to the Joint Committee On Human Rights Sixth Report (2003), a culture of human rights …would be one which gave full recognition to this positive concept of rights. It should have two dimensions—institutional and ethical. In such a culture, so far as the institutional dimension is concerned, respect for human rights should shape the goals, structures, and practices of our public bodies. The key to the effective protection of rights lies in creating a culture in public life in which these fundamental principles are seen as central to the design and delivery of policy, legislation and public services. In their decision making and their service delivery central government, local authorities, schools, hospitals, police forces and other organs and agencies of the state should ensure full respect for the rights of all those involved… … is not one which is concerned only with rights, to the neglect of duties and responsibilities, but rather one that balances rights and responsibilities by fostering a basic respect for human rights and dignity, and creating a climate in which such respect becomes an integral part of our dealings with the public authorities of the state and with each other… …Such a culture of respect for human rights could help create a more humane society, a more responsive government and better public services. It could help to deepen and widen democracy This definition of culture of human rights provides us with a description of what can be expected at the inception of such a culture in our time. It provides us with the parameters with which people can be guided if it is already present in the current society. Having said that, base on what have been presented, it is now the time to critically evaluate whether HRA 1998 has, indeed, heralded as a measure that would help to inaugurate a gradual transformation of civil society. Yes! Human Rights Act 1998 has paved the way for the inauguration of the gradual transformation of civil society. This position is maintained base on the following supposition. First, HRA is not arrogant in maintaining that it has fully transformed the society in such a way that society is now a concrete instance of a culture of human rights. It does not claim that. What it claims is that it provides opening with which the gradual transformation of the society is starting. The mere fact that HRA incorporates the Convention Rights in UK Laws and has made UK move beyond liberties towards rights is in itself a big step for the inception of a culture of rights (Krisch, 2007; Evans & Evans, 2006) Second, HRA by providing an arena for persons who are suffering from mental disorders and other forms of disabilities that lessens their autonomy and their ability to decide which is best for them is in itself a very concrete and viable sign of the gradual transformation of the society. This is very significant as the social inclusion provided by HRA to these people is in itself a sure step in creating “a more humane society, a more responsive government and better public services”. Furthermore, this facet of HRA is very momentous as it addresses the authentic needs of those people who are marginalised and clearly vulnerated by the current social structure. In the case of B, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Dunham v Ashford Windows [2005], Hall, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Ors and other similar cases, it has been shown that the courts’ concern involves understanding the individual context of the persons implicated in the cases. Likewise, they have clearly manifested and applied the intent of the laws in protecting the rights of these people who are vulnerated by forms of mental illnesses or other forms of disabilities. In this regard, HRA paves the way for the gradual transformation of the civil society via opening venues for social inclusion of those who are generally relegated in the periphery of the society. Third, Human Rights Act afforded the citizens of United Kingdom the chance to understand that human rights are not something that is free. It is, in fact, a spectrum with which rights, duties and responsibilities not only to one’s self but also to others, the institutions and to the society becomes more pronounce as one sees the interconnection of one’s human rights with others (Costigan & Thomas, 2005). This idea posits the web of rights and responsibilities with others. It cannot just be my own personal human rights. As such, there is a need for raising of the awareness of the members of the society to the truism that where my rights end, your rights begin. As already noted “The greatest of these is ignorance. In such a culture people would be better informed about what their rights were and what they could mean in practice. The most vulnerable would be better protected from violations of their human rights. Government and public authorities would promote and protect human rights standards and treat all people with dignity, fairness and respect. Human rights standards would be generally accepted as those by which we should all strive to treat each other; and people would recognise and value both their own rights and those of others.” ( Joint Committee On Human Rights Sixth Report, 2003). In this regard, as the researcher holds that HRA paves the way for the gradual transformation of the civil society, it does not mean that people have to be relaxed in their struggle towards the creation of a more humane society, of a culture of human rights. As shown, there are loopholes and shortcomings in HRA 1998. In addition, as such, the danger of relegating as just one of the laws is a very probable risk. Being such, the need for the cooperation of all members of the society is crucial in all phases of the establishment of a culture of human rights, of a more humane society, of a more responsive government and better public services. 6.0. CONCLUSION Human Rights Act 1998 has opened changes not only within UK legal system but in the entire society as well. It has provided contemporary UK society a concrete set of human rights that moves the society from liberties towards rights. In this regard, it cannot be denied that certain observable positive effects have been seen since the coming into force of HRA 1998. Some of these include a clear set of human rights, social inclusion for those who are suffering from mental illness and other forms of disabilities that diminishes their capacity for autonomy and decision-making. Likewise, included in this change is the centrality of the concept of human rights in policymaking and in the performance of governmental functions and a lot easier and more convenient procedure in filing human rights cases. However, HRA too has a negative side. It has encouraged litigation and has created a set of rights that are applicable to Britons but not to others. Moreover, it is abstracted from reality and weaves between responding to the needs of the people as it sees fit and satisfying the needs of ‘some’. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, HRA is an authentic step towards the inception and gradual transformation of society that acknowledges the centrality of human rights in all human transactions. It may falter along the way, but it does not mean that it has not set the wheel of change. HRA1998 may not be the panacea for all the ills of UK society but it, definitely, has created the arena for a culture of human rights where the hope for a more humane society, and a more responsive government and better public services becomes a reality. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barendt, E, 2001, ‘Human Rights Act 1998 and libel law: brave new world?’, Media & Arts Law Review, Vol. 6, No 1, pp 1 – 12. Chakkrabarti, S, 2005, ‘Rights and Rhetoric: The Politics of Asylum and Human Rights Culture in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No 1, pp 131 -147. Cheng, T-H, 2008, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at sixty: Is it still right for the United States’, Cornell International Law Journal, 41, pp 251 – 306. Clements, L & Thomas, PA, 2005, ‘The Human Rights Act: A Success Story? Introduction’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No 1, pp 1 – 2. Costigan, R and Thomas, PA, 2005, ‘The Human Rights Act: A View from Below’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No 1, pp 51 – 67. Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2006, ‘A guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, Third Ed’, Dingwall, G, 2002, ‘Statutory Exceptions, Burdens of Proof and the Human Rights Act 1998’, The Modern Law Review Limited, Vol. 65, pp 450 – 463. Elliot, M, 2001, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998 and the standard of Substantive review’, Cambridge Law Journal, 60 (2),pp 301-336. Evans, C & Evans, S, 2006, ‘Evaluating the human rights performance of legislature’, Human Rights Law Review 6:3, pp 545-569. European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Retrieved at www.hri.org. Accessed on 21 October 2010. Fennel, P, 2005, ‘Convention Compliance, Public Safety, and the Social Inclusion of Mentally Disordered People’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No 1, pp 90 -100. Gearty, C. 2005, ‘11 September 2001, Counter-terrorism, and the Human Rights Act’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No 1, pp 18 -33. Hoffman, 2009, ‘The universality of human rights’ Delivered at the Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture, pp 1 - 25. Horton, R, 2000, ‘Health and the UK Human Rights Act 1998’, Lancet, 356, pp 1186 – 1188. Justice, 2000, ‘A guide to the Human Rights Act 1998: Questions and answers’, Human Rights Act (1998), (c42) Retrieved at http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1.html Accessed on 21 October 2010 Joint Committee On Human Rights Sixth Report, 2003, Retrieve at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtrights/67/6704.htm#a3 Accessed on 21 October 2010. Klug, F, 2000, Values for a Godless Age: the story of United Kingdom’s new Bill of Rights, Klug, F, 2003, ‘Judicial deference under the Human Rights Act 1998’, E.H.R.L.R. Iss 2, pp 125 -133. Krisch, N, 2007, ‘The open architecture of European Human Rights Law’, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 11. Leader, S, 2008, ‘The collateral protection of rights in a global economy’, New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 53, pp 806817. Limbach, J, 2000, ‘The concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution’, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 64, No 1, pp 1 – 10. McCrudden, MS, 2000, ‘A Common Law of human rights? : Transnational Judicial conversations on constitutional rights’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 20, No.4, 499 – 532. Sedley, S, 2005, ‘The Rocks or the Open Sea: Where is the Human Rights Act Heading?’, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No 1, pp 3 -17. Slapper, G, 2009, ‘English Legal system’, Student Law Review, Vol. 56, pp 21 – 23. Stahl, BC, 2008, ‘The Impact of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 on Privacy Protection’, IGI Global, pp 51 – 63. Sypnowich, C, 2008, ‘Taking Britain’s Human Rights Act seriously’, University of Toronto Law Review, 58, pp 105 -127. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Retrieve at www.un.org. Accessed on 21 October 2010. Wade, W, 1998, ‘Human Rights and the Judiciary’, E.H.R.R. Wadham, J, 2001, ‘The Human Rights Act: One year on’, LAG Policy, pp 1 – 4. CASES AB v R [2009] EWHC 2220 (Admin) AC (Deportation, Article 8, Appellant) Turkey [2004] UKIAT 00122 A & Ors v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 (16 December 2004) B, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 547 (15 April 2003)  Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 WLR 1292 Dunham v Ashford Windows [2005] UKEAT 0915_04_1306 (13 June 2005)  Hall, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Ors [1999] EWHC Admin 351 (23rd April, 1999)  International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 728 Keenan v. United Kingdom (2001) E.H.R.R. 38. Kurt v Turkey (1998) 27 EHRR 373, Lee v Leeds City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 6  Lonrho v Fayed [1993] 1 WLR 1489 Lustig-Prean v United Kingdom[2000] 29 E.H.R.R. 548 Munjaz v. Mersey Care National Health Service Trust and S v.Airedale National Health Service Trust t [2003] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1036 Naomi Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] U.K.H.L. 22.  P & Ors, Re (Northern Ireland) [2008] UKHL 38 (18 June 2008)  Qazi v. Harrow LBC [2003] U.K.H.L. 43 R. v. G. [2008 UKHL 37] R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] Q.B. 517. R (on the application of Limbuela and others ) v SSHD [2004] E.W.C.A Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1999] UKHL 45; [1999] 4 All ER 609; [1999] 3 WLR 1010 (28th October, 1999 Smith v United Kingdom [1999] I.R.L.R 734 The Queen –v- Peters and Others [2005] 2 Cr. App. R(s) 101 Read More