100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Summary Human Rights $5.39   Add to cart

Summary

Summary Human Rights

1 review
 135 views  3 purchases
  • Course
  • Institution

This document contains the following: - Pre Human Rights Act 1998; - both role of court and the role of parliament - case law included; -tradicional system criticism; -aims, provisions and effectiveness of the HRA1998 - case law included; -rights granted under the 1998 Act and its use in domestic ...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 15  pages

  • July 14, 2016
  • 15
  • 2015/2016
  • Summary

1  review

review-writer-avatar

By: sabdulhassanx • 4 year ago

avatar-seller
Human Rights Act 1998
HRA came into effect in 2000 and while it does not strictly incorporate the European Convention
into domestic law, it allows the courts to give ‘further effect’ to the Convention and to take
Convention rights and case law into account when interpreting and developing domestic law. As a
consequence individuals can now rely directly on Convention rights in the domestic courts.

Before the Act the courts could only give indirect effect to the Convention, where an Act of
Parliament was ambiguous R v Home Secretary, ex parte Brind (1991), and they could not apply
Convention rights where the domestic law did not recognise that claim that telephone tapping was
in violation of Article 8 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to private life.

The Act builds on and enhances the traditional method of protecting civil liberties. Thus, the courts
can still apply traditional constitutional principles such as the presumption of innocence, the control
of arbitrary power and the rules of natural justice. However, the doctrine of parliamentary
sovereignty is retained - the courts still cannot refuse to recognise an Act of Parliament and
Parliament retains the right to pass incompatible legislation.

Pre-Human Rights Act 1998

In the absence of a written constitution and a Bill of Rights, individual human rights were protected
by the courts, Parliament and the democratic process, including public support and opinion. Dicey
distinguished the British method from other countries by stating that our constitution was not the
source but the consequence of the rights of individual rights resulted from court decisions, applying
the traditional private law to which all, including the government, were subject. In Entick v
Carrington (1765), the court upheld the individual’s right to property and person by applying the
traditional law of trespass against the government officials.

The role of the courts in protecting civil liberties

Through the formal procedure of judicial review, the courts could safeguard against arbritary and
unreasonable interference with human rights. Thus courts could:

• Interpret legislation in the light of constitutional fundamentals, ensuring a human rights friendly
interpretation - Waddington v Miah (1974)
• Assume Parliament did not intend to interfere with fundamental rights - Raymond v Honey
(1984). Even in the post-HRA era the courts can have regard to these constitutional values in
declaring secondary legislation, ultra vires, and in Ahmed v HM Treasury (2010), the Supreme
Court held that Terrorism Order 2006, which allowed for freezing orders to be placed on the
funds of those who were reasonably suspended of committing an act of or facilitating terrorism
were ultra vires s1 of the United Nations Act 1946.
• Subject executive decisions were stricter review where human rights were violated - R v Ministry
of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996)
• Apply the principles of natural justice to ensure a fair and impartial hearing - R v Bow Street
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (2000)

The role of Parliament in protecting civil liberties

Parliament could pass legislation securing the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

• Statutes such as the Equality Act 2010, protect individuals from unlawful discrimination and
safeguard the right to equality;
• The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, provides safeguards against arbitrary police powers
with respect to arrest, detention and search and entry;

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller law2016. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $5.39. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

79107 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$5.39  3x  sold
  • (1)
  Add to cart