Human Rights
- Submitted by: asifsudha
- Views: 1149
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 04/08/2011 07:23 AM
- Pages: 15
- Report this Essay
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
BACKGROUND OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 (HRA)
On 4 November 1950 member states of the Council of Europe (which included UK) drew up the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). This was based on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and is designed pro tanto. The Convention was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1951 and came into force in 1953. Until 1966 UK did not permit her individuals to go to European Commission of Human Rights and ultimately European Court on human Rights for their redress re the Convention rights. Since then UK citizens are allowed to go to the Strasbourg but only upon exhausting all domestic remedies.
THE STATUS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER ENGLISH LAW PRIOR TO THE HRA 1998
The attitude of the United Kingdom courts towards the Convention has, in the past, been the traditional one adopted in relation to treaties. Treaties form part of international law and have no place within the domestic legal order unless and until incorporated into law (Kaur V Lord Advocate 1980). The courts regarded the Convention as an aid to interpretation but had no jurisdiction directly to enforce the rights and freedoms under the Convention (Wadington V Miah). This could, however, of itself be significant. In Waddington v Miah (1974), Lord Reid stated -having referred to Article 7 of the Convention which prohibits retrospective legislation - that ‘it is hardly credible that any government department would promote, or that parliament would pass, retrospective criminal legislation’. However, in the War Crimes Act 1991, the opposite notion was approached by the parliament.
While previously there was lacking in the domestic jurisdiction to enforce Convention rights, the English courts were nevertheless influenced by Convention provisions, for example of the influence of the Convention in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind (1991). The House of Lords was prepared to accept that...
BACKGROUND OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 (HRA)
On 4 November 1950 member states of the Council of Europe (which included UK) drew up the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). This was based on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and is designed pro tanto. The Convention was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1951 and came into force in 1953. Until 1966 UK did not permit her individuals to go to European Commission of Human Rights and ultimately European Court on human Rights for their redress re the Convention rights. Since then UK citizens are allowed to go to the Strasbourg but only upon exhausting all domestic remedies.
THE STATUS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER ENGLISH LAW PRIOR TO THE HRA 1998
The attitude of the United Kingdom courts towards the Convention has, in the past, been the traditional one adopted in relation to treaties. Treaties form part of international law and have no place within the domestic legal order unless and until incorporated into law (Kaur V Lord Advocate 1980). The courts regarded the Convention as an aid to interpretation but had no jurisdiction directly to enforce the rights and freedoms under the Convention (Wadington V Miah). This could, however, of itself be significant. In Waddington v Miah (1974), Lord Reid stated -having referred to Article 7 of the Convention which prohibits retrospective legislation - that ‘it is hardly credible that any government department would promote, or that parliament would pass, retrospective criminal legislation’. However, in the War Crimes Act 1991, the opposite notion was approached by the parliament.
While previously there was lacking in the domestic jurisdiction to enforce Convention rights, the English courts were nevertheless influenced by Convention provisions, for example of the influence of the Convention in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind (1991). The House of Lords was prepared to accept that...