Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United
Human Rights Act 1998
Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly
came into force on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim was to incorporate into UK
law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK
courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way
United Kingdom Parliament
which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any Long title An Act to give further
other primary legislation provides no other choice. It also requires the effect to rights and
judiciary (including tribunals) to take account of any decisions, judgment freedoms guaranteed
or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, and to interpret under the European
legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with Convention on Human
Convention rights.[2] However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Rights; to make provision
Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are with respect to holders of
not allowed to override it. All they can do is issue a declaration of certain judicial offices
incompatibility. This declaration does not affect the validity of the Act of who become judges of
Parliament: in that way, the Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the the European Court of
principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see: Constitution of the United Human Rights; and for
Kingdom). However, judges may strike down secondary legislation. Under connected purposes.
the Act, individuals retain the right to sue in the Strasbour
g court. Citation 1998 c42

David Cameron has criticised the Act since 2007 and proposed to replace Territorial United Kingdom
it with a "British Bill of Rights" during his second ministry.[3] extent
Dates
Royal assent 9 November 1998
Commencement 2 October 2000
Contents
Other legislation
1 Historical context
Amended by Sub-s (1): in para (c) words
2 Structure of the Act
2.1 Section 3 Article 1 of the Thirteenth
2.2 Sections 4 and 10 Protocol in square
2.3 Sections 6 to 9 brackets substituted by SI
2.4 Other Sections 2004/1574, art 2(1). Date in
3 Rights protected under the Act force: 22 June 2004: see SI

4 Notable human rights case law 2004/1574, art 1. Sub-s (4):

words Secretary of State
5 Criticism
5.1 Excessive rights in square brackets
5.2 Judicial powers substituted by SI
5.3 Journalistic freedom 2003/1887, art 9, Sch 2,
5.4 Inadequacy para 10(1).
5.5 Terrorism-related complaints
Date in force: 19 August
6 Planned replacement
2003: see SI 2003/1887,
7 See also
art 1(2).
 8 References Relates to Human Rights Act 1998
9 Further reading (Amendment) Order
10 External links 2004, SI 2004/1574
(made under sub-s (4)).
Status: Current legislation
Historical context Text of statute as originally enacted
The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after World War II. Revised text of statute as amended
Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was the Chair of the Committee on Legal and
Administrative Questions of the Council's Consultative Assembly from 1949 to 1952, and oversaw the drafting of the European
Convention on Human Rights. It was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political
democracy", from the strong traditions of freedom and liberty in the United Kingdom. As a founding member of the Council of
Europe, the UK acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights in March 1951. However it was not until the 1960s that
British citizens were able to bring claims in theEuropean Court of Human Rights(ECtHR). During the 1980s, groups such asCharter
88 (which invoked the 300th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689) accused the executive of
misusing its power and argued that a new BritishBill of Rights was needed to secure human rights in the UK.

In its manifesto for the 1997 general election, the Labour party pledged to incorporate the European Convention into domestic law.
When the election resulted in a landslide Labour victory, the party, under the leadership of Tony Blair, fulfilled this pledge through
Parliamentary passage of the Human Rights Act the following year
.

The 1997 white paper "Rights Brought Home"[4] stated:

It takes on average five years to get an action into the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic remedies
have been exhausted; and it costs an average of 30,000. Bringing these rights home will mean that the British people
will be able to argue for their rights in the Britishcourts without this inordinate delay and cost.

Structure of the Act

The Human Rights Act places a duty on all courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom to interpret legislation so far as possible in a
way compatible with the rights laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights (section 3(1)). Where this is not possible,
the court may issue a "declaration of incompatibility". The declaration does not invalidate the legislation, but permits the amendment
of the legislation by a special fast-track procedure under section 10 of the Act. As of August 2006, 20 declarations had been made, of
which six were overturned on appeal.

The Human Rights Act applies to all public bodies within the United Kingdom, including central government, local authorities, and
bodies exercising public functions. However,it does not include Parliament when it is acting in itslegislative capacities.

Section 3
Section 3 is a particularly wide provision that requires courts to interpret both primary and subordinate legislation so that their
provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights which are also part of the Human Rights
Act.[5] This interpretation goes far beyond normal statutory interpretation,[5] and includes past and future legislation, therefore
preventing the Human Rights Act from being impliedly repealed.[6] Courts have applied this through three forms of interpretation:
"reading in", inserting words where there are none in a statute; "reading out", where words are omitted from a statute; and "reading
down", where a particular meaning is chosen to be in compliance.[7] They do not interpret a statute so as to give it a meaning that
would conflict with legislative intent, and courts have been reluctant in particular to "read out" provisions for this reason. If it is not
possible to so interpret, they may issue a declaration of incompatibility under section [8]
4.
Sections 4 and 10
Sections 4 and 10 allows courts to issue a declaration of incompatibilitywhere it is impossible to use section 3 to interpret primary or
subordinate legislation to be compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the
Human Rights Act.[9] In these cases, interpretation to comply may conflict with legislative intent.[10] It is considered a measure of
last resort. A range ofsuperior courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility.[9]

A declaration of incompatibility is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made,[9] nor can a declaration
invalidate legislation.[11] Section 4 therefore achieves its aim through political rather than legal means.

Section 10 gives a government minister the power to make a "remedial order" in response to either

a declaration of incompatibility, from which there is no possibility of appeal,[12] or

a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights
A remedial order may "make such amendments to the legislation as [the Minister] considers necessary to remove the
incompatibility".[13] Remedial orders do not require full legislative approval,[11] but must be approved by resolutions of each House
of Parliament. In especially urgent cases, Parliamentary approval may be retroactive.[14]

Remedial orders may have retroactive effect, but no one may be guilty of a criminal offence solely as the result of the retroactive
effect of a remedial order.[15]

Section 10 has been used to make small adjustments to bring legislation into line with Convention rights although entirely new pieces
of legislation are sometimes necessary.[16]

[17]
As of December 2014, 29 declarations of incompatibility have been issued, of which

8 have been struck down on appeal

1 is pending appeal, as of December 2014
16 have been remedied through the ordinary legislative process (including amendment or repeal of thefending
of
legislation).
3 have been addressed through remedial orders
1 has not been remedied.
The one case not to have been remedied, as of December 2014, is Smith v. Scott, concerning the right of serving prisoners to vote in
the UK.[17]

Sections 6 to 9
Although the Act, by its own terms, applies only to public bodies, it has had increasing influence on private law litigation between
individual citizens leading some academics (source?) to state that it has horizontal effect (as in disputes between citizens) as well as
vertical effect (as in disputes between the state and citizens). This is because section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act defines courts and
tribunals as public bodies. That means their judgments must comply with human rights obligations of the state, whether a dispute is
between the state and citizens, or between citizens, except in cases of declarations of incompatibility
. Therefore, judges have a duty to
act in compatibility with the Convention even when an action is a private one between two citizens.

The way that public duty is exercised in private law was dealt with in a June 2016 decision McDonald v McDonald & Ors [2016]
UKSC 28 (15 June 2016) where the UK Supreme Court firstly considered the question "... whether a court, when entertaining a
claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of
evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights"

The Supreme Court decided (paragraph 46) that "there are many cases where the court can be required to balance conflicting
Convention rights of two parties, eg where a person is seeking to rely on her article 8 rights to restrain a newspaper from publishing
an article which breaches her privacy, and where the newspaper relies on article 10. But such disputes arise not from contractual
arrangements made between two private parties, but tortious or quasi-tortious relationships, where the legislature has expressly,
impliedly or through inaction, left it to the courtsto carry out the balancing exercise".

Therefore, in cases "where the parties are in a contractual relationship in respect of which the legislature has prescribed how their
respective Convention rights are to be respected" then the Court decided, as set out in paragraph 59"In these circumstances, while we
accept that the Strasbourg court jurisprudence relied on by the appellant does provide some support for the notion that article 8 was
engaged when Judge Corrie was asked to make an order for possession against her, there is no support for the proposition that the
judge could be required to consider the proportionality of the order which he would have made under the provisions of the 1980 and
1988 Acts. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in paras 40-46 above, we would dismiss this appeal on the first issue."

Paragraph 40 supposed that "... it is not open to the tenant to contend that article 8 could justify a different order from that which is
mandated by the contractual relationship between the parties, at least where, as here, there are legislative provisions which the
democratically elected legislature has decided properly balance the competing interests of private sector landlords and residential
tenants."

The duty of state judges to apply Convention rights to disputes between citizens is therefore about determining relationships between
them, and applying domestic legislation accordingly
. If the duty is carried out then it's likely there isArticle 6 compliance.

Section 7 limits a right to bring proceedings under section 6 only to victims (or potential victims) of the unlawful act of the public
authority.

Section 8 provides a right for a court to make any remedy they consider just and appropriate. A remedy under the Act is therefore not
limited to a Declaration of incompatibility possibly taking into account the equitable maxim Equity delights to do justice and not by
halves.

Section 9 provides a right to challenge the compliance of judicial acts made by the UK, but only by exercising a right of appeal as set
out by the Access to Justice Act 1999 (although not precluding a right to judicial review). For example, whether a judicial act
properly applies legislation, or not.

Other Sections
Section 8 says that UK judges can grant any remedy that is considered just and appropriate.

Rights protected under the Act

Many rights established under the Human Rights Act 1998 were already protected under UK law (such as freedom), but the purpose
of the Act was largely to establish the European Convention of Human Rightsin British law.

Section 21(5) of the Act completely abolished the death penalty in the United Kingdom, effective on royal assent. The death penalty
had already been abolished for all civilian offences, including murder (Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965) and treason
(Crime and Disorder Act 1998), but remained in force for certain military offences (although these provisions had not been used for
several decades).

This provision was not required by the European Convention (protocol 6 permits the death penalty in time of war; protocol 13, which
prohibits the death penalty for all circumstances, did not then exist); rather, the government introduced it as a late amendment in
response to parliamentary pressure.

The Act provides that it is unlawful for a "public authority" to act in such a way as to contravene "Convention rights".[18] For these
purposes public authority includes any other person "whose functions are functions of a public nature."[19] It also explicitly includes
the Courts.[20] Convention rights includes only those rights specified in section 1 of the Act (these are recited in full in Schedule
1).[21] In the interpretation of those rights the Act provides that the domestic Courts "may" take into account the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR).[22]
Section 7 enables any person with standing (as stipulated by Article 34 of the Convention) to raise an action against a public authority
which has acted or proposes to act in such a Convention-contraveningmanner.[23] This is a more rigorous standard than is ordinarily
applied to standing in English, although not Scottish,judicial review.

If it is held that the public authority has violated the claimant's Convention rights, then the Court is empowered to "grant such relief
or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate."[24] This can include an award of damages,
[25]
although the Act provides limitations on the Court's capacity to make such an award.

However, the Act also provides a defence for public authorities if their Convention violating act is in pursuance of a mandatory
obligation imposed upon them by Westminster primary legislation.[26] The Act envisages that this will ordinarily be a difficult
standard to meet though since it requires the Courts to read such legislation (and for that matter subordinate legislation) "So far as it
[27]
is possible to do so...in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."

Where it is impossible to read primary legislation in a Convention compliant manner, the only sanction available to the Courts is to
make a Declaration of Incompatibilityin respect of it.[28] The power to do so is restricted to the higher Courts.
[29] Such a Declaration

has no direct impact upon the continuing force of the legislation but it is likely to produce public pressure upon the government to
remove the incompatibility. It also strengthens the case of a claimant armed with such a decision from the domestic Courts in any
subsequent appeal to ECtHR. In order to provide swift compliance with the Convention the Act allows Ministers to take remedial
action to amend even offending primary legislation via subordinate legislation.[30]

Notable human rights case law

Lee Clegg's murder conviction gave rise to the first case invoking the Act, brought by The Times in October 2000
which sought to overturn a libel ruling against the newspaper .
Campbell v. MGN Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1373,Naomi Campbell and Sara Cox both sought to assert theirright to
privacy under the Act. Both cases were successful for the complainant (Campbell's on the second attempt; Cox's
attempt was not judicially decided but an out of court settlement was reached before the issue could be tested in
court) and an amendment to British law to incorporate a provision for privacy is expected to be introduced.
Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers[2001] 1 All ER 908, theJames Bulger murder casetested
whether the Article 8 (privacy) rights of V
enables and Thomson, the convicted murderers of Bulger , applied when
four newspapers sought to publish their new identities and whereabouts, using their Article 10 rights of freedom of
expression. The judge,Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, granted permanent global injunctions ordering that the material
not be published because of the disastrous consequences such disclosure might have for the former convicts, not
least the possibility of physical harm or death (hence claims for Article 2 rights (right to life) were entertained, and
sympathised with).
A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, on 16 December 2004, theHouse of
Lords held that Part 4 of theAnti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, under whose powers a number of non-UK
nationals were detained inBelmarsh Prison, was incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This precipitated the
enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to replace Part 4 of the 2001 Act.
R. v. Chauhan and Hollingsworth: Amesh Chauhan and Dean Hollingsworth were photographed by aspeed camera
in 2000. As is standard practice for those caught in this way , they were sent a form by the police asking them to
identify who was driving the vehicle at the time. They protested under the Human Rights Act, arguing that they could
not be required to give evidence against themselves. An initial judgment, by Judge Peter Crawford at Birmingham
Crown Court, ruled in their favour[31] but this was later reversed. The same issue came to light in Scotland with
Procurator Fiscal v Brown[2000] UKPC D3,[32] in which a woman, when apprehended on suspicion of theft of a
bottle of gin, was drunk and was asked by police to identify who had been driving her car (which was nearby) at the
time she arrived at the superstore.
Price v. Leeds City Council [2005]:[33] On 16 March 2005 theCourt of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Leeds
City Council could not infringe the right to a home of aRomani family, the Maloneys, by evicting them from public
land. The court however referred the case to theHouse of Lords as this decision conflicted with a ruling from the
European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR).
In March 2006, the High Court in London ruled against a hospital's bid to turn of f the ventilator that kept the child,
known as Baby MB, alive. The 19-month-old baby has the genetic condition spinal muscular atrophy, which leads to
almost total paralysis. The parents of the child fought for his right to life, despite claims from medics that the invasive
ventilation would cause an 'intolerable life'.
Connors v. UK,[34] a judgment given by ECtHR, declared thattravellers who had their licences to live on local
authority-owned land suddenly revoked had been discriminated against, in comparison to the treatment of mobile-
home owners who did not belong to the traveller population, and thus their Article 14 (protection from discrimination)
and Article 8 (right to respect for the home) rights had been infringed. However
, there has never been a case where
 the Act has been successfully invoked to allow travellers to remain on greenbelt land, and indeed the prospects of
this ever happening seem highly unlikely after theHouse of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth LBC which severely
restricted the occasions on which Article 8 may be invoked to protect someone from eviction in the absence of some
legal right over the land.
Afghan hijackers case 2006, in May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of nine Afghan
men who hijacked a plane to flee from theTaliban, caused widespread condemnation by manytabloid newspapers
(most notably The Sun), the broadsheets and the leaders of both theLabour Party and the Conservative Party. It
was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United
Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers'
right to work.
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited(2008), Max Mosley challenged an invasion of his private life after the
News of the World exposed his involvement in asadomasochistic sex act. The case resulted in Mr Mosley being
awarded 60,000 in damages.

Criticism

Excessive rights
During the campaign for the 2005 parliamentary elections the Conservatives under Michael Howard declared their intention to
"overhaul or scrap" the Human Rights Act:

The time had come to liberate the nation from the avalanche of political correctness, costly litigation, feeble justice,
and culture of compensation running riot in Britain today and warning that the politically correct regime ushered in
by Labour's enthusiastic adoption of human rights legislation has turned the age-old principle of fairness on its
head.[35]

The schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to
education; the convicted rapist given 4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given
taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to
[36][37]
stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws".

The schoolboy referred to by Mr Howard was suing for compensation, not to be allowed back into the classroom, since he was
[38] In addition, the claim was rejected.[39]
already a university student at the time of the court case.

Judicial powers
The Human Rights Act prior to its introduction, it would result in unelected judges making substantive judgments about government
policies and "legislating" in their amendments to the common law resulting in a usurpation of Parliament's legislative supremacy and
an expansion of the UK courts' justiciability. R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department highlights
how the introduction of a proportionality test borrowed from ECtHR jurisprudence has allowed a greater scrutiny of the substantive
merits of a government's policy, meaning that judicial review has become more of an appeal than a review
.

The interpretative obligation under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act to read primary legislation as Convention compliant, so far
as is possible, is not dependent upon the presence of ambiguity in legislation.[40] Section 3(1) could require the court to depart from
the unambiguous meaning that legislation would otherwise bear subject to the constraint that this modified interpretation must be one
"possible" interpretation of the legislation.[41] Paul Craig argues that this results in the courts adopting linguistically strained
interpretations instead of issuingdeclarations of incompatibility.

Rulings based on the Human Rights Act have been criticised by Lady Hale. In 2011 she said that the Act was overused, and criticised
[42]
the decision of European human rights judges to give prisoners the vote.
Journalistic freedom
In 2008, Paul Dacre (as editor of the Daily Mail) criticised the Human Rights Act for allowing, in effect, a right to privacy at English
law despite the fact that Parliament has not passed such legislation. He was referring to the indirect horizontal effect of the Human
Rights Act on the doctrine of breach of confidence which has moved English law closer towards a common law right to privacy.[43]
In response, Baron Falconer (as Lord Chancellor) stated that the Human Rights Act had been passed by Parliament, that people's
.[44]
private lives needed protection and that the judge in the case had interpreted relevant authorities correctly

Inadequacy
In contrast, some have argued that the Human Rights Act does not give adequate protection to rights because of the ability for the
government to derogate from Convention rights under article 15. Recent cases such as R (ProLife Alliance) v. BBC [2002] EWCA
Civ 297 have been decided in reference to common law rights rather than statutory rights leading to the possibility of judicial
activism.[45]

Terrorism-related complaints
Senior Labour politicians have criticised the Human Rights Act and the willingness of the judiciary to invoke declarations on
incompatibility against terrorism legislation. Baron Reid argued that the Human Rights Act was hampering the fight against global
terrorism in regard to controversialcontrol orders:

There is a very serious threat and I am the first to admit that the means we have of fighting it are so inadequate that
we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. So I hope when we bring forward proposals in the next few
.[46]
weeks that we will have a little less party politics and a little more support for national security

Planned replacement
In 2007, Howard's successor as Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, vowed to repeal the Human Rights Act if he was elected,
instead replacing it with a "Bill of Rights" for Britain.[47] The human rights organisation JUSTICE released a discussion paper
[48]
entitled A Bill of Rights for Britain?, examining the case for updating the Human Rights Act with an entrenched bill.

Following the 2010 general election, the ConservativeLiberal Democrat coalition agreement said that the Human Rights Act would
be investigated.[49]

In 2011, following controversial rulings from both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom, David Cameron suggested a "British Bill of Rights".[50] The government commission set up to investigate the case
for a Bill of Rights had a split of opinion.[51]

Judge Dean Spielmann, the President of ECtHR, warned in 2013 that the United Kingdom could not withdraw from the Convention
[52]
on Human Rights without jeopardising its membership of the European Union.

[53]
In 2014, the Conservative Party planned to repeal the Act and replace it with a "British Bill of Rights".

Following the 2015 election win for the Conservative Party, Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice, was charged with
implementing the reforms which were previously blocked by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition government.[54] The
Conservative Party manifesto said that the new bill will "break the formal link between British Courts and the European Court of
Human Rights".[55] This would mean that human rights cases under the ECtHR would have to go to a court in Strasbourg rather than
being able to be tried in the UK.[56] Civil liberty advocates have expressed concern that the proposed changes would "erode the right
[57]
to life, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to protest and the right to freedom from torture and discrimination".

See also
 Human rights in the United Kingdom
Joint Committee on Human Rights
Declaration of incompatibility

References
1. "A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998: Questions and Answers"(https://web.archive.org/web/20020312081934/htt
p://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT
.PDF) (PDF). JUSTICE. December 2000. Archived fromthe original (htt
p://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT
.PDF) (PDF) on 12 March 2002.
2. Pattinson, Shaun D (2015-03-01)."The Human Rights Act and the doctrine of precedent"(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.co
m/doi/10.1111/lest.12049/abstract). Legal Studies. 35 (1): 142164. doi:10.1111/lest.12049 (https://doi.org/10.111
1%2Flest.12049). ISSN 1748-121X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1748-121X).
3. Blick, Andrew (13 March 2015)."Magna Carta and contemporary constitutional change"(http://www.historyandpolicy.
org/policy-papers/papers/magna-carta-and-contemporary-constitutional-change)
. History & Policy. History & Policy.
Retrieved 21 July 2016.
4. Home Office, Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill (Cm 3782, 1997) para 1.14
5. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). p. 58.
6. Hoffman, Rowe (2008). p. 59.
7. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). pp. 6061.
8. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). pp. 6062.
9. "Human Rights Act 1998: Section 4"(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/4). legislation.gov.uk.
Retrieved 11 January 2011.
10. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). p. 60.
11. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). pp. 64.65.
12. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). pp. 65.66.
13. Human Rights act, section 10
14. Human Rights Act, schedule 2, subsection 4
15. Human Rights Act, schedule 2, subsection 1, clause 4
16. Hoffman, Rowe (2006). p. 66.
17. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389272/res
ponding-to-human-rights-
judgments-2013-2014.pdf
18. Section 6(1)
19. Section 6(3)(b)
20. Section 6(3)(a)
21. The full text of Schedule 1 (along with that of the rest of the Act) can be found at the Of
fice of Public Sector
Information Website: [1] (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1)
22. Section 2
23. Section 7(7)
24. Section 8(1)
25. Cf. sections 8(2)-(5) and Section 9(2)-(3) which provides additional protection to the Courts.
26. Section 6(2).
27. Section 3(1)
28. Section 4
29. "Human Rights Act 1998"(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/4).
30. Section 10(2)
31. "Speeding loophole is legal 'nightmare'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/834532.stm). BBC Online. BBC News. 15
July 2000. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
32. Procurator Fiscal v Brown[2000] UKPC D3 (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2000/D3.html), 2001 SC (PC) 43,
(2001) 3 LGLR 24, [2003] AC 681, [2001] 2 WLR 817, [2001] R TR 11, 2001 SCCR 62, 2000 GWD 40151, [2001] 2
All ER 97, [2000] UKPC D 3, 11 BHRC 179, 2001 SL T 59, [2003] 1 AC 681, [2001] RTR 121, [2001] UKHRR 333,
[2001] HRLR 9 (5 December 2000)
33. Price v. Leeds [2005] EWCA Civ 289 (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/289.html), [2005] 3 All ER 573,
[2005] EWCA Civ 289, [2005] 1 WLR 1825 (16 March 2005),Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
34. Connors v. United Kingdom [2004] ECtHR 223 (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ECtHR/2004/223.html), [2004] 4 PLR
16, (2005) 40 EHRR 9, [2004] NPC 86, [2004] HLR 52, 40 EHRR 9, 16 BHRC 639 (27 May 2004),
35. "MPs attacking political correctness"(https://web.archive.org/web/20131105231112/http://www .capc.co.uk/damaging
_political_correctness.htm). Archived from the original (http://www.capc.co.uk/damaging_political_correctness.htm)
on 5 November 2013. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
36. Howard, Michael (10 August 2005)."Judges must bow to the will of Parliament"(https://web.archive.org/web/200712
02012948/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2005%2F08%2F10%2Fdo1002.xml) .
The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived fromthe original (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinio
n/2005/08/10/do1002.xml)on 2 December 2007. Retrieved 27 July 2007.
37. "Time to liberate the country from Human Rights laws" (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&o
bj_id=120747). Retrieved 27 July 2007.
38. Dyer, Clare (6 February 2006)."Children test the law lords over right to an education"(https://www.theguardian.com/
uk/2006/feb/06/schools.religion). The Guardian. London. Retrieved 16 October 2008.
39. Rozenberg, Joshua (23 March 2006)."Law lords back school over ban on Islamic gown"(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/uknews/1513730/Law-lords-back-school-over-ban-on-Islamic-gown.html) . The Daily Telegraph. London.
Retrieved 16 October 2008.
40. Craig, Administrative Law, 6th ed p560
41. Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/30.html&query=(Ghai
dan)+AND+(v.)+AND+(Godin-Mendoza))[2004] 2 AC 557 n.63 para.32
42. Phillips, Melanie (4 July 2011)."From human rights to the EU, the tide's turning against the liberal thought police"
(htt
p://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2010972/From-human-rights-EU-tides-turning-liberal-thought-police.html) .
Daily Mail. London.
43. Phillipson, Gavin (2003). "Transforming Breach of Confidence? Towards a Common Law Right of Privacy under the
Human Rights Act". Modern Law Review. 66 (5): 726758. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.6605003(https://doi.org/10.111
1%2F1468-2230.6605003).
44. "Mail editor accuses Mosley judge"(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7718961.stm). BBC News. 10 November 2008.
45. Public Law: Adam Tomkins p192
46. Travis, Alan (25 May 2007)."Reid warning to judges over control orders"(https://www.theguardian.com/frontpage/sto
ry/0,,2087867,00.html). The Guardian. London. Retrieved 4 May 2010.
47. "Cameron 'could scrap' rights act"(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5114102.stm)
. BBC News. 25 June 2006.
Retrieved 2 April 2007.
48. "A British Bill of Rights: Informing the debate"(https://web.archive.org/web/20130528220841/http://www .justice.org.u
k/data/files/resources/11/A-British-Bill-of-Rights.pdf)(PDF). JUSTICE. 2007. ISBN 978 0 907247 43 2. Archived from
the original (http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/11/A-British-Bill-of-Rights.pdf)(PDF) on 28 May 2013.
49. Landale, James (20 May 2010)."Coalition deal: Tories give more ground"(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politic
s/8695213.stm). BBC News Online.
50. Gallop, Nick in The Constitution and Constitutional Reform p.60 (Philip Allan, 2011)
ISBN 978-0-340-98720-9
51. Travis, Alan; Wintour, Patrick (18 March 2011)."Deadlock likely on commission pondering a British bill of rights"(http
s://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/deadlock-bill-of-rights-commission). The Guardian. London.
52. "UK's withdrawal from human rights law would be 'political disaster'"(https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/04/u
k-human-rights-withdrawal-political-disaster)The Guardian, 4 June 2013
53. "Conservatives plan to scrap Human Rights Act"(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2014/oct/03/conse
rvatives-human-rights-act-full-document). The Guardian.
54. "Michael Gove to proceed with Tories' plans to scrap human rights act"(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/m
ay/10/michael-gove-to-proceed-with-tories-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act) . The Guardian.
55. "The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015"(https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto).
56. "Human Rights Act: What is it and why does Michael Gove want to scrap the policy?"
(http://www.independent.co.uk/
news/uk/politics/what-is-the-human-rights-act-and-why-does-michael-gove-want-to-scrap-it-10240527.html)
. The
Independent.
57. "Tories' repeal of Human Rights Act will sparkconstitutional crisis, erode civil liberties experts"(http://rt.com/uk/257
469-tory-human-rights-act/). RT UK.

Further reading
Hoffman, David; Rowe, John (2006).Human Rights in the UK: an Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998 (2nd
ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Longman. ISBN 1-4058-2393-3.
Amos, Merris (2013). "Transplanting Human Rights Norms: The Case of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act".
Human Rights Quarterly. 35 (2): 386407. doi:10.1353/hrq.2013.0021.
Blick, Andrew (2015). 'Magna Carta and contemporary constitutional change'. History & Policy
.
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/magna-carta-and-contemporary-constitutional-change

External links
Fifty Human Rights Cases That Transformed Britain Infographic
A New British Bill of Rights: The Case For
Rights Brought Home: Government white paper
Human Rights Act 1998 Leafletwith detailed information fromCommunity Legal Service Direct.
The Human Rights Act Exploding the Mythsby Liberty
A table of all of the declarations of incompatibility which the courts have made as of 1 August 2006
from the
Department for Constitutional Affairs
The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Policing in England and W ales

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Act_1998&oldid=809326582

"

This page was last edited on 8 November 2017, at 12:57.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.