Human Rights Act

(1998)

   The Human Rights Act became operative from October 2000. It provides the first written statement of people’s rights and obligations by enshrining most – but not all – of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. It allows them to use the Convention as a means of securing justice in the British courts. Judges are now able to apply human rights law in their rulings.

   The effect of incorporation of the Convention is to introduce a new human rights culture into British politics. In general, decisions by Parliament, a local authority or other public body must not infringe the rights guaranteed under the Act. Where rights conflict, such as privacy versus freedom of information, the courts will decide where the balance should lie. Judges have to ask of deciding cases as they come before them, in effect creating new law. If courts decide that a statute breaches the Act, they can declare it ‘incompatible’ but they cannot strike it down. They cannot overrule Parliament. It will be for Parliament to amend the law, thus preserving the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. The ultimate decision in any conflict lies with Parliament, not the courts. Some writers suggest that the measure changes the traditional balance between Parliament and the judiciary and gives much greater power to judges. Others suggest that important social change will continue to be brought about by elected politicians rather than judges, this having been the case in other countries that incorporated the Convention many years ago.

   There were some initial concerns that the Act would clog up the courts and that the chief beneficiaries would be lawyers. It was expected that the courts would be deluged with all kinds of cases, some of them extreme. This has not happened and the Human Rights Act has changed the outcome of relatively few cases.