Human Rights Law Report: Analysis of HRA Sections 3 & 4 and Case Law

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on Sections 3 and 4. It examines how these sections are applied by UK courts, analyzing the interpretation of legislation in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The report delves into a case study, "R v. Secretary of State for International Development," to illustrate the practical implications of these provisions and the limitations associated with their application. It explores the role of the courts in interpreting and potentially amending legislation to align with human rights principles, and discusses the constraints faced by the judiciary in balancing legislative intent with the protection of fundamental rights. The report also covers the limitations of Section 3 and Section 4 and their impact on the legal system.

Running head- HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Human Rights Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Human Rights Law
Abstract
“The Human Rights Act of 1998” is an integral part of the Constitution of U.K. It has
been efficiently used by the executive and the judicial bodies in order to determine the
situations that constitutes a breach or an infringement of the basic fundamental rights that a
person possess. “Section 3 and Section 4 of the H.R.A”. provides a structure that safeguards
the dominance of law that alternatively allows the courts in order to interpret the decisions or
the judgements following the Convention rights. It also notifies the Government in case of
any amendments as per required following the situations and the circumstances of a case.
This study aims to evaluate the method following which the law courts apply their
legislations.

2Human Rights Law
Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Case Study: R v. Secretary of State for International Development..........................................4
Interpretation of Section 3 of H.R.A..........................................................................................5
Limitations.................................................................................................................6
Interpretation of Section 4 of H.R.A..........................................................................................8
Limitations.................................................................................................................9
Conclusion................................................................................................................................10
Reference..................................................................................................................................11

3Human Rights Law
Introduction
The Human Rights Act 1998 (H.R.A.) is an essential measure of the Constitution of
the United Kingdom. It affects numerous ranges of the rule in the U.K. and on the activities
of entire communal forms. It delivers for larger directness and clearness in administrative
policymaking and actions such as a vital form on administrative control. It has been
acknowledged globally and castoff as an example for the “Charters of Rights” in other
dominions. Yet, in spite of its comparative simplicity, it is frequently misinterpreted and
altered. This controller to the “Human Rights Act” is envisioned to support legislators in the
considerate procedure for how the H.R.A. functions in preparation and the rights delimited
inside it means. The backgrounds of the H.R.A. elucidates its operations, to understand the
court procedures that use the Human Rights Act in various cases. H.R.A. shaped a native
structure of the safeguard of human rights that conserves the discrete part of the courts at the
equivalently safeguards the legislative control1. It influence the national guideline to the
fundamental rights and independences in the Convention. It makes presented in U.K. courts a
cure for the violation of the Convention right. It necessitates all communal establishments to
perform with the ECHR, given that a base for the expansion of a ‘human rights culture’ in
community facilities through the U.K. Section 3 and 4 of the H.R.A. deliver a sensibly
standardized system which conserves this dominion in rule whereas permitting U.K. courts to
construe the regulation reliably with the Convention moralities2. The primary aim of this
report is to evaluate the procedure in order for application of Section 3 and section 4 of the
1 Mowbray, Alastair. "Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights." Human Rights Law
Review 15.2 (2015): 313-341.
2 Shelton, Dinah. Remedies in international human rights law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.

4Human Rights Law
H.R.A. by the courts of U.K. Further the implications of these provisions are analyzed
through the case of R(Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International
Development.
Case Study: R v. Secretary of State for International Development
In the case of “R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International
Development3” , the fact states that the petitioners were a couple who were in a long term
affiliation, and had kids. They had a solid meticulous objection to a wedding on the
foundation of its ancient male-controlled implications. They required a statement of
irreconcilability under s.4 H.R.A. They alleged that the machinery under which the law court
may announce that in this situation, the lawmaking was not companionable with the rights
guaranteed under the ECHR rights and consequently forced the Administration to amend the
regulation4. As part of their decision, the Supreme Court delivered the demanded statement of
unsuitability. This is of specific attention as the Administration had contended powerfully
that this subtle part of the rule was for the designated management, not the law court to
choose upon, i.e. that it was outdoor the law court official capability and exactly inside that of
the constitutionally designated Administration. That proposal was forbidden by the law court
as Parliament was preparing no forthcoming alteration in the rule, it was essential for the
Court to put on the prescribed heaviness in this respect. They determined that it just dignified
the present discussion. The Administration shall not be indulged to take action in reply to a
statement of inharmoniousness, although it shall be infrequent for it not to do so.
3 [2018] UKSC 32
4 McGoldrick, Dominic. "A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application by the
Human Rights Committee." International & Comparative Law Quarterly 65.1 (2016): 21-60.

5Human Rights Law
Interpretation of Section 3 of H.R.A.
Section 3 of the H.R.A. states that it is likely for the principal legislature and
subsidiary lawmaking to recite and assumed influence in a mode which is well-matched with
the Convention rights. This compulsion to construe regulations well-suited with human rights
relates to the person inferring the rule – be it a court or board or public expert performing
under the rule. This elucidation clause relates to complete legislature – comprising the
commandments approved formerly for the impending into the strength of the H.R.A. A
significant prerequisite in section 3 is the obligation that rules be interpreted following the
basic human rights only that is possible. It does not provide the courts the control to create
new commandments, as any understanding must be steady with the Act being understood.
Similarly, “Section 3(2) of the H.R.A”. delivers that this explanatory effect does not distress
the legitimacy, process or implementation of any Act5. If an Act of Legislature needs the
secondary regulation to be complete by such as regulations that are discordant with the
human rights, that secondary legislation shall not be pretentious by section 3. Though, if the
secondary lawmaking could have been conscripted differently and could have fulfilled with
human rights, the law court possesses the power to limit the secondary lawmaking6. This is
comparable to the law court, and their prevailing influences to slowdown the subsidiary
lawmaking that is exterior to the control of the principal Act – as secondary lawmaking does
not have the same rank as principal legislation, considered by the executive bodies.
5 Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin. European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights.
Cambridge University Press, 2015.
6 Donald, A. with the assistance of Leach, P. and Puddephatt, A. (2010) Developing a Bill of Rights for the UK.
Research Report No. 51. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

6Human Rights Law
In the case of “Ghaidan v Mendoza”7, the law court cast off the power of section 3 to
construe the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ as containing couples who were homosexual.
Persuasively, Legislature did not aim the legislature to relate to the pairs that are
homosexuals. The unvarying sense of words does not recommend that they did. Nonetheless,
utilizing section 3, the Court implemented the ECHR amenable clarification. This was
defensible since the usage of section 3 did not go in contradiction of the essential structures
of the lawmaking arrangement subsequently the regulation was envisioned to relate to
anybody that staying collected in an adjacent and steady relationship8. On this foundation, the
juries gave an understanding inside the possibility of the legislature – that is to roughly it
imitated with the motivation of prevailing legislation. Conversely in the case of R v R9 it
demonstrates that law court has deceased from the rapid phrasing of decrees in the times
before the H.R.A. in command to imitate variations in communal decency. Similarly in the
case of R v A(No. 210) , the “House of Lords” castoff section 3 to understand the necessities
averting the fee of preceding past in various rape trials as comprising a caveat that such
evidence shall be made allowable if its prohibiting would repudiate the offender their right to
a trial that is impartial and fair.
Limitations
Section 3 of H.R.A. includes two tests for the individual characters of the judges and
the Government in constitutional explanation. There is the danger that the law court will
7 [2004] 3 W.L.R 113
8 Giannopoulos, Christos. "Considerations on Protocol N 16: Can the New Advisory Competence of the
European Court of Human Rights Breathe New Life into the European Convention on Human Rights?." German
Law Journal 16.2 (2015): 337-350.
9 [1992] 1 AC 599
10 (No. 2) [2002] 1 A.C. 45

7Human Rights Law
totally undo the arrangement of resources and finishes planned by Legislature11. The courts
are enthusiastic to describe the determination of the decree, the more this danger upsurges.
Eventually, though this would of sequence certainly not transpire, a court strength merely
advance from the preliminary idea that the determination of a decree is to endorse the
communal respect, that compromise a new constitutional structure completely of its
individual manufacture. The second encounter is that, even if courts do not intensify to
precise the levels when defining the determination of the decree, they will mark conclusions,
at the close of feature, which is well suitable for the Government to brand. This test is
associated with the additional and other restraints conventionally forced on highly purposive
clarification, that is customary of analysis, which courts use to evaluate the connection
amongst the constitutional determination and earnings and the degree to which they are gifted
to plan new earnings. As just clarified, the judges now use an average of the proportionality
each time when it engages the Convention rights12. The courts should make stipends for the
circumstance that the Administration may be improved to measure, either as a substance of
knowledge of its self-governing commitment in the establishment, whether the connection
between earnings and determination is actual, what influence there is on Convention rights
and the obtainability of substitute resources. The courts have advanced restraint doctrines to
discourse each of these two tests. They are, correspondingly, the doctrine of valuing the
11 Loveland, Ian. Constitutional law, administrative law, and human rights: a critical introduction. Oxford
University Press, 2018.
12 Bowring, Bill. "Russian cases in the ECtHR and the question of implementation." Bill Bowring “Russian
cases in the ECtHR and the question of implementation” in Lauri Mälksoo and Wolfgang Benedek (eds) Russia
and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
2018) (2018): 188-221.

8Human Rights Law
fundamental structures of a decree, and of evading the verdict on subjects calling for
lawmaking negotiation.
Interpretation of Section 4 of H.R.A.
Section 4 of the H.R.A. states that if a higher court such as the High Court or the
Supreme Court deliberates that formation in the act of Legislature is unharmonious to that of
the human rights, it can make a statement of irreconcilability. This is a announcement by the
Court that it deliberates a specific jurisdictive establishment to be unharmonious with human
rights. Section 4(6) precisely conditions that a announcement of unsuitability does not disturb
the legitimacy, action or implementation of the rule. So the regulation will not mechanically
change as a consequence of a pronouncement of inharmoniousness being made. As an
alternative, the Parliament must agree whether it requirements to alter the commandment.
The immediate situation that should not essentially be the culmination of the story where
section 4 is alarmed. Domestic societies as well as judgments with other courts—
predominantly the courts of U.S. and European Countries to have collectively to source a
disinclination to use section 4. Against the experience of the traditional approach of the U.K.
Courts, two current cases studies to show the erroneous chances the judges have taken in
recent times. In the case of Beghal v D.P.P13.and R. v Secretary of State for the Home
Department14. Not all law court have the authority to make statements of discordancy, and a
law court has no obligation to make a pronouncement. The Court shall not institute an
announcement, and the Crown must obtain a notice before 21 days in cases where the law
court is allowing for construction for a pronouncement. A party asserting a Convention
13 [2015] UKSC 49; [2016] A.C. 88.
14 [2016] EWCA Civ 6.

9Human Rights Law
rupture must consequently provide notice as to whether a section 4 affirmation is being
required and must set out in a declaration of circumstance why the lawmaking is seemingly
unharmonious. However, presumptuous regarding that notice has been set and although
regarding the discretion of the courts they might, and must, be more strong in construction
announcements.
Limitations
The boundaries to a section 4 announcement of unsuitability are established through
the case of “A v Secretary of State for the Home Department15”. Firstly, the announcement
had no outcome upon the ruling’s lawful legitimacy it was in concrete relations simply
representative, appealing somewhat than persuasive Government and the Decision-making to
carry the regulation in track with the ECHR16. Significantly this is all that the non-judicial
subdivisions of the State are obligatory to accomplish. Secondly, the most substantial
essentially language, the situation did not clue to the instantaneous proclamation of the
prisoners. Parliament had unambiguous to boundary the right of these personalities, and that
was the method it endured notwithstanding the announcement of unsuitability17. Finally, the
additional mechanism instruction scheme of limitation damage the privileges. Section 4 is
more of adverse as it simply permits the law court to classify an inconsistency, but it does not
permit the courts to recommend new legislature in its position or change the rule in a mode
which would be optimum from a perspective in order to provide the civil liberties. These
15 [2004] UKHL 56
16 O’Boyle, M. (2011) ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights’, German Law Journal, 12, 10:
1862-77.
17 Giannopoulos, Christos. "Considerations on Protocol N 16: Can the New Advisory Competence of the
European Court of Human Rights Breathe New Life into the European Convention on Human Rights?." German
Law Journal 16.2 (2015): 337-350.

10Human Rights Law
cases emphasize the applied confines of section 4 and arrange for the evidence for the
unending dominion of Government and the conservation of the constitutional status quo.
Arguably, it reinforces the Sovereignty of Parliament and the admiration the judges must
show to it. When adjudicators have made a declaration or commendation under section 4, it is
considered that the dialectal nature of human rights a complete way of enunciating their
aversion but have not crooked their opinion of interpretation into one which has destitute the
Government for lawmaking and amending procedures. In this sense, the H.R.A. has been
maintained to substitute and empower the principles that partisan constitutionalists
appreciate, with section 4 occupied as an inducement to a political reconsideration. However,
in authenticity, this is controlled because few announcements of unsuitability have been
granted, so Legislature infrequently has the chance to reconsideration legislature. Therefore,
section 4 possess inadequate guidance or power upon the Constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that the dissimilarity amongst lawmaking and judicial
power the judicial power to make law is inadequate. However, this difference has abridged
the application of the H.R.A subsequently. The authorization of the courts has also produced
an upsurge in the legitimate implication of the rule of law since the Government’s activities
are now lawfully revised by the judges on the grounds of human rights. The precise State of
the composition hinge on the kind of pressure amongst the legislative and the executive body.
The comparative position of each, are apprehended in equivalent rank, or which is submissive
which, eventually commands the system of the composition. Governmental dominion has
been endangered by the H.R.A. but is unharmed. Parliamentary dominion will only be beaten
when a justice raids down an act of Legislature. At that idea, the courts and the rule of law
shall have substituted the Legislative dominion as the foundation of the Constitution.

11Human Rights Law
Reference
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56
Beghal v D.P.P[2015] UKSC 49; [2016] A.C. 88.
Bowring, Bill. "Russian cases in the ECtHR and the question of implementation." Bill
Bowring “Russian cases in the ECtHR and the question of implementation” in Lauri Mälksoo
and Wolfgang Benedek (eds) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The
Strasbourg Effect (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018) (2018): 188-221.
Donald, A. with the assistance of Leach, P. and Puddephatt, A. (2010) Developing a Bill of
Rights for the UK. Research Report No. 51. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin. European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of
Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Ghaidan v Mendoza[2004] 3 W.L.R 113
Giannopoulos, Christos. "Considerations on Protocol N 16: Can the New Advisory
Competence of the European Court of Human Rights Breathe New Life into the European
Convention on Human Rights?." German Law Journal 16.2 (2015): 337-350.
Loveland, Ian. Constitutional law, administrative law, and human rights: a critical
introduction. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Madsen, Mikael Rask. "The challenging authority of the European Court of Human Rights:
from Cold War legal diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and backlash." Law & Contemp.
Probs. 79 (2016): 141.

12Human Rights Law
McGoldrick, Dominic. "A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its
Application by the Human Rights Committee." International & Comparative Law
Quarterly 65.1 (2016): 21-60.
Mowbray, Alastair. "Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights." Human
Rights Law Review 15.2 (2015): 313-341.
O’Boyle, M. (2011) ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights’, German Law
Journal, 12, 10: 1862-77.
R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development [2018] UKSC
32
R v A(No. 2) [2002] 1 A.C. 45
R v R[1992] 1 AC 599
R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 6.
Shelton, Dinah. Remedies in international human rights law. Oxford University Press, USA,
2015.