Human Rights Act 1998 and Conservative Party Proposals Evaluation

This report analyzes the Human Rights Act 1998 and its impact on UK law, with a specific focus on the Conservative Party's proposals for changing Britain's human rights laws. The report evaluates the accuracy of the Conservative Party's viewpoints, particularly concerning the role of UK courts in deciding human rights issues and the impact of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. It examines the relationship between UK courts and the Strasbourg Court, as well as the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The analysis incorporates relevant case law, including cases like DPP vs. Raymond, Gormley and DPP vs. White, Panovits vs. Cyprus, Dayanan vs. Turkey, Pishchalnikov vs. Russia, and Brusco vs. France, to illustrate the practical implications of the Act. The report also includes a bibliography of books, journals, and legislation used in the analysis. The report concludes with an assessment of the potential consequences of the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights.

Running head: HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
Human Rights in the United Kingdom Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
The Human Rights Act, 1988 is a Parliament Act of United Kingdom. The Royal Assent
was received by it on November 9, 1998. After the assent it came into force ordinarily on
October 2, 2000. The aim of this Act1 was to incorporate the rights preserved in the European
Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Previously, certain Conservative politicians
proposed a ‘British Bill of Rights’ but it has not been taken into consideration on the ground that
those rights are comparatively weaker than that of guaranteed under the said Act2.
At the conference of Conservative Party, David Cameron declared regarding the
abolishment of the Human Rights Act in a potential Tory government. It was also stated by
Cameron that the Human Rights Act is substituted by the British Bill of Rights. A very tiny
speech has been given by Cameron regarding this, but further detailed proposals have now been
circulated, although not yet a draft Bill. At the time of its introduction, the anticipated changes in
a Conservative Party would carry with them very significant changes. The Conservatives Bill of
Rights would expressively limit the jurisdiction of local courts related to the Human Rights Act
and reshape the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights as a matter of domestic
law3. A Bill of Rights will repeal and replace the Human Rights Act. And it would include every
rights to which the Human Rights Act already has effect. The Bill of Rights, however, would
significantly contrast from the Human Rights Act4.
In DPP vs. Raymond5 case and Gormley and DPP vs. White6 case two observations have
been made by the Irish Supreme Court, such as ‘a right to contact an attorney immediately after
1 Human Rights Act, 1998
2 Human Rights Act, 1998
3 Grieve, Dominic. "Why Human Rights Should Matter to Conservatives." (2015) The Political Quarterly 86.1: 62-
71.
4 O'Donoghue, Aoife, and Ben TC Warwick. "Constitutionally Questioned: UK Debates, International Law and
Northern Ireland." (2015) N. Ir. Legal Q. 66: 93.
5 DPP vs. Raymond Gormley [2009] IECCA 86
6 Gormley and DPP vs. White [2014] IESC 17

2HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
arrest’ and ‘a right not to have been questioned without the opportunity to obtain legal advice
respectively.
It seems many authors that the Bill of Rights does not include any clause similar to
section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act requiring the United Kingdom courts to ‘take into account’
the jurisprudence of Strasbourg. By comparison, the Bill of Rights will ‘break the existing
relation between the Court of Human Rights both British and the European Court because it will
not be important for court of Britains Britain's to consider Court rulings in Strasbourg. Not only
Strasbourg, the UK courts will have the final authority in determining the freedoms of the
Convention, as the Parliament has explained. The assumption is that there is currently a ‘bridge’
requiring UK courts to enforce the Convention’s ECtHR interpretations. Though UK courts have
for some time derive close to reading such a responsibility in the Human Rights Act, which
makes it vibrant that they are now thinking more flexibly about their relationship with
Strasbourg. Consequently, the proposal revives UK courts of a responsibility they do not and
they do not believe they have. Likewise, however, the meaning of this tender is not like that
taking ECtHR jurisprudence into consideration would be banned by the UK courts: they would
apparently be capable in doing so if they so wished. That point is however compromised for the
first element of the tenders, discussed in this post’s previous section. Under that dimension of the
legislation, the willingness of UK courts to reconcile local and Strasbourg jurisprudence would
be weakened by the local lawful responsibility of ‘Bill of Rights’ to follow definitions of
Convention rights in accordance with the Strasbourg standard. As a result, UK courts would be
obliged to take actions that would bring the UK in violation of its commitments under the Treaty.
UK Parliament’s sovereignty entitles it to straight local courts to act in such a manner but that

3HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
principle of local constitutional law does not cut any ice at the time of analyzing the matter at
international when the matter is analyzed at international law level7.
A quick confirmation has been provided by the ECtHR in a series of Chamber judgments
in this regard. In Panovits vs. Cyprus8 it was decided by the Court that Article 6 allows the
accused to receive help from an attorney at the early stages of police examination.
The scope of this judgment has been extended by the court in Dayanan vs. Turkey9 case,
which required that a defendant be represented by a lawyer immediately after the arrest of that
person and not only when questioned, and that he or she should be capable of acquiring the
complete variety of services specially related to lawful aid.
Previously, in Pishchalnikov vs. Russia10 case a breach of the right related to reasonable
trial has been observed by the court and therefore, it has been concluded by the court that the
absence of legal help has irreparably impacted the right to a just trial.
In another famous case of Brusco vs. France11 the suspect shall have the right to be
accompanied by an attorney from the outset of his arrest and during interrogation
On the other hand, Section 3 of the said Act12 is related to the Human Rights Act, 1998
which allows the Act to come into effect in the United Kingdom. The section allows courts to
construe main as well as subordinate laws so that its provisions are consistent with the clauses of
the European Convention on Human Rights, as it also form part of the Human Rights Act of
1998. This definition goes far beyond standard statutory interpretation, which covers past and
future laws, thereby prohibiting subsequent conflicting legislation from indirectly repealing the
7 Dimelow, Stephen, and A. Young. Common sense or confusion? The Human Rights Act and the Conservative
Party. (The Constitution Society, 2015).
8 Panovits vs. Cyprus [2008] ECHR 1688
9 Dayanan vs. Turkey [2009] ECHR 2278
10 Pishchalnikov vs. Russia [2009] ECHR 1357
11 Brusco vs. France [2010] ECHR 1621
12 Human Rights Act, 1998

4HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
Human Rights Act. Through three forms of interpretation section 3 of this Act has been applied
by the courts, such as reading in, reading out and reading down13.
Section 3(1) states that, to the possible level, both primary and secondary legislation need
to be interpreted and applied in such a manner which is stable with the Conventional rights.
Accordingly, any law passed by Parliament must be reviewed by a judge to enforce Convention
rights, where possible. It is probably the widest-scope of the act14.
In R (Simms) vs. Home Secretary15 case, the court held that Parliamentary sovereignty
means Parliament can establish in contravention of basic human rights principles. The aforesaid
Act won't diminish the strength16.
Finally it can be concluded that it would be of considerable practical significance to
combine these two components of the anticipated Bill of Rights, namely the elimination of the
legal responsibility to construe appreciatively and the operative replacement of Conventional
rights with its transformations.
13 Sweeny, JoAnne. "The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act: Using Its Past to Predict Its Future." (2010) Loy. J.
Pub. Int. L. 12: 39.
14 Human Rights Act, 1998
15 R (Simms) vs. Home Secretary [1999] UKHL
16 Human Rights Act, 1998

5HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Journals
Dimelow, Stephen, and A. Young. Common sense or confusion? The Human Rights Act and the
Conservative Party. (The Constitution Society, 2015).
Grieve, Dominic. "Why Human Rights Should Matter to Conservatives." (2015) The Political
Quarterly 86.1: 62-71.
O'Donoghue, Aoife, and Ben TC Warwick. "Constitutionally Questioned: UK Debates,
International Law and Northern Ireland." (2015) N. Ir. Legal Q. 66: 93.
Sweeny, JoAnne. "The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act: Using Its Past to Predict Its
Future." (2010) Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 12: 39.
Cases
Brusco vs. France [2010] ECHR 1621
Dayanan vs. Turkey [2009] ECHR 2278
DPP vs. Raymond Gormley [2009] IECCA 86
Gormley and DPP vs. White [2014] IESC 17
Panovits vs. Cyprus [2008] ECHR 1688
Pishchalnikov vs. Russia [2009] ECHR 1357
R (Simms) vs. Home Secretary [1999] UKHL

6HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM LAW
Legislation
Human Rights Act, 1998