Acts of parl and impact

Question 1

Illegal migration act

Answer 1

braverman ( when home sec ) said she couldn’t be sure if law would be in line with Hra

Question 2

Nationality and boarders act

Answer 2

limit individual rights to claim asylum and shows gov prioritising collective rights over individual

Question 3

Minimal service level act

Answer 3

anti trade union
limits right to strike

Question 4

Public order + PCS act

Answer 4

limits protest rights and introduced harsher sentences for some crimes

Question 5

process of Rwanda bill

Answer 5

Johnson proposed
New right supported
SC declared unsafe
Gov passed safety of rwanda bill 2024 declaring rwanda safe and stops challenges to uk

Question 6

Representation of peoples act 1928

Answer 6

allowed all women regardless of age or wealth to vote at general election

Question 7

human rights act

Answer 7

codified ECHR into British law, this enabled citizens to protect their rights in the uk rather than go to the ECtHR in Strasbourg

Question 8

Data protection act 1998

Answer 8

provided citizens with legal protections as to how their data was handled by other people or organisations

Question 9

Freedom of information act 2000

Answer 9

allowed citizens to access public data

Question 10

Privacy in uk (2)

Answer 10

right to private life - enshrined in the Human Rights Act A8

SNOOPERS CHARTER mandates that internet service providers keep customers internet records for 12 months - collective over individual to keep everyone safe

Question 11

Freedom of expression

Answer 11

Hate speech criminalised in 2011 (race, transgender) , rights of people from all backgrounds to be treated respectfully is more important than the rights of an individual to speak bigoted views

Lee v Asher’s SC case conflicting rights

Question 12

National security explaination and arguments for individual rights protection (2)

Answer 12

Threat of terrorism, suspects of terror related offences have tried to assert individual rights in response to government treatment
Ahmed v Treasury assets freezing SUSPECTED terrorists - court ruled it was unlawful , parl sov passed in 4 days

Belmarsh - detained on national security grounds, argued detention without charge was was an infringement of rights against inhuman of degrading treatment - HOL committee ruled in favour

Question 13

national security collective rights

Answer 13

Abu Hamza 2004
incited religious hatred, terrorism offences in USA
appealed to court to court that he would face unfair treatment and evidence against him had been obtained via torture - infringe on ECHR
2012 ruled he would not be subject to ill treatment in USA

Question 14

Political parties , elections and referendums act 2000

Answer 14

electoral companion independent body
oversee referendums