Evaluating the Human rights act 1998

Question 1

What are some advantages of the human rights act ?

Answer 1

• Strengthens the rights of citizens- The human rights act ensures that the rights of citizen’s are protected thoroughly and fairly, this includes wider social backgrounds such as minorities, homsexuality etc xample Belinger v Belinger. This case brang awareness to the rights of lgbtq+ thus protecting and strengthening the rights of citizens as well as contributing to a modern society. Furthermore the HRA not only strengths the rights of UK citizens it gives rights to all humans equally this can be seen in the case of Abu Qatada where his right to a fair trial Article 6 was violated, the HRA ensured that the rights of the D was protected which is necessary in a democratic society
• Gives powers to the courts- The HRA gives the courts wider powers of interpretation this can be seen in s.3 of the HRA which gives powers of interpretation to the judiciary. This suggests that there is a lack of constrain on the government which enables them to focus on remedying controversial legislation that is fair and just rather than dealing with the convention. Furthermore the HRA has given significant powers to the courts in protecting the human rights of citizens which is the fundamental role of the judiciary under s.4 example reading in and readig out this shows how the HRA has empowered the courts while releasing constraints from gov ,.
• Convenient and cheap- When the human right act was implemented in british law it meant that the Uk courts could deal with human rights issues in domestic courts which is significantly convenient and quicker than dealing with issues in the ECHR in strasbourg where it could take years to deal with any human rights issue which is an infringement in itself. Before the HRA was enforceable in uk law under s7. the convention was not effective it would take atheist six years which would be costly and an inconvenient process. Therefore the HRA is beneficial in law because it is cheap and quick as well as effective.

Question 2

What is the significance of the Abu qatada case ?What

Answer 2

• In summary this government wanted to deport Abu Qatada because o his links with al qaeda and crimes that he had previously committed in Jordan, they though that he would be a threat to national security which is why they wanted to deport him but was unsuccessful because this would violate Article 6 which was the right to a fair trial

ADV

• HRA protects all humans equally- shows how democratic and fair the HRA is because it shows that everyone has the right to appeal, have there rights upheld and maintained which can be reinforced through this case
• Shows consistency in the HRA because it applies to all

Disv

• Shows how the HRA is unfair because it supports criminal activity and favours the rights of the defendant rather than wider society. His needs were treated as superior to the safety of society
• Cost the tax payer 1.7mil to keep him in the UK during this whole process
• If the HRA was not a thing then he would be deported much easier. Which is why a UK bill of rights might be necessary

Question 3

What is the significance of the case of Mohammed Ibrahim ?

Answer 3

In summary - Mohammed drove recklessly without a license which resulted in an accident with a 12 year old girl who died as a result of his actions and the courts only prosecuted for minor offenses such as fleeing the scene instead of manslaughter , murder retc and failed to deport him . after seven years of protesting the girls farther wanted him deported but he couldn’t be because of his right to a family life

DISV
- a failure of the human rights act as it shows

Question 4

What are the main advantages of the human rights act ?

Answer 4

effectively protects human rights due to the fact that the courts ar4e able to be empowered and can em4erge themselves into the role of protecting human rights thoroughly, thus fulfilling their fundamental role in the UK justice system. Furthermore, because judges have4 to interpret human rights and make sure that it is compatible with the ECHR government do not have to spend valuable time and resources withy delaying withy these issues instead they can focus their time on remedying controversial law such as the terrorism act which may infringe human rights. Therefore s.3 of th4e HRA effectively protects rights because it ensures that there is flexibility in government and courts have enough power to ensure that rights are compatible with the ECHR . To contrast, s.3 is far from perfect in protecting human rights because it gives unelected and unaccountable bodies the power to interpret legislation This does not reflect a democratic society because it means that .. for example th4e case of Ghadian v Godin v medoza where they ext4ended the law . This shows that s.3 is weak in protecting human rights because it is a threat to parliamentary sovereignty which is the supreme law making body
- Parliamentry sovereignty remains intact under 2.4

• it is cheaper and more convenient for citizens to seek a remedy for a violation of there human rights under s.7

-

Question 5

What are some of the main disadvantages of the human rights act ?

Answer 5

• Gives judges too much power. They are unelected and unaccountable bodies this can be seen in the case of Ghaidan v Godin mendoza

Question 6

What is the significance of the case of Ghaidan v Mendoza ?

Answer 6

This case illustrates how the courts have used extensive power to extend the law to potentially accommodate citizens. This shows that judges are adopting an law maker role which goes against the doctrine of parliamentry sovereignty. This is undemocratic .

Question 7

What are some potential evaluations for section 2 of the human rights act?

Answer 7

s.2 of the human rights act refers to interpretation of the convention. (Kay v Lambeth LBC

:) Hra provides clarity and consistency throughout the law because previous precedent provides a clear direction on what should and should not be done . therefore suggesting that the HRA is beneficial

:( s.2 can impose tension on the courts to follow precedent

-

Question 8

What are some potential evaluations for section 19 of the HRA ?

Answer 8

s-19 is the idea that all legislation must have a statement of compatibility

:) HRA forces parliament to think about legislation thus suggesting that parliament take the proper care to thoroughly identify rights. This strengthens the protection of rights in the UK

Question 9

What are some potential evaluations for section 7 of the HRA ?

Answer 9

S.7 refers to convention being applicable in UK law.

;) This is a positive because it means that it is now cheap and convenient to take human rights issues to court, no longer have to travel to Strasburg which could take up to 6 years and have incredible legal expenses

Question 10

What are some potential evaluations for section 8 ?

Answer 10

S.8 refers to the idea that courts can grant any just and appropriate remedy within its powers
:) This is beneficial because it means that large sums of damages are given because unusually its state bodies being taken to court

:) It shows how flexible the courts are which reinforces the concept of justice

Question 11

What are some potential evaluations for S10

Answer 11

S.10 refers to fast track procedures

:) The HRA is useful because it means that legislation can be remedied easily and effectivley

Question 12

What are some potential evaluations for S.6 ?

Question 13

What are the main advantages of a UK Bill of rights ?

Answer 13

• Controls the executive -
• Entrenchment - Bill or rights will be entrenched in our constitution
• New rights - add additional social rights

Question 14

Name some of the main disadvantages of the HRA

Answer 14

Not needed- the HRA already adequately protects our rights

• Inflexible- Due to its entrenched nature
• Uncertain - Due to its broad interpretation
• Weak - Will only be as effective as its government

Question 15

Explain why controlling the executive is an advantage of the bill or rights.

Answer 15

This is an advantage because the bill or rights would curb some of the power the executive has this would be done through increasing judicial power. The courts will have the power to refuse to apply law which conflicted with the Bill or Rights

• :) This means that the courts will have extensive power to protect our rights extensively compared to s.3 of the HRA which gives judges some power
• :( However this also means that judges will be adopting law making role which is undemocratic and reinforces the idea that unelected bodies are making law when that is the role/ function of parliament. Undermining the fundamental doctrine of parliamentry sovereignty

Question 16

Explain why entrenchment of the Bill or rights acts as an advantage and a disadvantage

Answer 16

Entrenchment of the bill or rights means that it will be apart of our constitution and very hard to change or remove.

• :) This acts as an advantage because it means that rights are increasingly strengthened and set in place without a threat of removal or amendment. This reinforces confidence in the law as governments will not be able to remove it.
• :( However this would infringe rights because it means that Bill or rights will not fit the adaptable nature of society. As society moves on and rights change it will be hard to accept and protect those rights sufficiently . The HRA does not carry this problem because it is flexible and can adapt to the rights if individuals ie the case of ghanda v Mendoza

Question 17

Explain why adding new rights is an advantage and disadvantage of the Bill or rights

Answer 17

This means that the Bill or rights will bring in new social rights that have been ignored by the HRA

:( This is not useful as Britain has always had a significant role and impact in designing the HRA , it is arguably a British piece of legislation which reflects and is accustomed British law suggesting that further reform would be unnecessary and that the HRA just needs to be amended