Human Rights Flashcards
Weakening of law-HRA is too lenient-open to abuse
HRA extends prisoners rights. e.g right to vote. Othman v UK-deporting terrorist was a breach of A6 as risk of evidence gained through torture. Case took 10 years
Positive protects a range of individuals (cheshire west)
Creates fairness and upholds rule of law, everyone treated equally
Fast track+
Needs compelling reason However simply a declaration is not always compelling
S7 HRA 1998 evaluation and 2 cases
Incorporation of human rights into UK courts. Saves time, cost of going to Strasbourg.
Ghaidan was in HoL, Malone (phone tapping) was in ECtHR
S2
When conflicting precedent, UK followed. (Leeds v Prince, Ullah)
S3, case and evaluation
Judges interpret law so far as it is possible to do so in line with ECHR. R v A-declaration of incompatibility should be used as last resort. Too much judiciary power, contrary to sovereignty
S4 and evaluation AND CASES
Courts can declare incompatibility if cannot be interpreted broadly enough. Upholds parliamentary sovereignty, however law remains intact until parliament change it. Unfair?
Bellinger
A and Ors v SoS
Anderson
Bellinger v Bellinger
Legislation deprived a claimants right to marriage (A12) as she was transsexual.
Anderson
Anderson- Home secretary declared incompatible with A6, so parliament removed this power and gave to courts in CJA 2003.
S10 and eval.
Parliament can use fast track procedure for declaration of incompatibility to avoid legislative process. Effective as saves time, achieves justice, however needs a compelling reason, simply a declaration is not enough.
S19 and example
Legislation passed after HRA 1998 should have a statement of compatibility. Provides certainty, however law can be passed without it, meaning it is not incompatible, but they are unable to declare it compatible e.g communications act 2003
